Decoupling the implementation processes of
Corporate Environmental Management in the
Danish Hospitality Industry.
How managers make sense of different sets of stakeholders’
interests to advance environmental management practices.
An Explorative Analysis
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of LUISS Guido
Carli University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Management XXIII Cycle
PhD Candidate
Dott. Riccardo Maiolini
Advisor
Prof. Luca Giustiniano
Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche ed Aziendali
Anno Accademico 2010/2011
1
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the first place I would like to record my gratitude to Professor Luca Giustiniano for
his supervision, advice, and guidance from the very early stage of this research. His
constant encouragement, support, and suggestions made this work successful.
I gratefully acknowledge Professor Richard Priem for his advice and supervision in the
early part of my project, giving me great suggestions about stakeholder theory and how
to target interesting issues on this topic.
I would also like to acknowledge Professor Kai Hockerts for his supervision during my
visit at the Copenhagen Business School. His involvement with his originality has
triggered and nourished my intellectual maturity that I will benefit from, for a long time
to come. He gave me a fundamental cue giving me the direction to study sensemaking
theory. Kai, I am grateful in every possible way and hope to keep up our collaboration
in the future.
I would also like to acknowledge Professors Susse George, Mette Morsing, Gurli
Jakobsen and Adriana Budeanu From CBS for their suggestions during my staying in
Denmark.
I am also indebted to the other members of the CBS Center for Corporate Social
Responsibility, Elisabeth Crone Jensen and Robert Strand in particular, for their
encouragement during my research.
I would also like to thank all the professors and the colleagues of my PhD program for
their help and collaboration during the three years of my research.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support. I am greatly indebted and I
cannot express my full gratitude to them that patiently support me during my PhD.
I dedicate this thesis to my mother and father, my first supporters.
3
4
ABSTRACT
Organizations are progressively being pressured by stakeholders to acknowledge and
achieve their interests. Conflicts can arise where multiple stakeholders have differing
interests, especially if certain stakeholder groups are prioritized above others when
decisions are made about the allocation of scarce resources. Consequentially, it is
argued that not all stakeholders can be satisfied simultaneously. Responding to
stakeholder concerns for environmental preservation is a relatively recent requirement
for managers, who face a great deal of ambiguity in understanding the issues in general,
the implications for their organizations, and the ways to respond to these issues.
This study is concerned with the general area of organizational sensemaking,
stakeholder theory and environmental management. More attention should be given to
effective actions and processes that facilitate this kind of interactions as the
sensemaking and sensegiving literature do but in regarding of stakeholders. The overall
aim of the study is to investigate and evaluate the impact of stakeholders’ engagement
in making sense of environmental issues through as a result of implementation of
Corporate Environmental Management practices.
The empirical analysis is based on a qualitative case study approach. To address the
nature of the research problem a qualitative approach using in-depth-semi-structured
interviews as the data collection method was deemed to be the most appropriate
methodology for gaining an understanding how the processes of sense making influence
stakeholders relations.
Therefore the idea is to study, in the Danish Hospitality Industry how companies
(hotels) implement their Corporate Environmental Management practices engaging with
stakeholders in different sensemaking activities. Case study research is preferable in this
context, since it allows the investigation to retain the holistic and important uniqueness
of daily events (Yin, 1994). That is why the choice of the industry and of the cases is so
important. The aim of the study is to understand the internal and external dynamics that
facilitate the implementation of Corporate Environmental Management Practices so
both practitioners and academics can use my results to orientate future directions of
studies and works on this topic.
5
6
INDEX
CAP I - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Research Question .......................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Research objectives ......................................................................................................... 15
1.3 Summary and outline of the research ........................................................................... 16
CAP II– A THEORETICAL ADVANCEMENT ON STAKHEOLDER THEORY .......... 17
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Literature review............................................................................................................. 18
2.3 The evolution of the stakeholder model ........................................................................ 19
2.4 A Scandinavian approach to the stakeholder theory ................................................... 23
2.5 The relevance of the Nasi’s theoretical model in the implementation of stakeholders’
interests .................................................................................................................................. 28
2.6 Different typologies of stakeholders’ participation...................................................... 32
2.7 The relevance of the Nasi theoretical model in the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management ............................................................................................... 35
CAP III - SENSEMAKING THEORY TROUGH THE LOGICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ............................... 39
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Corporate Social Responsibility and sensemaking ...................................................... 40
3.3 Make sense of stakeholders interests ............................................................................. 42
3.4 Sensemaking .................................................................................................................... 44
3.5 Make sense through communication processes ............................................................ 47
3.6 Stakeholders dialogue ..................................................................................................... 49
3.7 Interpreting the three models ........................................................................................ 52
CAP IV – METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS .............. 55
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 55
4.2 The case ............................................................................................................................ 56
4.3 The greening process of Copenhagen ............................................................................ 57
4.4 Corporate Environmental Management ....................................................................... 58
4.5 Corporate Environmental Management in the Hospitality Industry ........................ 59
4.6 Motivations to implement a Corporate Environmental Management practices ...... 61
4.6.1 Organizational theory perspective ............................................................................. 61
4.6.2 Tourism and Environmental Management perspective ............................................. 64
4.7 International Environmental Management practices in the Hospitality Industry ... 69
4.8 Data collection ................................................................................................................. 72
4.9 Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 75
4.10 Creating Narratives ...................................................................................................... 75
4.11 Narratives ...................................................................................................................... 77
4.11.1 Energy saving and production measures ................................................................. 77
4.11.2 Water Saving Measures ........................................................................................... 79
4.11.3 Green Purchasing ..................................................................................................... 80
4.11.4 Waste minimization practices .................................................................................. 81
4.11.5 Eco Design ............................................................................................................... 84
4.11.6 Green Supply Chain................................................................................................. 86
4.11.7 Green Marketing ...................................................................................................... 88
4.11.8 Ecological Risk ........................................................................................................ 90
4.11.9 Guest’s green attention ............................................................................................ 91
4.11.10 Food & Beverage ................................................................................................... 92
4.11.11 Green Jobs ............................................................................................................. 93
4.11.12 Traveling ................................................................................................................ 94
4.12 Stakeholders identification ........................................................................................... 95
4.13 Make sense of stakeholder interests and activities: focusing on issues .................... 99
7
CAP V - RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 101
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 101
5.2 Interpreting sensemaking through the stakeholders’ dialogue model ..................... 103
5.3 The stakeholders’ dialogue model in the Hospitality Industry and the formalization
of Environmental Activities................................................................................................ 110
5.4 Enact and select: the reconstruction of environmental performance ...................... 114
5.5 The advancement of stakeholders’ roles in the development of sensemaking
processes: the evolution of environmental commitment through the involvement of
primary and secondary stakeholders. ............................................................................... 120
5.6 The evolution of sensemaking processes in the Danish Hotels ................................. 130
5.6.1 Individual sensemaking ........................................................................................... 130
5.6.2 Collective Sensemaking .......................................................................................... 133
5.6.3 Guided Sensemaking ............................................................................................... 137
CAP VI - CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 141
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 141
6.2 Theoretical and research implications ........................................................................ 143
6.3 Implication for practitioners ........................................................................................ 144
6.4 Future research implications ....................................................................................... 146
6.5 Concluding remarks ..................................................................................................... 148
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 149
INTERNET SITES .................................................................................................................. 159
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 161
Presentation Letter ............................................................................................................. 161
Interview Introduction and Informed Consent Review Letter....................................... 162
List of Questions .................................................................................................................. 164
Corporate Environmental Management............................................................................ 164
Environmental Management Systems .............................................................................. 164
CEM and Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 165
Environmental Issues and the role of Stakeholders .......................................................... 165
8
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 Stakeholders participation and forms of coalitions ..................................... 32
Table 2 Organizational Theory Perspectives ............................................................. 63
Table 3 Tourism and Environmental Management Perspective.............................. 68
Table 4 Interviews ........................................................................................................ 73
Table 5 Stakeholders Identification theories.............................................................. 97
Table 6 Stakeholders categories .................................................................................. 98
Table 7 Narratives and the relationship with Stakeholders’ categories of interests
.............................................................................................................................. 104
Table 8 Narratives and the relationship with issues through the identification of
the most salient and repeated Stakeholder’s categories.................................. 108
Table 9 Team level of formalization in the hotels .................................................... 113
Table 10 Synthesis of EMS adopted by Hotels in Copenhagen .............................. 121
Table 11 Team Works ................................................................................................ 123
Table 12 Sensemaking characteristics ...................................................................... 128
Table 13 Sensemaking characteristics and Communication strategies ................. 128
Table 14 Stakeholders roles definition...................................................................... 129
Table 15 Sensemaking characteristics, Communication strategies and stakeholders
roles ...................................................................................................................... 129
Table 16 Sensemaking aims ....................................................................................... 140
Figure 1 adapted from Freeman, 1995 ....................................................................... 22
Figure 2 adapted from Nasi, 1995 ............................................................................... 26
Figure 3 Implementation process of Corporate Environmental Management....... 36
Figure 4 Adapted from Weick, 2005 ........................................................................... 45
Figure 5 Adapted from the Basu & Palazzo model (2008) ....................................... 47
Figure 6 Adapted From Weick and Basu & Palazzo ................................................ 48
Figure 7 Stakeholder dialogue model by Pedersen (2006). ....................................... 51
Figure 8 Sensemaking Model Adapted ....................................................................... 53
Figure 9 adapted from Sroufe, 2003. .......................................................................................... 87
9
10
CAP I - INTRODUCTION
In the last years, the focus on environmental management research has moved from
understanding why firms engage in it, to study, which are the best ways to support
decisions within organizations. Few researchers have focused their attention on the
mutual understanding processes that need to take place between organizations and
stakeholders (Frooman, 1999; Campbell, 2007; ). The relationship is needed to achieve
legitimacy and to yield efficiency through the interaction between different subjects.
Affisco et al. (1997) advocated the importance of investigating the views of
stakeholders of their roles during the environmental strategy implementation process,
and Walker (2000) concluded that the environmental aspects of major stakeholders are
under-researched.
Organizational environments are complex; they are composed of vast arrays of
constituents (such as governments, activists, local communities, trade associations,
investors, and customers) each of which possesses its own culture, interests, and
conception of legitimate management practices (Hoffman, 2001). Most recent works
were focused on how organizational activities can be designed and implemented to
develop or maintain favorable resources with external groups (Crammer, Jonker, van
der Heijden, 2004; Weick, Suctliffe, 2005; Maitlis, 2005, King, 2007). Organizations
are increasingly more being pressured by stakeholders to acknowledge and manage their
interests
(Phillips 2003; Freeman 1984). Conflicts can arise where multiple
stakeholders have differing interests, especially if certain stakeholder groups are
prioritized above others when decisions are made about the allocation of scarce
resources (Phillips 2003). Consequentially, it is argued that not all stakeholders can be
satisfied simultaneously. One of the biggest constraints to understand this relation
comes from the difficulty in making abstract operational concepts and the consequent
confusion about the true nature of Environmental activism and CSR culture (Pedersen,
2006).
New interests are about how external pressure flows must be managed and how they
must be approached proactively by firms, within an organizational change (Delmas &
Toffel, 2004, 2005, 2008; Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999). Jennings & Zandbergen
(1995) were the first to apply the institutional theory to explain firms’ adoption of
environmental management practices. According to them, coercive forces — primarily
11
in the form of regulations and regulatory enforcement — represent the main impetus of
implementation of similar practices. Institutional pressure is caused by a set of social
and cultural tools, specifically and strongly depending on the context in which they are
implemented. In other words there are more basic institutional characteristics linked
with the political and cultural environment that can influence especially the application
and the modality of diffusion and propagation of pressure. Institutional theory is used
as a starting point because it represents one of the most robust sociological perspectives
within organizational theory (Perrow, 1979).
The institutional perspective is however not exhaustive. The following aspect needs to
be clarified: from a formal and reputational point of view, it is true that organizations
use similar practices but, because of the complexity of organizations, of the alternative
actions that organizations can develop and of the different starting environmental
commitments, these practices vary in their implementation especially because they are
customizable. Organizations that adopt similar environmental practices can differ
widely in the actions and interpretations because they make sense of them differently.
The reasons why companies adopt various environmental management practices depend
both on firm-specific internal factors as well as on the institutional pressures that are
exerted on them by the external environment. Delmas and Toffel (2003, 2005, 2008)
studied how firms are receptive to institutional and non-institutional pressures in terms
of the capacity to implement EMS standards trough market and nonmarket constituents.
What they found is that firms adopt heterogeneous sets of environmental management
practices because they interpret these pressures differently, comparing specific internal
processes with company characteristics.
Firms may be subject to the same level of institutional pressure but perceive it
differently according to their organizational structure, strategic position, and financial
and environmental performance or because of different interaction modalities with
institutional constituents as stakeholders. This difference between “objective” and
“perceived” pressure leads to different responses and different organizational changes.
The adoption of environmental management practices by firms “varies therefore
according to the process that transforms objective pressure into perceived pressure”
(Delmas and Toffel, 2003, 2004, 2008). On the other hand, different interactions among
firms and institutional constituents can produce different responses. Because firms can
adopt various typologies of Corporate Environmental Management practices in response
12
to institutional pressure, it is fundamental to understand which mechanisms link
problem-solving
methods
among
organizations
and
stakeholders
throughout
collaborative interactions (Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998). Responding to stakeholders’
concerns for environmental preservation is a relatively recent requirement for managers,
who face a great deal of ambiguity in understanding the issues in general, the
implications for their organizations, and the ways to respond to these issues (Jennings &
Zandhergen, 1995). Starting from these considerations, a new direction of studies is
coming out “studying processes that guide organizational sensemaking as they pertain
to relationship with stakeholders and the world at large” (Basu & Palazzo 2009).
1.1 Research Question
According to Delmas & Toffel (2008) the relationships between organizational factors
and institutional pressures are not yet well understood, especially because most of the
researchers have focused on the distinction or the differences between internal and
external elements that impact on the implementation or the legitimating of
environmental interests. Hoffman (2001: 138) notes: “the form of the response from the
organization is as much a reflection of the institutional pressures that emerge from
outside the organization as it is the form of organizational structure and culture that
exist inside the organization.” According to Hoffman there is a link between internal
organization and external pressures that can be transformed into defined strategies or
actions. Or, on the other side, the implementation of strategies can be influenced by a
legitimating attitude to satisfy external interests. Organizations engage with their
market and non-market constituents and try to merge interests about the legitimacy of
their practices before they become institutionalized through social interaction (Delmas
& Toffel, 2008) or selecting the most appropriate practices that merge diverse interests
and different categories of constituents.
Research
Question:
environmental
issues
How
to
do
enact
managers
tangible
exploit
stakeholders
interests?
13
The acceptance of particular practices is a process where organizations and their
constituents compare their own interests to reduce divergences and influence adoption
of different management practices. According to several scholars (D’Aunno et al. 2000,
Delmas & Toffel, 2008) future research should aim to specify the roles of constituents
more precisely, developing a “comparative analysis of stakeholders influences on firms
looking at how organizations develop an understanding of sustainability and begin to
act accordingly” (Sharma & Henriques, 2005:175). The Delmas and Toffel work (2008)
is one of the most recent works on this topic. They describe that pressures from field
constituents include customers, regulators, legislators, local communities, and
environmental activist organizations. The engagement with stakeholders implies that the
success or the failure of particular decisions and actions passes through the sharing
process of interests and values.
Within the same industry, firms are subjected to multiple levels of pressure that are
perceived differently because of differences in the channels whereby those pressure
catch up with the internal organization of firms (Delmas & Toffel, 2008). In other
words, the perceptibility of pressure depends on how firms receive information from the
gained established unit (Hoffman, 2001). Starting from an institutional perspective and
collecting all the elements useful to understand organizational change and adaptability,
it is without a doubt interesting to examine those elements that contribute or influence
the firm adaptation to voluntary environmental programs, looking at the external and
internal conflicting characteristics that influences sensemaking processes. Firms don’t
adapt voluntarily to their relative organizational environment (Scirchich, Stubbart,
1985), but starting from an assumption that organization and environment are created
together (enacted) through the social interaction processes of key organizational
participants (Mason & Mitrof, 1981; Davis, 1982), every single effort toward change or
adaptation must be considered as a combination of each organizational member inside a
specific context, not only because it is perceived as such but also because it is made by
all actors in regard to their interests and objectives. This is correct because institutional
theory is not usually considered as a theory of organizational change, but usually as an
explanation of the similarity (“isomorphism”) and stability of organizational
arrangements in a given population or field of organizations (Greenwood & Hinnings,
1996). Hoffman (2001) argues that organizations differ in their receptivity to
14
institutional pressure by a diverse set of institutional elements and consequently react in
different ways in their own organizational process. Otherwise, people make sense of
things, sharing practical measures and instruments that could be implemented within
their scope of influences (Cramer et al., 2004).
1.2 Research objectives
This study is concerned with the general area of organizational sensemaking,
stakeholder theory and environmental management. The overall aim of the study is to
investigate and evaluate the impact of stakeholders’ engagement in making sense of
environmental issues through as a result of implementation of Corporate Environmental
Management practices.
The main objectives of the research are:
•
Investigate companies/stakeholders interactions by interviewing managers and
other employers that are in charge of environmental issues inside a specific
group of companies and create narratives that help me to develop theoretical
proposition.
•
Develop an inductively derived model of the impact of sensemaking processes
on the implementation of Corporate Environmental Management in a specific
industry (Hospitality industry) and search for those mechanism that explain how
those pressure catch up with the internal organization of firms.
•
Develop theoretical findings that help the debate on stakeholder theory.
•
Understand how sensemaking theory can be applied in multiple relation models
where companies interact with more than one stakeholder.
15
1.3 Summary and outline of the research
This research is original in that it uses an explorative approach to investigate how
managers exploit environmental issues to enact tangible stakeholders’ interests.
Chapter One is dedicated to the introduction, research question and general information
on the study.
Chapter Two introduces stakeholder theory and proposes a theoretical advancement of
the Freeman’s mode. The chapter outlines the structure and content of the literature
review on stakeholder theory, and emphasizes the role of the literature review as an
integral and dynamic element of the research process itself.
Chapter Three discusses the literature review on sensemaking theory, considering the
logics of environmental management, corporate social responsibility and stakeholders.
The chapter highlights the most relevant extant works on sensemaking and stakeholders,
comparing results and discussions. At the end of the chapter I develop a synthetic and
interpretive definition of sensemaking that includes all the elements useful to
understand and study stakeholder/companies relations.
Chapter four outlines the methodology and research design, setting out how the
sensemaking approach delineated in Chapter Three will be operationalized. It explains
and justifies the methods and techniques to be used in collecting and analyzing data.
The chapter concludes with a section dedicated to the identification of environmental
issues that serves to construct sensemaking narratives and with the criteria used to the
stakeholders’ identification.
Chapter five discusses the findings from the interview data. Because the explorative
nature of this work and because the data derived from a multiple cases model, in this
chapter I use a cross-case synthesis technique (applied specifically to the analysis of
multiple cases), in which I narrate and describe the most relevant elements that I have
found in the narratives, mixing those information with theoretical elements and try go
give explanations to the phenomenon that emerge.
Chapter six summarizes the key findings and draws together the conclusions, theoretical
and research implications of the study as well as its potential benefits for scholars and
practitioners, and sets out some recommendations for future rese
16
CAP II– A THEORETICAL ADVANCEMENT
ON STAKHEOLDER THEORY
2.1 Introduction
The debate on stakeholder literature is based on the complex modalities that several
scholars developed to understand best ways to manage stakeholders and their interests.
According to Frooman (1999) the most relevant questions about stakeholder theory try
to answer to three general questions, which regard their identification (who they are)
their purposes (what do they want) and their means (how are they going to try to get it).
On the other hand, according to Rowley (1997) “the main objectives in stakeholder
research have been to identify who firm’s stakeholders are and to determine what types
of influences they exert”. This is particularly important since scholars and managers
started to consider the relationships with stakeholders as long-term value creation
relationships (Morsing & Schultz, (2006), especially after the development of new ways
to interact with stakeholders; from negative activities and communication (as for
example what happens in particular industries like tobacco, alcohol, weapons where the
dichotomy between stakeholders are very strong, especially in terms of economic
interests) to a more critical model where both the parts, companies and stakeholders,
work to construct a more sophisticated collaborative model (as for example in the case
of child labor, union rights, etc.).
For this reason, the principal scope of this chapter is try to interpret the theoretical
evolution of stakeholder theory, starting from some limitation of the Freeman’s model
and giving possible solutions through the identification of an alternative model of
stakeholders management that can better explain the complexity of the relations
between stakeholders and companies. Both the limitations and possible alternative
solutions are taken from the literature, considering them as a positive evolution of the
Freeman’s model without take alternative positions that can take my work out of the
official debate on the topic.
17
2.2 Literature review
As said before, stakeholder theory is born with the theoretical analysis made by
Freeman in the 1984 where he defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Freeman
presents the stakeholder model as a map in which a company is the central hub and the
stakeholders are the spokes around the wheel (Frooman, 1999). From the Freeman
perspective, the relationship among companies and their stakeholders is a dual activity,
where the direction of activities depends from the degree of legitimacy as a means of
responding to external interests (Luoma & Goodstein, 1999). From this hub and spoke
perspective the conceptualization of relationships among companies and stakeholders
are complex because, primarily, there is an unclear identification of roles and attributes
that every single actor have, and secondly this circular identification of stakeholders is
not useful to prioritize and qualify different individuals and their interests. Is for this
reason that a big branch of research has been based on the study of prioritization of
stakeholders’ interests because companies cannot decide easily which voices take into
account before others.
The identification of stakeholders and the prioritization of particular interests is not only
a public relation exercise but it is based on the assumption that stakeholders must take
part to the decision-making and the enactment processes through the development of a
dialogue and a participative activity (Pedersen, 2006, 2009). This is why the Freeman
model is not sufficient to separate the important stakeholders from the less important
ones (Clarckson, 1995; Mitchel et al., 1997;) and to develop common criteria for
selecting in and selecting out stakeholders or decide among conflicting stakeholders
interests (Pedersen, 2009).
From the Mitchel et al. perspective (1997), companies prioritize stakeholders’ claims
according to their relative power, legitimacy and urgency. This model is sufficiently
clear when we look at simple relationships; when the organizational environment
becomes more complex, because the number of individuals increases or because the
interests and the arguments becomes more complex, the Mitchel model is weak because
companies don’t have enough capabilities and information to choose the most relevant
or the most salient stakeholders just comparing their power, legitimacy and urgency.
Without a dialogue, a passive analysis of stakeholders’ characteristics is not sufficient,
18
also because the tradeoff between stakeholders and the conflicts that derive from
alternative groups of interest impact on the decision-making capabilities of the
companies. What is called the Stakeholder Multiplicity (Neville & Menguc, 2006;
Oliver, 1991) impact strongly on the decisional capabilities of the companies, when the
combination of cooperative or conflicting stakeholders increase or decrease the
companies attitudes to take decisions.
According to Frooman (1999) the divergence between stakeholder and firm interests is
an important element that serves to identify and classify their interests. In other words
stakeholder management is based on the development of convergent interests shared
among the parts. This activity is a double sense activity where both the parts are
engaged in the development and the choice of alternatives. Is for this reason that the hub
and spoke model is not appropriate and sufficient.
2.3 The evolution of the stakeholder model
Firms don’t adapt voluntarily to their relative environment but starting from an
assumption that organization and environment are created together, enacted (Smirchich
& Stubbart, 1985) through the social interaction processes of key organizational
participants (Mason & Mitrof, 1981), every single effort toward change or adaptation
must be considered a combination of each organizational member inside a specific
context not only because it is perceived as such but also because it is made by all actors
in regard to their interests and objectives. The fundamental aspect is to consider how
particular interests are consistent with what happens in the real world (Carrol & Nasi,
1997).
Recently the emphasis is moved from a focus on stakeholders being managed by
companies to a focus on the interaction that companies have with their stakeholders,
based on a relational and process-oriented view (Andriof et al. 2003). This implies an
increased interest in understanding how managers can accomplish not the stakeholders
themselves, but relationships with them and how to align different interests. As argued
by Johnson-Cramer et al. (2003: 149) “The essence of stakeholder dialogue is the cocreation of shared understanding by company and stakeholder”. The organizational
environment is a source of constant input and stimulus for the organizations, but
19
individuals and organizations have limited cognitive capabilities to deal wit all available
stimuli (Simon, 1947).
For this reason individuals and organizations enact events and facts through a selective
perspective of the objective features of their surroundings (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The
enactment process is described as a process about labeling and categorizing the
streaming of experience, to make the world more orderly (Weick, Sutcliffe, Obstfeld,
2005). The same findings are noticed in the procedural justice literature (Maitlis, 2005).
According to this kind of literature people are more willing to accept explanations and
decisions when they perceive the processes through which they were fairly involved
(Pruitt, Peirce, McGillicuddy, Welton & Castrianno, 1993; Tyler, 2002). Organizations
need codified languages and practices that serve to understand and justify collective
actions among them and their stakeholders, both for positive and negative actions. The
codes are created by organizations through the formalization of interests. The emphasis
is moved from a focus on stakeholders being managed by companies to a focus on the
interaction that companies have with their stakeholders based on a relational and
process-oriented view (Andriof & Waddock 2002).
This implies an increased interest in understanding how managers can manage not the
stakeholders themselves, but relationships with stakeholders. Because relationships are
among people and not among abstract concepts, for this reason individuals enact events
and facts through a selective perspective of the objective features of their surroundings
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The enactment is done sharing concrete interests and
information through a dialogue among the parts. Starting from these considerations, the
“classical” approach to the stakeholder theory is non sufficient to explain the integration
and the connection among different subjects. The Freeman definition of stakeholders
(“any group or individual who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the
firm’s objective”) is not sufficient to understand how multiple subjects dialogue among
each other because the definition and the theory are limited by the focus on the end of
interests (Orts & Strudler, 2002).
It is mostly clear how interests are selected (Delmas & Toffel, 2008; Oliver, 1991),
identified and prioritized (Parent & Deephouse, 2007) or perceived (Henriques &
Sadorsky, 1999). What is criticized is that virtually any one can affect or be affected by
the achievement of organization’s objectives (Orts & Strudler, 2002) and so is not clear
how specific subjects become determinant or relevant specifically. One solution is given
20
by considering the economic property of risk as a form of inclusion/exclusion of
subjects that can be considered as relevant stakeholders for a specific organization (Orts
& Strudler, 2002). The level of participation and the level of stakes must be measured
with the economic risk that directly stakeholders’ actions have on the risk of the
organizations. The survival is not only considered from the organizational point of view
(Scott, 1947; Powell & DiMaggio, 1983; Oliver, 1991) but also from the stakeholders’
perspective. Especially for the primary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995) the way to discuss
about interests and consequent actions change from a conflicting model to a proactive
and collaborative model. The balance of interests becomes an activity that takes more
time because every one (managers and stakeholders) are interested in the balance of
commitment and definition of relevant interest for every one.
Starting from this perspective the relationships among organizations and stakeholders
change strongly: “from a perspective where stakeholders in an organization are the
individuals and groups who are depending on the firm in order to achieve their personal
goals and on whom the firm is depending for its existence” (Nasi, 1995), to a
“participated model where there is a multitude of subjects that have legitimated interests
or stakes in what the firm is doing and how the objectives are reached” (Carrol & Nasi,
1997: 50). The introduction of economic risks that can affect alternative solutions serves
to explain the congruence of different subjects’ interests and the congruence of the
decisions in terms of economic solutions and goals objectives. In the Freeman model
organizations are a distinctive subject that has to manage and interpret external
pressures that derive from the stakeholders that want to realize their separated interests.
From this perspective managers must convoy and select alternative sets of interests
considering also the misalignment or reinforcement that derive from the agglomeration
of groups of stakeholders.
This is what Freeman called the “hub and spoke” relationships between the organization
and its stakeholders (Freeman, 1984): a one-way direction model where organizations
work to absorb external pressures. In most of the cases also internal stakeholders (as
employers) are interpreted in this model as subjects that just want to take care of their
interests through a negotiation with the management of the organizations.
21
Figure 1 adapted from Freeman, 1995
22
2.4 A Scandinavian approach to the stakeholder theory
The “new” approach is based on the Nasi Works (Nasi, 1995; Carrol & Nasi, 1997)
where they change the roles and the rules that govern stakeholders dialogue inside and
outside the boundaries of the organizations. For the author, the organization is a “social
and technical system where different stakeholders play a part” (Carrol & Nasi, 1997:
50). Persons make organizations and exercise different roles inside the organizations.
They play a part that is the social representation of their behaviors.
Organizations are the place where different subjects, engage each other to represent and
discuss their behaviors. The engagement of different behaviors is a process that serves
to share interests. Also managers take a part and have to share rules and values to play
as the best they can. The rules are shared a priori trough the development of common
labels that serve to establish expected goals and individual activities (Nasi, 1995). The
goals are the consequence of a procedure that transforms inputs/demands into
contributions/rewards considering alternative models that are recognized by the
individuals engaged in the process. The choice of alternative models is achieved
through the translation into concrete practices that are based on pre-existent or new
experiences. From this perspective every subject that takes part in an organization has
particular stakes that he wants to obtain. The organization becomes a place where
multiple subjects are interdependent because they share interests, risks and contribution.
The decisions are taken through a negotiation that is based on the research of a good
combination of input and compensation (Nasi, 1995). Decisions are a result of balance
among different groups of stakeholders that are able to distribute inputs and
compensations among the other stakeholders. The decisions derive from the
maximization of different goals and interests that are mediated through a central subject
that serves as a nexus that filters demands, interests, goals and consequences trying to
find the most appropriate combination. Usually the role of nexus appertains to the
managers that identify and manage the different combinations of stakeholders’ interests.
So the final assessment is mediated by the managerial perception of the best
combination of interests and objectives. Managers must take care of stakeholder balance
as a particular partnership among multiple subjects (Strand, 2008).
The Nasi framework is an important perspective in my work because outlines
significant elements that help me in the development of my research:
23
1. The Nasi framework is a participative model where there are not only passive
actions but also proactive elements that help decision-making. The model is
fundamentally collaborative where different parts work as groups of interests
and try to polarize the attention around groups of issues. It is a dynamic
collaborative model where the emphasis is concentrated on the constant changes
and adaptation of interests to specific issues. The collaborative aspect of this
model is explained in the continuous effort that all the parts make to bring
together stakeholders and try to not miss groups of them. Talking about
environmental sustainability concerns a high level of commitment among
groups of stakeholders. The particular commitment in some cases is also an
effect of what Selin and Beason (1991) call the legally mandate, when in some
cases for organizations is required to involve in all phases of the planning
process specific group of stakeholders. The requirement is not compulsory but is,
from a cultural perspective, a strong emotion that influences the stakeholders’
behaviors.
2. Considering the organizations as a social and technical system where different
subjects play a part gives me the possibility to focus the attention on a particular
category of subjects that interact inside the organizations, the managers, and
considering them the nexus and the most influent group that handle and
distribute inputs and compensations. On the other side it can be possible, in
future works, to pay attention to other categories of stakeholders and consider
them as a nexus of specific categories of interests to change boundaries and
organizational environment of specific firms.
3. Through the Nasis’ perspective is possible to capture potential complex
interactions within the network of organization-stakeholder relationships and
understand the composition of the networks looking at the categories of interests
that they share.
4. Additionally, the complex interactions between stakeholders, defined by Oliver
“stakeholder multiplicity” (Oliver, 1991) can be interpreted as models of
alliance or competition that can favorite or retard the implementation of specific
practices looking at the alternative combinations of inputs and compensations.
5. The Nasi perspective allows me to decoupling the implementation processes of
corporate
24
environmental
management
considering
different
groups
of
stakeholders and how they interact with the others in terms of internal and
external groups of inputs and compensations. The role of managers is crucial to
convoy different interests to specific groups of stakeholders. They determine the
development or the stoppage of particular activities that are the explicit
representation of stakeholder interests. The managerial perception of stakeholder
interests is a combination of formal and informal flows of interests and
objectives that managers interpret from the stakeholder communication.
6. Last but don’t least, Nasi called his theory “a Scandinavian approach to
stakeholder thinking”. Considering that my sample is composed by a group of
Danish organizations, I found important cultural elements that make similar the
Nasis’ framework to the Danish state of mind. This consideration gives me
further elements to validate the relevance and the peculiarities of my study.
According to Matten & Moon (2004) stakeholder identities and interests vary
cross-nationally, as explained by institutional theory, there are rules and societal
orientation that influence the way corporations are governed. Contextualization
is requested not only for persons and organizations but also for theoretical
templates that must be adapted to different places. Because organizations and
organizational environments are complex systems, the generalization is becomes
more complicated. It is possible to generalize if researchers find the most
appropriate variables that explain the most differences and similarities.
The Nasi perspective is the basis to understand the boundaries of the organizations,
differently from the Freeman’s one because the possibility that Nasi gives to constitute
sets of stakeholders and groups of interests to reorganize the boundaries of
organizations. The Freemans’ model is based on a reciprocal interaction between a
subject called firm and a series of others individuals, or group of them, called
stakeholders that negotiate their sets of interests. An ideal representation of the
Freemans’ model is given by a series of satellites that exchange information’s with the
central subject that runs as a receiving and distributing subject.
Differently, the Nasi model is based on groups of relations among subjects without the
implication of a predefined set of internal and external boundaries. Because
organizations are a social and technical representation of different interests, the
boundaries of the organizations can be modeled considering how different subjects
25
interacts and how they build their relationships. The model is more open and more
flexible, whit some elements that can move from inside to outside in respect of different
patterns of interactions. The organization is more flexible and is composed of an
internal coalition and an external coalition of pattern of interests.
The interaction among these different patterns explains how organizations exchange
information and construct their sets of interests. For Nasi “the internal coalition consists
of those stakeholders who have a permanent ownership or employment relationship
with the firm. And the external coalition consists of those stakeholders who do not
fulfill the conditions to be a part of the internal coalition but are nevertheless, in an
intermediate interaction with the internal coalition” (Nasi, 1995: p 106).
Figure 2 adapted from Nasi, 1995
The most relevant difference between internal and external coalition is, in other words,
the temporal relationship that involve subjects into the organizations. Internally there
are those subjects that represent the subjects that are permanent related to a specific
organization. The external coalition is done with those subjects that have relationships
with the organizations but these relationships can change during the time or finish. In
26
addition there is a third category of stakeholder that is more similar to the Freeman
model that is composed by the stakeholders that are outside the two typologies of
coalition called the non-coalition stakeholders. These stakeholders are interested in
particular organizations but don’t take part to the composition and distribution of
pattern of interests. The relationship among these stakeholders and the organizations is
less participative and based on a simple exchange of information. In regard to the
external coalition and stakeholders that are completely external to the two typologies of
coalitions, the status can change. There are particular conditions that imply that
stakeholders start to take part of groups, entry in pattern of interests and start coalitions
with other stakeholders. The Nasi model is an explanative evolution of the Freeman and
the others theoretical contributions that give explanation to the complex relationship
between companies and their stakeholders. In the words of Phillips (1999, 2000, 2003),
companies have to decide upon who is and who is not a stakeholder of their activities.
Such a decision is influenced by the importance of each stakeholder for the firm, which
is a function of their power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997) or, a result of
the resource dependence of the business on that stakeholder (Frooman, 1999). Another
interpretation pushes to distinguish among primary, secondary and non-stakeholders.
According to Clarkson (1995), primary stakeholders are those that significantly
contribute to the survival of an organization, while secondary stakeholders make a more
limited contribution to the firm. Stakeholders in this second group are to some extent
influenced by the companies’ activities. Finally, there are the non-stakeholders who are
neither influenced by the firm nor a factor in its survival.
Summarizing the three contributes, the relationship between an organization and hits
stakeholders is based on the capability to provide to the organizational survival
(Clarckson, 1995) and to the capability to influence decisions (Mitchet el al., 1997;
Frooman, 1999), through the participation to specific activities (Phillips, 1999). All of
these contributions can be identified in the Nasi model, where the distinction between
internal and external coalition defines the modalities to contribute, influence and
participate in the decision-making activities. Through the application of the Nasi’s
model, the nature of the relationship between companies and their stakeholders changes
from the hold one-way interaction/communication model to a reciprocal relationship
where all stakeholders are simultaneously engaged in the construction of their
individual identities (Scott & Lane, 2000) and their interests.
27
2.5 The relevance of the Nasi’s theoretical model in the implementation
of stakeholders’ interests
The interconnection among pattern of interests and groups of stakeholders represents
the organizational complexity of internal and external coalitions. The complexity of
organizational environments impacts on the capability to understand different events or
actions (Pater & van Lierop, 2006); the nature of the issues and the number of
alternative behaviors influence the complexity of organizational environments
(Jeurissen, 2004): Higher is the stakeholders’ faculty to share interests among different
subjects and explain the differences among alternative behavioral options, the lower is
the complexity of organizational environments. The level of complexity impacts on the
willingness and ability to convoy different interests into common decisions (Strand,
2008). The two modalities of coalitions impact on the level of decision-making
engagement. Regarding to the distance of the coalitions, the opportunity for the
stakeholders to be engaged in the decision-making activities depends if they are part of
the internal or external coalition. Internal coalition stakeholders are more close to the
main activities of the companies and for this reason they have higher probability to take
part of the decisions.
Prop1a: From a relational perspective, the different coalition
distances between the company and their stakeholder impact on the
decision-making activities: the lower is the coalition distance between
the company and a group of stakeholder (internal coalition), the
higher is the possibility that the stakeholder can be engaged in the
decision-making activities that concerns the scope of the coalition.
Prop1b: Internal coalition stakeholders have greater opportunity to
be engaged in the decision-making activities rather than external
coalition stakeholders.
What can influences the relationship between companies and stakeholders is not only
the distance in terms of coalitions but also the complexity of issues and interests that
they share. Talking about complexity in this case is not a negative effort. The presence
of a complex argument or a complex organizational environment is an important
28
element that helps the implementation of a particular action because the level of
complexity is synonym of presence of multiple stakeholders and multiple patterns of
interests. The overlap of interests can be reached when different group highline and
define a set of common-sense arguments. The research of common sense is obtained
through the exchange of interests and information through a set of issues. So, the
process that explains how organizations interpret particular patterns of interests is a
double process that derives from the explanation and selection of them. From an
internal perspective the enactment is based on the sense making activity that managers
do to create a common sense of different patterns of interests. On the other side the
external perspective is based on the modalities of interactions among groups of
stakeholders that share patterns of interests. Decisions are taken through the alignment
of internal and external patterns of interests. The misalignments between different
interests in the internal coalition have greater opportunities to be handle than the
misalignments in the external coalition.
Prop2: The complexity of decision-making activities is moderated by
the different typologies of coalitions: the lower is the distance in the
coalition (internal vs. external coalition), the greater is the
opportunity that complex activities will be handled.
In the model that I propone to explain how external interests and pressures are
implemented inside organizations, because the implementation of specific activities
have impacts both on the internal and the external coalitions, the decision to do
something is a sum, and in the same time a synthesis, of patterns of interests.
The acceptance of particular practices is a process where organizations and their
constituents compare their own interests to reduce divergences and influence adoption
of different practices. According to several scholars (D’Aunno et al. 2000, Delmas &
Toffel, 2008) future research should aim to specify the roles of constituents more
precisely, developing a “comparative analysis of stakeholders influences on
organizations, looking at how they begin to act accordingly” (Sharma & Henriques,
2005:175). The engagement with stakeholders implies that the success or the failure of
particular decisions passes through the sharing process of interests and values and the
mediation effect that particular subjects can have on the distribution and synthesis of
alternatives patterns of interests. According to Scott & Lane (2000), stakeholders have
29
power when managers perceive them to have the ability to impose their will on the
organization and also. Considering the Nasi model and the network perspective that
derives from the usage of internal and external coalitions, the power of specific
stakeholders to impose their will can be examined if the stakeholder is central and non
marginal in terms of communication, issues shared and connections with other subjects
in the coalition. For this reason the relational centrality must be considered as an
element that can impact on the decision-making activities.
Prop3a: the stakeholders’ relational centrality in the coalition
impacts on the development and choice of alternative activities and
interests: the greater is the centrality of a stakeholder in a coalition,
the greater is the opportunity to mediate to alternative interests.
Prop3b: The higher is the mediation activity, the greater is the
opportunity that specific sets of interests can be achieved by the
entire coalition in the decision-making activity.
The interests’ sharing process demands a high level of multiparty negotiation (Maitlis,
205) that implies that organizations and stakeholders have both to reduce conflicts and
to develop performance-related outcomes. This is true if every subject is committed to
develop and maintain a solid and durable participation. The participation can be durable
only if both every one is engaged to encourage empowerment in their organizations
through the definition of who is involved and which is the most appropriate role for
every one. For this reason the number of interactions and communication produce
consequences on the typologies of relationships among different subjects.
Prop4a: the duration of relationships depends from the frequency of
communication and interactions. Internal coalition members have a
higher number of communication activities than the external
coalition members.
Prop4b: the duration of relationships among internal coalition
members is higher than the duration of relationships among external
coalition members.
30
Prop4c: The higher is the duration of relationships, the higher are
the decision-making activities shared between companies and their
stakeholders.
Within the same industry, firms are subjected to multiple levels of pressure that are
perceived differently because of differences in the channels whereby those pressure
catch up with the internal organization of firms. The pressures are also associated to
different subjects and different interests that organizations perceived as part of the
activities that must be implemented or translated into practices. The perceptibility of
pressure depends on how firms receive information from the gained established unit
(Hoffman & Ocasio, 2001). Because firms doesn’t adapt voluntarily to their relative
organizational environment (Smirchich, Stubbart, 1985), but starting from an
assumption that organization and environment are created together (enacted) through
the social interaction processes of key organizational participants (Mason & Mitrof,
1981; Davis, 1982), every single effort toward change or adaptation must be considered
a combination of each organizational member inside a specific context, not only
because it is perceived as such but also because it is made by all actors in regard to their
interests and objectives.
The combination of interests is not explained as a model of
organizational change but usually as an explanation of the similarity (“isomorphism”)
and stability of organizational arrangements in a given population or field of
organizations (Greenwood & Hinnings, 1996). For this reason, the implementation of
particular interests is a process that starts from an internal decision-making activity
where, the subjects that take part to the internal coalition agglomerate their interests and
try to find a common set of activities, that in a second moment communicate to the
external coalition to achieve a high level of legitimacy (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983;
Scott, 1995).
31
2.6 Different typologies of stakeholders’ participation
A participative process depends on the level of engagement in the decision-making
activities: Oxley Green & Hunton Clarke talk about stakeholder participation in terms
of informing decisions and making decisions (2003).
The level of stakeholders’ participation is achieved in the “company” context and it
goes from a (1) high level of participation where companies take decision with
stakeholders, to a (2) middle level of participation, where companies use stakeholders as
consultative subjects to the (3) lowest level of participation, where companies just
inform stakeholders of their activities.
All the theories described in this article explain differently the level of stakeholders’
participation in the decision-making process starting from different point of views, but
with a common goal that is the identification of efficient activities that facilitate the
interaction between companies and their external environment. So, from a participative
perspective considering a company and the network of its stakeholders as a community
facilitates the identification of the relevant focused issues that are discussed among the
parts in the decision-making processes.
The participation level depends from the relationship between the parts and from the
singular situation or problem that must be solved. From the relationship perspective, the
two coalitions impact on the level of participation: from a non-coalition relationship to
an external and after internal coalition.
Table 1 Stakeholders participation and forms of coalitions
Participation
Coalition
32
Informative
Consultative
Non-coalition
External coalition
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Decisional
Internal
coalition
Stakeholders
The second element that impact on the participation level is given by the analysis of
every single situation and the typologies of problems that must be solved. From this
point of view there is a customized analysis of every single issue or problem that
requests an evaluation. Situations differ in terms of problems and issues that are shared
and enacted by the companies with the participation of stakeholders.
Participation is important itself because helps to develop common sense and shared
languages, as written by Morsing and Schultz (2006) through the research of selfrepresentation. The complexity and the relevance of different situations determine
distinctive levels of participation; with low levels of complexity is requested an
informative model of participation, with medium level of complexity a consultative
model of participation, with high level of complexity is requested a decisional model of
participation: the higher is the level of complexity the higher is the level of participation
requested.
Prop5: The coalition distance impacts on the level of stakeholder
participation in the decision-making activity: the lower is the
coalition distance, the higher is the level of participation.
So, once established the level of participation, through the analysis of the different
typologies of coalition, the decision-making process is a consequence of the alternative
modalities of the stakeholders’ participation. As explained by Oxley Green & HuntonClarke (2003) the different typologies of participation are selected according to the
single situation or problem that must be solved. This implies that considering different
sets of problems companies can predict the expected outcomes of the stakeholders’
participation processes, evaluating different levels of commitments regarding different
typologies of problems and the relative level of complexity that every single problem
needs.
On the other hand more research is needed to find a common set of rules that can be
explained, through a theoretical model, and that can be used in every situation with a
general set of rules and outcomes. It is impossible that every company must carry out a
set of specific outcomes for every single situation. If a general model is needed to
understand stakeholders’ interaction with companies and their level of participation, on
the other hand, the decision-making process is of course an activity that requests time
33
and resources that must be dedicated to every single issue and that in some cases are so
specific that need a more strategic attention. The differences between a standard
approach and a more structured one are differences that must be more explained in the
development of the theoretical model. Future works must be deepen analyze the
differences between the typologies of coalitions and how these coalitions impact on the
decision making activities.
Another aspect that needs more attention is the analysis of the differences between
different typologies of companies and how this general model of stakeholder
engagement can contrast looking at alternatives models of organizations. The most
important elements that must be considered regard the industry (the stakeholders power
and legitimacy and how these features impact on the relationship with companies), the
companies’ outcomes (manufacturing versus services companies) and the relationship
with particular typologies of stakeholders (especially customers and clients in terms of
active and passive role in the development of the companies’ businesses).
34
2.7 The relevance of the Nasi theoretical model in the implementation
of Corporate Environmental Management
The explanation of the Nasi’s model gives me the opportunity to explain how
organizations work to manage their requirements in regard of stakeholders and their
pattern of interests. The interconnection among pattern of interests and groups of
stakeholders represents the organizational complexity of internal and external
coalitions. The organizational environments complexity impacts on the capability to
understand different events or actions (Pater & van Lierop, 2006). The nature of the
issues and the number of alternative behaviors influence the complexity of
organizational environments (Jeurissen, 2004): Higher is the stakeholders’ faculty to
share interests among different subjects and explain the differences among alternative
behavioral options, the lower is the complexity of organizational environments. The
level of complexity impacts on the willingness and ability to convoy different interests
into common decisions (Strand, 2008).
Talking about complexity in this case is not a negative effort. The presence of a
complex argument or a complex organizational environment is an important element
that helps the implementation of a particular action because the level of complexity is
synonym of presence of multiple stakeholders and multiple patterns of interests. The
overlap of interests can be reached when different group highline and define a set of
common-sense arguments. The research of common sense is obtained with the
exchange of interests and information through a set of issues. So, the process that
explains how organizations interpret particular patterns of interests is a double process
that derives from the explanation and selection of them. From an internal perspective
the enactment is based on the sense making activity that managers do to create a
common sense of different patterns of interests. On the other side the external
perspective is based on the modalities of interactions among groups of stakeholders that
share patterns of interests. Decisions are taken through the alignment of internal and
external patterns of interests.
This is the model that I propone to explain how corporate environmental management
strategies are implemented inside organizations. Because the implementation of
particular environmental activities have impacts both on the internal and the external
35
coalitions, the decision to do something is a sum, and in the same time a synthesis, of
patterns of interests.
Figure 3 Implementation process of Corporate Environmental Management
The acceptance of particular practices is a process where organizations and their
constituents compare their own interests to reduce divergences and influence adoption
of different practices. According to several scholars (D’Aunno et al. 2000, Delmas &
Toffel, 2008) future research should aim to specify the roles of constituents more
precisely, developing a “comparative analysis of stakeholders influences on
organizations, looking at how they begin to act accordingly” (Sharma & Henriques,
2005:175). The engagement with stakeholders implies that the success or the failure of
particular decisions passes through the sharing process of interests and values.
The interests’ sharing process demands a high level of multiparty negotiation (Maitlis,
205) that implies that organizations and stakeholders have both to reduce conflicts and
to develop performance-related outcomes. This is true if every subject is committed to
develop and maintain a solid and durable participation. The participation can be
36
durable only if both every one is engaged to encourage empowerment in their
organizations through the definition of who is involved and which is the most
appropriate role for every one.
Within the same industry, firms are subjected to multiple levels of pressure that are
perceived differently because of differences in the channels whereby those pressure
catch up with the internal organization of firms. The pressures are also associated to
different subjects and different interests that organizations perceived as part of the
activities that must be implemented or translated into practices. The perceptibility of
pressure depends on how firms receive information from the gained established unit
(Hoffman, 2001).
Because firms doesn’t adapt voluntarily to their relative organizational environment
(Scirchich, Stubbart, 1985), but starting from an assumption that organization and
environment are created together (enacted) through the social interaction processes of
key organizational participants (Mason & Mitrof, 1981; Davis, 1982), every single
effort toward change or adaptation must be considered a combination of each
organizational member inside a specific context, not only because it is perceived as
such but also because it is made by all actors in regard to their interests and objectives.
The combination of interests is not explained as a model of organizational change but
usually as an explanation of the similarity (“isomorphism”) and stability of
organizational arrangements in a given population or field of organizations
(Greenwood & Hinnings, 1996). The acceptance of interests is explained by people
that make sense of things, sharing practical measures and instruments that are
implemented within their scope of influences (Cramer et al., 2004).
37
38
CAP III - SENSEMAKING THEORY TROUGH THE LOGICS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
3.1 Introduction
The relationship between business and the logics that are needed when we talk about
sustainability and green attitudes (as environmental management) and more in general
about corporate social responsibility has always been a much discussed topic. As
explained by Bansal & Roth when talking about ecological and sustainable issues, it is
necessary to develop a model that identifies distinct conceptual categories of ecological
motivations and the corresponding antecedents and outcomes associated with each
motivation (Bansal & Roth, 2000: 717). Starting from this assumption, environmental
issues can be studied in terms of processes and results associated to the organizational
responses to external stimuli that derive from ecological motivations. Is for this reason
that I use the sensemaking approach to identify how green issues are interpreted and
enacted in a specific context with hits rules, motivations and specific characteristics. By
taking a sensemaking approach I try to increase the understanding of how
Environmental strategies are influenced by the context specific sensemaking processes
of an organization, investigating how people think, speak and tend to behave regarding
Environmental management.
Scholars that write about, environmental management, sustainable development,
corporate social performance, corporate citizenship, social responsiveness, corporate
governance, issue management, and stakeholder management can all be categorized as
people that write and discuss about CSR (Garriga & Melé, 2004). Anyway, there is not
only an excess of literature on the topic of corporate social responsibility, considering
that the debate on this topic has been going on with almost no consensus emerging on
the definition of CSR (Kakabadse, Kakabadse & Rozuel, 2007) and the relationship
between Environmental Management and CSR. Otherwise there are several studies that
want to merge environmental management as part of a more general framework as
corporate social responsibility, considering some principal dynamics as elements that
permit the association of model and theories within the two topics (Boiral, 2007,
Pedersen, 2007, Margolis & Walsh, 2003). There are some environmental practices (as
39
for example the ISO registration) that companies need as a symbol (Boiral, 2007) that
stimulate particular emotions (Georg & Fussel, 2000) to guide interpretations (McCabe
& Dutton, 1993), that serve to create linkages among people in the organization around
the issue at stake (Cramer et al., 2004: 216).
Because the literature that link sensemaking theory and environmental management is
scarce, I star the literature review on these two topics looking at the more general
literature about sensemaking and CSR.
3.2 Corporate Social Responsibility and sensemaking
The first critique that has been done to the classical literature on CSR is that CSR has
been approached from a too rational perspective (Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2006). Instead of
looking at CSR as an immobile structure, some authors interpret it in a Weickean sense
as an evolutionary process where many different agents act and react upon each other
(Weick, 1995; in Nijhof & Jeurissen, 2006). From a sensemaking perspective,
organizations are seen as constituted by enacted models and social processes of
sensemaking, in which meanings are assigned to things and events (Ericson, 2001).
Organizations are constantly an object that evolves because it is the output of the daily
interaction of the organizational members.
Another important contribution on CSR and sensemaking literature has been done by
Morsing and Schultz (2006). They studied the communication aspect of CSR from a
sensemaking approach, developing a theoretical model that take in consideration
different modalities of communication and interaction between companies and
stakeholders. In this research, Morsing and Schultz expand the concept of interaction
among organizational members including also external subjects as the stakeholders. The
organizational environment becomes more sophisticated and more complex.
There haven’t been conducted specific empiric studies of CSR or environmental
management that started from a sensemaking approach, but I did find several interesting
empirical studies that combined the sensemaking approach with other topics then CSR1.
These studies can serve as a framework for my sensemaking research, in combination
1
The Journal “Business Ethics: A European Review” has published an issue (Vol 15 N. 4 2006)
completely dedicated to the debate on sense making and CSR. In this volume there are several theoretical
contributes that give important stimuli to the topic.
40
with the discussed theories of Weick (1995, 2001) and Basu & Palazzo (2008). Starting
from this logic, an important study was conducted by Thomas, Clark & Gioia (1996).
They investigated how top management teams in higher education systems make sense
of issues that can affect strategic change. Their findings suggested that top management
team members’ perceptions of identity are essential to the sensemaking process
(Thomas, Clark & Gioia, 1996).
Mills, Weatherbee and Colwell (2006) combined their sensemaking approach with
ethno-statistics to investigate how Canadian business schools and universities make
sense of comparative rankings. They concluded that accreditation and ranking have
taken on new meanings as sensemaking devices for universities and business schools,
because of the need to secure funding. Similar research could explain the importance of
CSR reports and CSR rankings.
In another study, Mills and Weatherbee (2006) examined organizational disasters from
a sensemaking approach. They demonstrated the importance of organizational identity
construction as a key determinant of inter-organizational sensemaking processes.
Another example is the study of Maitlis and Lawrence (2007), who focused on sets of
conditions that trigger sense giving and sets of conditions that enable sense giving of
stakeholders as well as leaders.
Starting from these studies and their perspective, that explain how sensemaking
influence organizational behaviors, my study focuses the attention on the institutional
and contextual elements that influence organizational sensemaking of environmental
management (and more in general CSR practices) to get an alternative and richer
understanding of how organizations deal with this phenomenon (Basu & Palazzo,
2008). Because environmental issues cannot be faced by the organizations alone,
because they need help to construct interpretations of social stimuli (Sonenshein, 2007),
and because they don’t have enough information to make accurate predictions about the
environment (McCabe & Dutton, 1993), for this reason companies search for other
subjects that share with them interests and stakes as elements that can facilitate the
interpretation and the implementation of particular practices. For this reasons the most
appropriate subjects that can facilitate the connection between issues, interests and focal
business activities for the organizations are the stakeholders. Considering the
multicultural contexts and the complexity of organizational environments, the role of
41
stakeholders is fundamental for the individuation of alternative solutions to specific
requests as for the case of environmental issues (Pater & van Lierop, 2006).
3.3 Make sense of stakeholders interests
Sensemaking is influenced by a variety of social factors, the effectiveness and “the
success of sensemaking is about labeling and categorizing the streaming of experience,
to make the world more orderly” (Weick, Sutcliffe, Obstfeld, 2005). Scholars want to
understand how new practices, incompatible with current understanding of right and
wrong, could gain acceptance (Leblebici et al, 1991). The acceptance depends from the
context in which organizational embeddedness must be explained and acted through
symbolic devices that serve to establish certain levels of attention and to establish a
codified language. The acceptance implies the achievement of particular practices
instead of others and the consequent realization. Individuals construct issues that allow
them to comprehend and act in a collective way (Maitlis, 2005).
Sensemaking serves to collectively adjust vocabulary and labels that explain patterns of
interests (Cramer et al., 2004). The reciprocal exchanges among groups of actors in the
sensemaking processes have effects on the selection of what can be done and what
cannot be done. The sensemaking and the consequential decision-making processes are
influenced by the interpretation and the comprehension that derives from a participative
process (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
Sensemaking has been described as “a process by which individuals develop cognitive
maps of their environment not directly from their external demands but from
organizationally embedded cognitive and linguistic processes” (Basu & Palazzo, 2008).
The development of cognitive maps is the result of the identification of concreteness
relations between different actors. The concreteness derives from the sharing of
experiences and the exchange of equivocal inputs (Weick et. al, 2005). The equivocal
inputs are the results of the way organizations engage with stakeholders in order to
search social legitimacy. The social legitimacy is a process that derives from the cocreation of acceptable norms and behaviors as a result of the dialogue with stakeholders.
42
The involvement of stakeholders implies that sensemaking processes must be
formalized and shared as an explicit model to externalize and articulate interests
(Matten & Moon, 2008).
As Weick argued, “The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing
accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense
of what occurs” (1993: 635). Organizational sensemaking is a fundamentally social
process: organization members interpret their environment in and through interactions
with others, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act
collectively (Isabella, 1990; Sackman, 1991; Sandelands & Stablein, 1987; Starbuck &
Milliken, 1988; Weick & Roberts, 1993; Maitlis, 2005).
43
3.4 Sensemaking
Sensemaking was introduced to organizational studies by Karl Weick and in extra fields
by other authors. Sensemaking is an interdisciplinary research program that brings
together elements from philosophy, sociology and cognitive science as social
psychology. The multiplicity of disciplines have in common the fact that sensemaking
is a research field that is based on the study of how persons interact. The importance of
the attention to individuals is fundamental because is an opportunity to study behaviors
of singular individuals or group of them that respond to human needs and interests.
Through sensemaking individuals or groups create a model of a system, based on
diverse information sources, that they interpret and consequentially take action. In
addition to make sense of information, the concept of sensemaking serves to create
relations among different groups of information and make a selection of the most
adequate. The adequacy of interests is a long and complicated process that is composed
by a double tripartite model: the Weick’s model that looks at how sensemaking
identifies the most acceptable activities and the Basu & Palazzo model that analyzes
how sensemaking works taking into account the relationships among the key
participants.
Weick introduced a model that divides the sensemaking activity into three interlocked
phases (Weick 1979b): enactment, selection and retention.
1. The first phase is enactment. In enactment, people actively build the
information they attend to in two ways. First, they selectively range, isolate, and
select information, paying attention to some messages and discounting others.
They label, categorize, and connect together information about actors, events,
and outcomes (Weick, 1970). Second, they interfere with the environment and
create new features in order to help them make sense of it. When managers enact
the environment, they “construct, rearrange, single out, and demolish many
objective features of their surroundings. . . . they un-randomize variables, insert
vestiges of orderliness, and literally create their own constraints” (Weick 1979b,
p. 164). The result of this enactment is a smaller set of data that is still equivocal.
The enactment process separate possible alternatives that the organization can
take seriously, but what it actually does depends on what happens in the
selection process.
44
2. In the selection process, people look at the information they have enacted and
try to answer the question, “What is going on here?” (Weick, 1970). They fill up
the new data with interpretations that have worked before in explaining similar
or related situations in the past. The interpretation helps to fit how previous
situation has been explained to the current situations and understand if it is
possible to give a reasonable interpretation of the new facts. The best fit between
old and new understanding give the right interpretation. Interpretation, in other
words, is based on a set of cause-and-effect explanations of the environment.
The explanations don’t have to be the most accurate or complete, but the most
plausible (Choo, 2006). The plausibility is given by the combination of patterns
of interests.
3. In the retention process, the products of successful sensemaking are maintained
for future use. The retrospective interpretation of actions and events already
explained reduces the future uncertainty about the same situations. The
experiences are built through relationships between events and actions and in
these forms, interpretations are remembered and made available for future cycles
of enactment and selection (Choo, 2006). In the sensemaking view, the reason
for the existence of an organization is to produce stable interpretations of
equivocal data about organizational change (Weick, 1970). Anyway, some
equivocal features stay behind and so the interpretations are always associated
with new events in future sensemaking processes. In fact, organizations can
continue to learn from outside only if they maintain a balance between
flexibility and stability in their rendering of a meaningful context for
organizational action (Choo, 2006).
Figure 4 Adapted from Weick, 2005
45
The process of sensemaking works if persons interact in two ways: using symbols that
can explain their interests or transforming and interpreting general arguments into
concrete actions. Both the two modalities depend on the way they are communicated.
As argument by Weick (2005), communication is a central component of sensemaking
and organizing where people collectively find ourselves and the events that affect them
exchanging representations of the circumstances that surround their context.
46
3.5 Make sense through communication processes
Basu & Palazzo have introduced a model of sensemaking that consider the relationships
between organizations and their relevant stakeholders, through the way they
communicate each other their intentions, behaviors and attitudes. The model is divided
in three essential processes: cognitive, linguistic and conative.
1. The cognitive process represents the modality that organizations use to think
about their relationship with stakeholders and how they are engaged in specific
activities that might have an impact on the key relationships.
2. The linguistic process is a process used to communicate and explain the reasons
why organizations decide to engage in specific activities. The necessity of an
explanation derives from the logical consequences that the engagement has on
different groups of stakeholders.
3. The conative process represents the commitment and the behavioral posture of
organizations that influence the perception of stakeholders regarding their
relationship with them.
Figure 5 Adapted from the Basu & Palazzo model (2008)
47
The combination of these two theoretical models of sensemaking can be synthesized in
this sentence: sensemaking is a reciprocal communication between organizations
and stakeholders that categorize patterns of interests through the explanation of
similarities and differences that serve to build equivocal and stable commitments.
Figure 6 Adapted From Weick and Basu & Palazzo
48
3.6 Stakeholders dialogue
As exposed before, the relationship between an organization and their relative
stakeholders is based on the capability that both of them talk the same language, making
sense of their interests and activities through a social and linguistic process that works
to develop a specific and costumed meaning dedicated to the people that are involved in
the process (Cramer et al, 2004). The limitation of this activity is the customization of
the process because is limited to the subjects involved and is not easy replicable in
divers context. Every group that starts an interaction and a sensemaking process
develops an internal categorization of interests. It is a result of transforming different
cultures into a common language confronting differences and similarities. When there
are multiple groups of interests and these groups are particularly distant one each other,
the resistance to the dialogue and the potency of sensemaking may be weaker (Powell,
1991; Goodstein, 1994). The sensemaking activity is also a time consuming activity
with high costs in terms of commitment and research of information. In order that
organizations commit there self they need to achieve and find benefits of concrete
actions within the context where they operate and translate the results into businessrelated issues (Cramer et al., 2004). In other words the research of benefits is the most
crucial activity that facilitates the development of sensemaking if there are some
elements that suggest the process: the (1) sense of direction (Cramer et al., 2004) serves
to indicate the verse of the relation of interests and explains who is the sender and who
is the receiver, also in cases of circular sense of interests; the (2) specification of
subjects involvement that serves to reduce costs of information and costs of engagement
with multiple subjects; the (3) selection of patterns of interests and consequentially of
group of stakeholders to focus the attention and the linguistic processes to the groups
that organizations consider important for specific interests; the (4) identification of
outcomes and the (5) sense of contribution (Cramer et al., 2004). Considering these five
elements the sensemaking process becomes a gradual activity that is customizable in
regard of groups of subjects involved and different sets of contexts.
Because the stakeholder relationships are difficult to operationalize in terms of time,
translation of interests into practical experiences and the consequences that decisions
have in terms of social and economical outcomes, the dialogue among organizations and
stakeholders is an activity that must start at the beginning of the process, including the
49
most salient subjects (saliency is measured in terms of interests) and excluding those
subjects that are not important, or the importance is not exclusive, from the dialoguing
process. Pedersen proposed a theoretical model to explain the stakeholder dialogue
through a series of phases and filters. The filters serve to make the stakeholder dialogue
more operable, concentrating the focus on specific activities that operationalized more
general concepts and patterns of interests.
The limitation to this model is given by the fat that the more deep and specific is the
filtering of stakeholders and patterns of interests, the higher is the possibility to miss
initiatives that can be acceptable for the organizations. This is a limitation that must
taken in consideration but, because limits of time, resources and the necessity to find
economic and social outcomes to the decision, the focalization and specification of
activities is an important activity that organizations must do in order to improve
efficiency and efficacy.
1. The selection filter is an activity where all the participants start to develop a
dialogue. The development of dialogue implies a first selection of relevant
interlocutors that can access to the dialogue “arena”. Organizations cannot
include every stakeholder in their process of communication. The number of
stakeholders involved in the dialogue impact strongly on the quality and the
level of the conversation. The analysis of the centrality and the distance fro the
dialogues is an important element that influences the selection o stakeholders.
Different topics imply in some cases also the presence of different groups of
stakeholders as interlocutors with the organizations.
2. The interpretation filter is a second step of the general process of dialogue with
stakeholders, where, organizations interpret the multiples information that they
receive into limited groups of voices. The selection into groups is based on the
alignment of patterns of interests. Because is not possible to come up with
solutions that can satisfy every one, the transformation into groups of voices
serves to limit the decision making activity into a limited number of alternative
decisions. The interpretation filter, as argued by Pedersen, intentionally
recognizes that some decisions can diverge from the interests of particular
groups of stakeholders. This is part of the dialoguing activity as a result of it, in
terms of outcomes and patterns of interests that are satisfied or not.
50
3. The response filter is the last part of the dialogue process that is referred to the
activity that takes place outside the dialogue arena. Once the patterns of interests
have been classified and once the alternative decisions have been established,
organizations make a decision on which pattern of interests and which decision
they want to take. The activity that is selected by organizations produces social
and economic outcomes that can be observed by stakeholders. Therefore the
response filter represents the divergence between organizations’ decision and the
stakeholders’ interests that ensure from the dialogue between the two parts. This
is well synthesized by Pedersen when he said: “giving voice to the stakeholders
does not necessarily mean commitment to action” (Pedersen, 2006: 150). There
are several explanations to the motives that can limit the alignment between
stakeholder’s dialogue phase and the effective implementation process: the (1)
additional difficulty to translate decisions into concrete actions, the (2)
misalignment of technological, political and economic elements between the two
parts, the (3) skepticism of who really have to implement the activities (some
times decision are taken by the top management and they do not communicate
previously their activities), the (4) lack of culture and competences that are
necessarily to do something specific.
Figure 7 Stakeholder dialogue model by Pedersen (2006).
51
3.7 Interpreting the three models
Sensemaking is a complex and long activity that is composed by different phases and
that involve multiple subjects in different moments. It views organizations as
interpretation systems that scan, interpret learn and enact their environment (Daft &
Weick, 1984). The principal scope is to create an environment that people can
comprehend and manage, where every one searches for contexts within which small
details fit together and make sense. (Weick, 1995: 133). Because sensemaking is a
mechanism that operates at individual, organizational and extra-organizational level, is
possible to define different levels of sensemaking and their relative set of details that
must be interpreted. Sensemaking is a cumulative process of individual and collective
construction of organizational reality, through a continuous interpretation and reinterpretation of the environment. For this reason scholars are still working on the
definition and the theoretical analysis of how people make sense of their interests and
activities.
The three models presented are important works that, if combined together, are
elements that give relevant bases to analyze particular contexts where organizations
make sense daily of their activities and of their relationships with stakeholders.
Considering Weick, Basu & Palazzo and Pedersen considerations, sensemaking can be
defined as:
A selective process, based on a reciprocal communication between
organizations and a privileged group of stakeholders, that categorize
patterns of interests through the explanation of similarities and
differences into a limited number of alternative decisions, that serve
to build equivocal and stable commitments that, once implemented,
must be measured in terms of outcomes and related impacts on the
stakeholders interests.
52
Figure 8 Sensemaking Model Adapted
Enactment
Selection
Retention
• Cognitive Process
• Selection Filter
• Linguistic Process
• Interpretation Filter
• Conative Process
• Response Filter
• Similarities and
differences
• Alternative decisions
• Equivocal and stable
commitment
• Portfolio of alternative
decisions
• Response to stakeholder
perceptions
• Inpact on stakeholders
interests
Starting from this new definition I would like to emphasize and better understand the
role of enactment. Weick argued that organizations construct the environment starting
from a set of combination of inputs that determine how they interpret and comprehend
it. From this perspective, managers act as a consequence of the decision that they take
after the identification of a specific set of information, which is a result of the enactment
and the sensemaking activity. This is partially true because if we consider that managers
act after the identification of what they want or have to do, this is a static interpretation
of enactment and sensemaking where there is no choice of alternatives once that
sensemaking is started. The real process of sensemaking considers also the trade off
between what really happens in terms of enactment (information and culture sharing
processes) and what managers have in mind and wish to construct in the first place. If it
is true that sensemaking is an activity where different subjects cooperate to understand
each other their relative environment mutually reinforcing interpretations (Weick,
1995: 10), it is also true that the choice/actions depend from the behavioral and cultural
background of the parts. Is for this reason that in the first part of the sensemaking
process the enactment is based on the detection of similarities and difference among the
parts that serve as a filter to different sets of decisions or alternative patterns of
interests. In addition, as expressed before, sensemaking is an activity that doesn’t
involve every subject that shows interests or stakes, but it is an activity that is
experienced by privileged group of subjects.
53
54
CAP IV – METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH DESIGN
AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
The empirical analysis is based on a qualitative case study approach. The central notion
is to use cases as the basis from which to develop theory inductively (Eisenhdardt &
Graebner, 2007). Because the purpose of the research is to develop theory, not to test it,
and so theoretical (not random or stratified) sampling is appropriate (Eisenhdardt &
Graebner, 2007). This project aims to go beyond capturing the experience of a
particular group or type of stakeholder to identify and understand the processes through
which companies enact environmental issues through the direct and indirect
involvement of stakeholders in sensemaking activity.
This study focuses on discovering the nature of those interactions, understanding their
impact on the companies, and on the practices that they implement as a result of
sensemaking processes. Govers & Go (2003) suggested that as tourism, in common
with most services industries, is an experiential product and for this reason suggests
that they will relate their interpretations of that experience to other people through story
telling, or narratives (Govers & Go, 2003), making sense of their own experience
during the process. Cary (2004, p.62) suggested that “narrativity marks, organizes and
clarifies experience”. The challenges for the researcher in capturing these narratives
will be discussed further in the section below explaining the specific techniques that I
used in the study.
Using a qualitative approach enables me to take the industry and context specific
elements into account, and respect the uniqueness of different Corporate Environmental
Management. To address the nature of the research problem a qualitative approach
using in-depth-semi-structured interviews as the data collection method was deemed to
be the most appropriate methodology. Because the nature of the data (multiple cases
with more than one interviewers in every organizations) the most appropriate technique
to analyze case study evidences is suggested by Yin (2003) in the cross-case synthesis.
This particular technique is applied to the analysis of multiple cases; every case is
firstly examined as a single case by the researcher. After the identification of the single
55
cases, the technique is useful to synthetize data, capturing the most relevant aspects.
The technique gives the opportunity to explain relevant elements through the
illustration or citations from the interviews as for example with concrete and practical
examples.
4.2 The case
Therefore the idea is to study how Corporate Environmental Management is
implemented in the Danish hospitality within a set of organizations with different
characteristics as ownership, dimension, level of technology, typologies of clients, etc,
in the same geographical context, the city of Copenhagen. Case study research is
preferable in this context, since it allows the investigation to retain the holistic and
important uniqueness of daily events (Yin, 1994). Because the study of Environmental
Management in a general CSR context is a fairly new topic in hospitality management
studies and relatively little research (from a holistic point of view) has been undertaken
into this area (see, for instance, Bohdanowicz, 2007; Bohdanowicz, Simanic &
Martinac, 2005; Holcomb, Upchurch, & Okumus, 2007), it might be informative to
explore the implications of stakeholder involvement in the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management for the hospitality sector.
That is why the choice of the industry and of the cases is so important. Moreover, the
hotel industry is taking various initiatives, whether for the sake of the environment, for
economic reasons, or to build a positive image. The demand for environmentally
friendly products and the adoption of the EMS standard have become a powerful force
in the marketplace. There has been increasing recognition of the need for tourism
researchers to find research strategies that enable them to gain a better understanding of
various phenomena within tourism, and of the benefits of adopting interpretivist
approaches (Botterill, 2001; Goodson and Phillimore, 2004; Walle, 1997). The reasons
why a hotel should obtain a certification need more attention and more studies. The aim
of this project is to collaborate also with non-academic actors from the business and the
NGO sectors to develop results that can be concretely applied into the industry.
56
4.3 The greening process of Copenhagen
Ecologic, sustainable and environmental issues have deeply gained ground in
Copenhagen in the last fifteen years. The City of Copenhagen has started a strong
campaign to develop awareness and increase the green culture in all the most crucial
fields as retail, consumers, politics and industry. Since 1990 it has been developed a
campaign in the city to reduce CO2 emissions and try to transform the entire area of
Copenhagen in the most green and sustainable city in the world. The long-term target is
to become the world's first CO2 neutral capital by 2025. In order to reduce CO2
emissions further, the strategy is to lead more green energy into Copenhagen.
The general commitment and behavior is high and try to involve the major of the
citizens, firms and organizations that can be interested in this campaign. The same
campaigns and similar goals are developed for water, waste and recycling, natural
parks, mobility and impact on the climate change. The general level of environmental
awareness has been increased in the last five years and particularly after the UN
Climate Change Conference in 2009 (COP 15). The COP15 attracted 33,200 delegates
spread in the area of the city of Copenhagen. This has been an important event that
attracts attention and discussions about environmental issues, also for the services
industry as tourism and hospitality. Before the COP15, in the City of Copenhagen has
started a massive campaign of green information and development of Corporate
Environmental Management strategies and Environmental Management Systems.
Today, in 2010, after the COP15 more than 60% of hotels in the city of Copenhagen are
certified and try to develop a Corporate Environmental Management strategy. The
CEM, and in some cases the successive certification, has been a final decision that
helps organizations to share common language and common communication about their
commitment. Many hotels in Copenhagen meet climate-friendly requirements in the
areas of water, washing and cleaning, waste, energy, food, smoking and indoor climate,
administration, associated park and parking areas. In other words are many issues that
have been implemented before and during the COP15 that goes beyond compliance and
are more challenging than what is require by the general principle of Environmental
Management Systems. The greening logics are mostly part of the decisions and
practices in the city area.
57
4.4 Corporate Environmental Management
Corporate Environmental Management (CEM) is an umbrella term that encompasses
policies, tools, systems and strategies that can be put in place to enhance the
environmental performance of a company. It is closely associated with the concept of
eco-efficiency that argues that a company can simultaneously improve both its
environmental performance and its economic competitiveness by adopting CEM
practices (Visser et a., 2007).
The role of Corporate Environmental Management in the last decades has started to be
considered part of the win-win situation, where the relationships between organizations
and stakeholders are not more based on conflicts but on a collaborative model. The
Corporate Environmental Management is a whole of behaviors and cultural positions
that must be translated into concrete actions.
The development of Corporate Environmental Management depends on the capabilities
of the management to understand which are the most appropriate instruments and tools
that can help them to advance an efficient environmental strategy. The development of
Corporate Environmental Management can be done following different ways, as for
example: energy reduction, waste minimization, water consumption reduction,
development of green supply chain, etc. Progressively therefore Corporate
Environmental Management is becoming part of a company’s so-called social license
to operate (Visser et a., 2007).
Given the internal and external demands to improve the environmental performance of
a company, those companies that achieve high standards of environmental performance
will benefit in a number of ways as realize competitive advantages, improve reputation
and legitimacy, get part to the development of new policies, reduce uncertainty.
58
4.5 Corporate Environmental Management in the Hospitality Industry
Since the early 1990s, tourism organizations, mostly hotel facilities, have adopted
different voluntary initiatives to show their commitment to sustainable development
(Kirk, 1998). There is no clear guideline to limit which tourism, hospitality and
ecotourism businesses self-declare them-selves as being sustainable, green or
environmentally friendly. With the many definitions for sustainability and ecotourism,
and disagreements around what is in and what is outside tourism, it is a not easy
industry to regulate (Font, 2002).
For some researchers (Ayuso, 2006; Saarinen, 2006; Bonilla Priego & Avilés Palacios,
2008) the hospitality industry does not grossly pollute the environment, nor does it
consume vast amounts of non-renewable resources, but it does have a significant effect
on global resources (Kirk, 1995). The industry also has a vested interest in protecting
the environment, since it depends on attractive and safe surroundings as a part of the
core product (Erdogan & Baris, 2007; Font et al., 2008).
Otherwise, a company as a hotel can lose its competitive position in its domestic
market as well as international markets by failing to pay attention to environmental
issues. However, this may not be as evident in the hotel industry, as the issue of trade
barriers is not currently so prominent in the industry (Chan, Wong, 2006). Additionally,
the demand for environmentally friendly products and the adoption of the EMS
standard have become a powerful force in the marketplace. Externally, the pressures
from consumers may also influence hotels to adopt the standard, as more and more
consumers are buying green products.
There have been few studies on the motivation to adopt a CEM in the hotel industry
(Saarinen, 2006; Bonilla Priego & Avilés Palacios, 2008). Although many hotels have
developed their CEM, others are still standing at the crossroads of making a decision;
others are not really considering an implementation in a short run. Probably as a result
of the relatively recent adoption of voluntary environmental instruments by the tourism
industry, there is very little reported research about it (Saarinen, 2006;). Most of the
empirical work attempts to examine the type of practical action that hotels are taking
towards environmental or sustainable management (Bramwell and Alletorp, 2001;
Forsyth, 1995; Horobin and Long, 1996; Knowles et al., 1999, Middleton and Hawkins,
59
1993; Stabler and Goodall, 1997; Vernon et al., 2003). Some other studies also
investigate the perceived main incentives and obstacles to the adoption of sustainable
practices, but rather from a general perspective than to assess the effectiveness of
specific tools (Bramwell and Alletorp, 2001; Forsyth, 1995; Stabler and Goodall, 1997;
Vernon et al., 2003). Ayuso (2006) has done a qualitative exploration of perceptions
and experiences of hotel managers that apply different environmental management
instruments. The general understanding of the concept of sustainable tourism was
examined, and the practical application of different voluntary environmental
instruments was analyzed (Ayuso, 2006). The hospitality industry normally is not
perceived as destroyer of the environment when compared with other manufacturing
industries. This has a consequence: probably stakeholders are not so strong or efficient.
Companies consider using a formal CEM or gaining certification because of the
pressure from their customers (Clark, 1999), the requirement from their suppliers to
conform to a formal EMS standard (Morrison et al. 2000), and the more systematic way
for shareholders, government regulatory agencies, insurance companies, and financial
institutions to assess their commitment to improving environmental performance
(Donaldson, 1996).
The reasons why a hotel should obtain a certification need more attention and more
studies. It is important to understand how to prioritize environmental issues instead of
other kind of problems. The main aim of implementing environmental management has
been to address the issues of waste prevention, water consumption and energy savings,
which have been the main concern for most hotels worldwide.
60
4.6
Motivations
to
implement
a
Corporate
Environmental
Management practices
There are several motivations that have been discovered by different authors about the
implementation of Corporate Environmental Management through the adoption of
specific systems or tools. Because research in organizations and the natural
environment requires multidisciplinary analysis, the distinction can be structured into
two main categories: the first category results from the organizational theory, especially
from the institutional perspective; the second category gleans from a more specific
literature about tourism management and environmental management that are welldesigned to find specific motivations that describe the specific reasons in the hospitality
industry.
4.6.1 Organizational theory perspective
From an institutional perspective, the attention must be focused on the analysis of
pressures and changes that cause organizations to become more or less isomorphic
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) by adopting similar practices that allows legitimacy among
organizations. Also considering the stakeholder theory framework, it is part of
institutional perspective that links managerial and organizational decisions to the
stakeholder interests and their influences (Darnal et al, 2009).
From both these points of view the implementation of Corporate Environmental
Strategies are introduced more by reason of social legitimacy and policy alignment than
for a real concern of efficiency; in other words we are considering EMS and CEM as a
rational myths that must be complained (Boiral, 2007). This is a strong statement if
only considering the formal structure of this kind of activities and non-considering the
behaviors of all the actors that are involved in the implementation process of this kind
of practices.
According to Brunsson (1989) this is a contradiction that arises from the differences
between political and action-oriented spheres and in particular from between regulatory
and efficiency requirements. This contradiction justifies the failure of some activities
that are only apparently coherent and legitimate statements but that are completely
divergent from real activities. To step over these kinds of contradictions and understand
61
how organizations concretely use and implements environmental practices, there is
another point of view that explains the adoption of particular practices as a result of the
diffusion of them by the fact that they become commonplace and diffused: some
practices are exerted in particular industries because there is a gradual adjustment of
strategies that converge to particular practices that are considered the most legitimating
or the most efficient (Milstein, Hart & York, 2002). In other words the implementation
and the diffusion of environmental practices is associated to the peculiarities and
characteristics of single industries. This theory is explained by Fineman & Clarke
(1996), when they talk about technical expertise, political aims, attitudes and ecological
degradation/protection that portray each industry. Fineman (1996) says also that
perceptions could be a key to determining how a firm defines its environmental strategy
and action. The perceptions, the interests and the pressures are industry based and
change among different contexts and cultures as Selznick (1957) pointed out: moral
competence must be built into the social structure of the enterprises so it can changes
and adjusts regarding to what is perceived as legitimate in different contexts.
The industry characteristics correspond to what are called institutional templates that
concern organizational forms (Oliver, 1991; Greenwood & Hinnings, 1996). Industry
characteristics influence models and templates creating what neo-institutionalists called
institutional expectations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1987, 1995). The
institutional expectations need to be accomplished using the same or the similar models
to guarantee the organizational survival. Looking at how scholars have adapted the
institutional theory to environmental studies, Hoffman (1997) and Sharma (2000)
demonstrate that companies within a common industry context tend to adopt similar
strategies in response to the institutional forces they experience with. The focus can be
oriented better to the concept of influencing company’s choices through the
interpretation of possible options (Hoffman, 1997) and the relationships between
different environmental issues as opportunities rather than threats (Sharma, 2000).
According to Hoffman & Ocasio (2001), is possible to analyze how different subjects
interact and communicate in the same industry highlighting their attention to a limited
set of issues, situations and activities that are selectively focused by them concerning to
specific arguments that are industry specific or issues specific. This intra-organizational
activity is called the “industry level attention” (Hoffman & Ocasio, 2001) and it is a
62
model that explains how organizations potentially resolve problems looking at the
particular instruments and information available in a specific industry.
From this perspective I can conclude that there are several industry characteristics that
influence the development or implementation of specific tools or systems instead others
because they have been legitimated or recognized as the best alternatives in the
industry. This first analysis is functional to understand which are the most relevant
motivations and consequentially the best systems that can be adopted (and
consequentially examined in the research) in the Hospitality industry.
Table 2 Organizational Theory Perspectives
Motivations
Description
Autors
Isomorphism
Pressures that cause changes
DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983
Politics vs. Economy
Differences between rules and efficiency
Brunsson, 1989
Institutional Templates
Set of rules that must be accomplished in
specific contexts. Each industry have hits
own institutional expectations
Oliver, 1991;
Greenwood &
Hinnings, 1996
Industry adaptation
Companies within a common industry
context tend to adopt similar strategies in
response to the institutional forces they
experience with
Hoffman, 1997;
Sharma, 2000
Focus selective issues
Organizations interact highlighting their
attention to a limited set of issues that are
industry specific
Hoffman &
Ocasio, 2001
Gradual legitimacy
Gradual adjustment and convergence to the
most legitimated or efficient models
Milstein, Hart &
York, 2002;
Fineman &
Clarke, 1996
Rationalization
Complain rational myths to get social
legitimacy
Boiral, 2007
Interests alignment
Organizational decisions must be aligned to
stakeholders interests
Darnal et al, 2009
63
4.6.2 Tourism and Environmental Management perspective
As mentioned by Boiral (2007) there are several “ceremonial behaviors” that justify the
adoption of specific practices because of specific organizational legitimating
procedures inside industries. The dissemination and adoption of particular practices is
an intra-organizational process that is explained by the recognition of stakeholder and
organizational interests. This process takes time and the legitimacy is the outcome of a
temporal activity that, during which interests are interpreted and participated by
different actors. In this section I will review the current situation in environmental
management of tourism and hospitality industry, by looking at the most important
papers written in the last ten years on this topic. Since the early 1990s, tourism
organizations started to talk about sustainability and environmental commitment into
their industry. The principal activities were based on a self-regulation activity as for
example codes of conducts and best practices that were compared to the Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs), eco-labels and environmental indicators (Ayuso, 2006).
The activity of the European Commission and international organizations (International
Hotels Environmental Initiatives, IHEI) gave some general guidelines to develop a
common sense to manage and discuss about Corporate Environmental Management in
the hospitality industry. The most relevant problem in the development of a common
language and a common set of instruments in the industry, derived from the adaptive
disclosures to the most used international systems as EMAS and ISO that were suitable
for large organizations (Font, 2002). Moreover, traditionally, this industry has a high
level of independent ownership that fragment the possibility to convoy information and
interests in general public activities (Tzschentke, Kirk & Linch, 2004). The
consequence has been that hotels preferred to work with their own systems and today
we have too many ecolabels, with different meanings and criteria that extend the
general confusion about the misalignment of interests and messages (Font, 2002).
On the other hand international labels’ associations try to entry local market through
alliances and this kind of activities influences the communication processes and the
development of specific interactions between organizations and stakeholders.
According to the theory, organizations should design their corporate strategies taking
into account the preferences of multiple stakeholders (Ayuso, 2006); the specific
problem in the hospitality industry is that the general confusion about how to develop
64
and implement Corporate Environmental Management is diffused also among different
group of stakeholders. This is the importance of collaboration and development of a
common sense and shared interests to find the best solution looking at the peculiarities
of the industry and the characteristics of all the subjects involved. Anyway is possible
to obtain a list of elements that explains the reasons and motivations to implement
environmental management practices. The most general reason is the facilitation of
relationships among different subjects (organizations and stakeholders) that are
interested in the development of sustainable activities and policies (Chan, 2006).
The facilitation derives from the possibility to exploit environmental issues to develop
consciousness and commitment in the dialogue activity (Pedersen, 2006).
The beginning of a dialogue is the most effective way to search consensus. Another
important element that favorites the motivations on Corporate Environmental
Management is given by the analysis of four principal drivers that are affected
(positively and negatively) by the outcomes and decision about environment activities.
Those four categories have been described by Bansal & Howard (1997) as the four
drivers that face with EMS adoption: Market, Social, Financial and Regulatory drivers.
These four drivers have effects on both the internal and external dimensions of
organizations because managers can take decisions that have effects on different
subjects or elements of the organizations. From the combination of the four drivers
come out a set of other specific motivation that facilitate the implementation or
development of Corporate Environmental Management practices as: cost reduction and
savings activities (Maxwell et al., 1997); the reduction and efficiency of inputs as
materials or energy (Hanna et al., 2000); reduction or improvement of operational
process (Maxwell et al., 1997; Darnall et al., 2000); improvement of internal motivation
of employers (Hanna et al., 2000) and external motivation as communication,
reputation and image (Morsing & Schults, 2006).
This categorization has been dealt in studies that underline the perception of
performance that derive from the experience with environmental registration or
environmental activities in general (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Pedersen, 2007). Pedersen
analyzed the perception of organizations that implemented an environmental
management system in terms of positive gains and benefits that derive from this
adoption. He discovered that for those that have been interviewed, organizational
performance is influenced principally by tree elements: impact on the environment
65
(internally and externally to the organization), the improvement of corporate image and
cost reduction from optimizing resources. Performance can be also influenced by the
commitment of management, the preexistence of environmental culture in the
organizations and from eventual previous experiences on implementation of other form
of management systems. In addition Pedersen summarizes those categories talking
about the benefits that derive from the alignment among rhetorical and practical issues.
On the other hand, Bansal & Roth (2000) talk about the importance, in terms of
performance, to develop new ecobusiness and stress the strategic decision on the
implementation of environmental issues. Forms of ecobusiness can be: new market
opportunities, change and adaptation in the subsidiaries, adjustment in the supply chain.
Another important aspect is the analysis of opportunities in terms of competitive
advantages that come from the opening to international markets that derive from the
capability to reduce barriers that are today currently so prominent in the industry (Chan,
2006). One of the most relevant elements of the hospitality industry is given by the
capability to attract guests coming from national and international markets. There are
different elements that impact on the capability to attract guests. Certainly, the
proximity of particular arguments as sustainability and Corporate Environmental
Management is one of those and, probably, could be one of the most long-term
initiatives that will influence the trends in the industry. Therefore, speaking of longterm initiatives is another important element that characterizes the choice to implement
Corporate Environmental Management practices (Tzschentke, Kirk and Linch, 2004).
The proactivity is an important aspect that must be considered in the development of
Corporate Environmental Management because provides the elements to search future
opportunities, decide on time and reduce the urgency of resolutions. The decisions are
more weaken. The proactivity gives the opportunity to involve more subjects in the
decision making process considering all the alternatives solutions and try to build a
strong consensus and convoy the choices to the best solutions.
Another element is the opportunity that the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management gives in terms of acquisition of information through the
research of best practices and through the involvement of external subjects
(stakeholders, consultants). Openness is always an important chance for the
organizations to monitor their activities through formal and informal modalities of
control. A gradual openness reduces the critical aspects of change and adaptation. Most
66
of the time, organizations need to change their current practices (Tzschentke, Kirk &
Linch, 2004); the problem is that without a general scheme, or set of essential
guidelines, the change can be critical and in some cases inefficient. The last but don’t
least aspect that must been considered in the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management is related to the symbolic aspects, like communication and
public relations among subject, that influence identities, interests and orientations that
change in a cross-organizational dimension (Matten & Moon, 2008). The symbolism
that is intrinsic in the development of particular practices helps organizations to
articulate their interests and find clear opportunity to share interests. The exploitation of
explicit interests is an opportunity to compare different models and behaviors that are
adopted by different groups of interests. One of the most important aspects that must be
considered is the possibility to link processes and outcomes so that misalignments
among interests can be monitored during the progression of them and not only at the
end. The formalization is useful to identify common aspects that can facilitate the
sharing of information and the partition of common and divergent interests.
67
Table 3 Tourism and Environmental Management perspective
Motivations
Description
Authors
Decision Drivers
Market, Social, Financial,
Regulatory.
Bansal & Howard,
1997
Reduction and
Saving activities
Attention to the costs and the
production of inputs and outputs.
Maxwell et al., 1997
Reduction and
efficiency of inputs
Materials, energy, waste.
Hanna et al., 2000
Operational process
Reduction of costs, improvement
of the processes, change and
reengineering.
Maxwell et al., 1997;
Darnall et al., 2000
Eco business
Stress strategic decisions to
develop new markets, new
products and new services ecooriented.
Bansal & Roth, 2000
Proactivity
Openness and long-term decisionmaking.
Tzschentke, Kirk and
Linch, 2004
Facilitation of
relationship
Development of consciousness
and commitment in the dialogue
activity; search consensus.
Chan, 2006;
Motivation
Internal (employers), external
(communication, reputation,
image).
Morsing & Schults,
2006; Hanna et al,
2000.
Perception of
organizational
performance
Alignment among rhetorical and
practical issues.
Pedersen, 2006
Openness to
international
markets
Reduce barriers in a specific
industry looking outside their
boundaries.
Chan, 2006
Symbolism
Influence identities, interest and
orientations
Matten & Moon, 2008
68
4.7 International Environmental Management practices in the
Hospitality Industry
The hospitality industry has started to respond to the needs of the environmental
management in the early ninety’s. The International Hotels Environment Initiative
(IHEI) started in the 1992, when a number of the principal international hotel chains
recognized the importance to start to work together. IHEI started to communicate
among hits partners distributing manuals for managers, a journal and other supports for
hotel companies. IHEI has today evolved into the International Tourism Partnership
(ITP), that is part of the International Business Leaders Forum. The aim of this program
is to assist the industry from a geographical perspective (develop specific program in
different countries and cultures), from an involvement perspective (assess and develop
different interests of their customers, stakeholders and future generations) and from a
practical perspective (provide hotels tools and case histories to develop solutions to
“green” their structures and their operations).
Another important international activity is the creation by the Organization for
Standardization (ISO) of the environmental management standard ISO140002. ISO is
an important standard because can be applied to many different industries and it is
specific implemented into singular facilities. The standard concerns to a variety of
levels in the business, from organizational level, to the product and service level. The
focus of ISO 14000 is not the exact measurement of environmental performance; it
serves to identify organizational needs and goals. The success depends on the
commitment from all levels of the organization: employers, management and
stakeholders. ISO is a complementary standard to national regulatory regimes and is
not intended to replace or duplicate a country' regulatory regime (Quazi, 1999).
The EU has developed a similar initiative in 1995: the EMAS (Eco Management &
Audit Scheme). It is a voluntary scheme aiming to promote continuous evaluation and
2
According to Delmas, formally adopted in 1996 by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), ISO 14000 denotes a new approach to the improvement of environmental management practices.
As of 2002, 49,462 firms in 121 countries had adopted ISO 14000, but the level of adoption still differed
greatly across countries, with 47 percent of the worldwide ISO 14000-certified facilities located in
Western Europe and 36 percent in the Far East. U.S. certified facilities accounted for only 5 percent of
ISO 14000- certified facilities (ISO 2002).
69
improvements in the environmental performance of participating organizations. EMAS
goes beyond EN ISO 14001 in a number of ways, requiring the undertaking of an initial
environmental review, the active involvement of employees in the implementation of
EMAS, and the publication of relevant information to the public and other interested
parties.
The Green Key is an international label developed exclusively for the hospitality
industry. The Green Key has been created in 1994 in Denmark by HORESTA, a
professional federation of hotels. In 2002 the label was adopted as the 5th international
program of the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE). For this historical
reason this program counts an International Steering Committee (ISC) composed by
two delegates of HORESTA and two delegates of the FEE (the political responsible for
the program and an appointed member) plus the international coordinator. The
development of a specific green and international culture is the opportunity that Green
Key wants to use to enlarge its diffusion. As a FEE program, the Green Key has some
common rules for an international coherence. Those rules of procedure have to be
respected in every country; this is the responsibility of the national operators. In each
country a national steering group is responsible for the Green Key campaign. Green
Globe 21 is another environmental management standard, developed specifically for
the travel and tourism industry, but it has not managed to reach the market. There are
also a substantial number of ecolabels, codes of conduct, sustainability reporting
schemes, awards, and benchmarking programs in the tourism industry. Font (2002, as
cited in WTO & UNEP, 2008; 164) identified over 100 ecolabels of tourism, hospitality
and ecotourism worldwide. Environmental management, certification and ecolabelling
can be a useful basis for managing a businesses’ supply chain and developing strategic
partnerships.
From the previous literature (Kirk, 1998; Chan, 2008) it is observable that the first
organizations that introduced ecological operation standards or environmental
management systems were mainly hotels belonging to the big hotel chains3. On the
other hand, when the environmental discussions started to be generalized, because the
original EMAS and ISO systems are only feasible to larger companies, the tourism
3
This is due to the fact that, except the simplest rationalization measures, most activities require a
significant starting investment the return on which is admittedly relatively fast but which cannot be
afforded by the hotels that operate without safe and stable financial and managerial support.
70
industry has usually preferred to work with its own systems (Synergy, 2000) without a
general scheme that can be replied in different contexts. However, there are
increasingly frequent government initiatives aimed at subsidizing hotels in their efforts
to introduce ecological standards into their operation. Even if ecological initiatives can
be introduced in any hotel, it is certainly much easier with financial, organizational and
consultative support that in autonomy. One of the main impediments to the
development of common international initiatives is given also from the high differences
among countries in term of ecological sustainability and the impact that this kind of
limit has on the general commitment of international associations to work on a
standardized model.
71
4.8 Data collection
The qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews with hotel managers and
non-managerial staff. The sample is divided fundamentally into two groups of
organizations: medium-sized and large-sized hotels. I didn’t consider small hotels
because the difficulty in this kind of organizations to find different levels of
management and a formal distribution of roles and mansions. The sample was
constructed from interviews inside seven different hotels (3 large and 4 medium) in the
area of Copenhagen. In each hotel I interviewed the General Manager (in one case the
Vice General Manager) and the Technical or EHS (Environment Health and Safety)
Manager. Moreover I had some interviews, when it was possible, to other members of
the organizations as a National Responsible Business Coordinator, the CEO of a Danish
Chain, Cleaning Responsible and Restaurant Responsible. I gained access to each
organization through a contact or an interview with the General Manager. The second
interviews have been done using formal snowball and opportunistic sampling method
(Maitlis, 2005). The snowball sampling technique serves to identify other interviewers,
as for example people suggested by the General Manager or by other interviewers that
can have relevant information or because are in charge of this kind of activities.
In total I conducted 18 formal interviews4 and in some cases, the most significant, I
achieved other interviews to understand deeply some specific aspects that was not
much clear in the first round of interviews. All of the 18 subjects have been contacted
at least two times. The first interviews have been conducted for the most of them by
face-to-face approach. In two cases the interviews has been done by telephone. The
second round of interviews has been conducted by telephone. In some cases I also used
email to communicate whit the interviewers before and after the formal interviews to
get in contact and to establish together what to talk about. I used a standard letter to
contact all the interviewers in which I explained the scope of the interviews giving
them also some general information about Corporate Environmental Management,
4
Much consideration has been given to the question of sample size and number of interviews. In a
quantitative study, the aim is normally to test a hypothesis on a sample, which is large enough to permit
use of appropriate statistical techniques, and can be considered representative of the population to which
it is intended to generalize the results. In a qualitative study where there is no intention to generalize
results to a particular population, data collection and analysis generally continue until the same themes
and issues recur continually, when data saturation is said to have been reached (Gibbs, 2002; Strauss and
Corbin, 1998), or the researcher feels confident that their description fits the phenomenon and “resonates
with our sense of lived life” (van Manen, 1990, p.27).
72
sensemaking and stakeholder theory. On average, after the first email and presentation
letter, I needed other 3 emails to fix an appointment and prepare the interviews
principally for two reasons: Some of them want to receive more information on the
project, how I will use the data, the anonymity condition of the interviews; others have
to ask formal authorization to the head quarter or to the CEO.
Table 4 Interviews
Hotel
Dimension
EMS
Years
Interviews
Interview
A
Mid
Green Key CO2
Neutral Program
5
General Manager
CEO (Chain)
Face to face
Face to face
B
Mid
Green Key
CO2 Neutral
Program
5
General Manager
EHS Manager
(Chain)
Face to face
Face to face
C
Mid
Green Key
3
Face to face
Face to face
D
Big
Nordic Swan
3
General Manager
EHS Manager
(Chain)
General Manager
EHS Manager
(Country Manager)
E
Big
Nordic Swan
10
General Manager
Technical Manager
Cleaner Manager
Telephone
Face to face
Face to face
F
Mid
Green Key
2
Vice General
Manager
Technical Manager
Chef
Bar Manager
Telephone
Face to face
Telephone
Face to face
Face to face
Face to face
G
Big
Green Key
CO2 Neutral
Building
2
Technical Manager
Face to face
H
Mid
Green Key
2
Hotel Manager
Telephone
I
Green Key
Association
Marketing and
Communication
Manager
Face to face
In addition to the formal interviews, I achieved a fair number of informal interviews
especially with people that are not officially involved in the environmental issues inside
the hotels, as for example the concierges, marketing and customer relation accounts. I
didn’t record and officially consider these interviews because not part of the formal
meeting scheduled but aligned to the general purpose of the research. These data are
73
also interesting because gave me a general overview of how particular argument, as for
the case of environmental issues, are considered into the organizations trough different
levels.
I considered in the case study protocol interviews only with subjects that are in charge
of mid and high level of managerial roles because I was interested in the mechanisms
that link and enact managerial sensemaking processes and stakeholders’ analysis of
their roles. The relationships between organizations and stakeholders are most of them
based on interactions between managers and responsible.
Using managers as units of analysis, the perspective on stakeholders change in an
interesting manner. According to Carrol and Nasi (1997), organizations are functional
instruments that allow the participation of multiple subjects with different interests. The
classical framework (as the Mitchel et. al one) must be extended looking also at the
relations among different interests’ groups: there are not general organizational
interests but single group of stakeholders that try to achieve their own goals and results.
Organizational interests must be considered as a result of managing stakeholder balance
among different group of interests. Starting from this framework I can consider as a
group of interesting stakeholders also the employees, who, in regard to the managers,
are considered one of the primary stakeholder for the organizations (Carrol, 1993).
From this perspective the relations and the number of groups increase especially in the
internal side (named by Nasi internal coalition) of the organizations. Strong relations
and interesting interactions can be observed among managers and owners, head quarter
and in the case of hotels also with clients. Clients must be considered as internal to the
coalition of interests because they can carry out an active role in the development of
sustainable activities inside the hotels.
In order to understand the stakeholders’ roles in the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management practices, and to ensure that all stakeholders were
identified (Parent & Deephouse, 2007), I asked to the managers themselves to
categorize their stakeholders, giving motivations of their choices and, only at the end
asking them why didn’t insert some of them into their list (I prepared a list, inspired by
a literature review on stakeholder theory, that I didn’t show during the interviews, with
the most relevant stakeholders that are taken in consideration in the most cited articles).
74
4.9 Data analysis
Starting from the Maitlis work (2005), data analysis comprised three main stages:
1. The creation of narratives that serves to describe how sensemaking process is
associated to the principal issues that arise from the interviews;
2. Identification of stakeholders, their activities, pattern of interests and how these
activities are related to issues; the issues serve to allow managers to take
decisions on how to make sense concretely to Corporate Environmental
Management;
3. Analysis of internal and external coalitions with stakeholders’ interests,
managerial perception of interests and issues that serve to agglomerate patterns of
interests and groups of stakeholders. In the third phase of the data analysis I will
elaborate a set of propositions that can help the future debate on the topic.
4.10 Creating Narratives
First, I developed narratives that described the sensemaking processes associated with a
set of issues that arose in all three organizations during the study. The first data analysis
stage began with listing every organizational issue5 that arose in the seven hotels as an
issue that is relevant in the argumentation of CEM. The objective of Corporate
Environmental Management is to increase the overall effectiveness by which
organizational resources committed to environmental restoration are used. The criteria
to identify an issue are that an issue must be arisen in all the organizations. The issue
must be included in the data of every single interview. Every respondent must consider
an issue as significant. After the identification of the narratives I started to build up a
more general and abstract model based on three categories useful to capture the key
characteristics of the organizational sensemaking processes. The abstraction gives a
theoretical model to interpret sensemaking of Corporate Environmental Management
into three different perspectives.
From a stakeholder management perspective (Pater & van Lierop, 2006) the
identification and selection of issues is the starting point of the organization of
5
I defined an organizational issue as a topic of discussion that involved a question or concern connected
in some way to the organization as a whole, rather than to a small subset of its members (Maitlis).
75
sensemaking. Because the ambiguity of emerging problems as in the case of
environmental management, the companies need to select the issues that they intend to
address. So, in the case of environmental management a sustainable vision needs to be
developed with a set of core competences that serve as a filter to the selection of issues.
Stakeholders do the same process. In fact, both companies and stakeholders use their
competences and their knowledge as a foundation for issue selection. For this reason
the interaction between the parts is fundamental not only in the sensemaking processes
but also in the starting point of issues selection.
Starting from the Clarcke & Chen model (2007), I developed a theoretical
categorization of the sensemaking of Corporate Environmental Management.
Sensemaking of Corporate Environmental Management is based on the effective
integration and adequacy of (1) Regulatory (Social dimension), (2) Technical
(Environmental dimension) and (3) Managerial (Economic dimension) categories.
The issues must be considered in one of the three general categories. This general
categorization helped me to grow and list the specific environmental issues.
76
4.11 Narratives
(1) Energy saving and production measures; (2) Water saving measures; (3) Green
purchasing; (4) Waste minimization practices; (5) Green Marketing; (6) Eco-design;
(7) Green Supply Chain; (8) Eco-risks control; (9) Guests attention; (10) Food &
Beverage; (11) Green Jobs; (12) Traveling.
4.11.1 Energy saving and production measures
According to de Bruijn (in Visser, Matten, Pohl & Tolhurst, 2007) Energy management
is the monitoring, control and optimization of the use of energy. Energy is one of the
major concerns of the environmental performance of companies. The use of energy is
inextricably linked to climate change through the emissions of carbon dioxide. In order
to reduce the effects of climate change those emissions (and by implication the use of
fossil fuels) will have to be cut substantially. The goal of energy management is to
minimize the use of energy and to use renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind
and biomass, as much as possible. Energy management involves using different
technologies and equipment but is also about creating a system of tasks, responsibilities
and procedures through which the focus on energy is ensured throughout the
organization. Through such a system a company can work on the continuous
improvement of its energy efficiency. Hotels are large consumers of energy not only in
building construction but also as establishments with complex installations, because
offer guests high levels of multi-facetted comfort and exclusive services, treatment and
facilities. Many of the services provided to hotel guests are highly resource intensive in
concern with energy, water or raw materials. A significant amount of the energy used is
wasted for image and high standard levels of quality and entertainment in the rooms
and in the other spaces of the hotels. In the last years there are some new technological
installations that offer competitive systems for energy saving.
From an energy perspective, there are substantial differences in energy use between
different types of hotels depending on hotel size, class/category, number of rooms,
customer profile (business/vacation), location (rural/urban), climate zone in addition to
the types of services/activities and amenities offered to guests (Sloan, Legrand & Chen,
2009). A hotel can be seen as the architectural combination of three distinct zones, all
serving
distinctly
different
purposes:
the
guest
room
area
(bedrooms,
77
bathrooms/showers, toilets) individual spaces, often with extensive glazing,
asynchronous utilization and varying energy loads; the public area (reception hall,
lobby, bars, restaurants, meeting rooms, swimming pool, gym, sauna etc.) spaces with a
high rate of heat exchange with the outdoor environment (thermal losses) and high
internal loads (occupants, appliances, equipment, lighting). The service area (kitchens,
offices, store rooms, laundry, staff facilities, machine rooms and other technical areas)
– energy intensive requiring advanced air handling (ventilation, cooling, heating).
There is a general erroneous belief in the hospitality industry that substantial reductions
in energy use can only be achieved by installing advanced, high-maintenance and
expensive technologies. This may be true in some particular contexts and in the case of
new organizations but, in the majority of cases major energy savings can be achieved
by adopting a common sense approach, requiring neither advanced expertise nor
excessive investments through very small and simple activities. The first activity that
every organization develops when starts an energy management program is the
establishment of how much energy is being used and in which way through an energy
audit system. The main energy consuming systems in hotels are: space heating, air
conditioning and ventilation, hot water production and lighting. All of these typologies
are strictly related to the dimension of the hotel and the category. About energy
savings, every consuming system and every single zone of the hotel must be, looked
separately, with different requirements. One of the important requirements that impact
on the distribution of energy inside different eras of the hotel is the comfort and the
quality of it. Because comfort is more important, for example, in the guest room than in
the service, the development of Energy Management is a strategic issue that is strictly
related to the category of the hotels, both in terms of status and both in terms of
structure and technological investments. Because of the high diversity in the hotel
sector, it is not easy to do benchmarking. There are several types of hotels where the
energy use is comparable, but depending on the environmental influences, the
government rulings and the attractiveness for tourists, the energy savings can easily pay
back the investments or not. The installations as they are designed and installed, are not
always used in an optimal way. Adjusting settings and better maintenance already can
save energy. There are several possible measures to save energy for each of these
applications, but the quantitative saving potential depends on external factors (hours of
sunshine, occupancy, subsidies, etc.).
78
4.11.2 Water Saving Measures
A third of the world’s population must contend with severe water shortage and many
western countries are struggling against depleting aquifers and increasing water needs
for which modern lifestyles are partly to blame. The hospitality industry, and tourism in
general, presents a number of challenges for the management of water supplies. The
geographical distribution of hotels impacts strongly on the consumption and use of
water for two reasons: the annual distribution of water (summer/winter or raining/dry
seasons) and the annual distribution of tourists (Sloan, Legrand & Chen, 2009). The
two distributions of inputs and outputs in some cases don’t match with consequential
problems on the supply of water. Water conservation is perhaps not the first issue that
crosses a hospitality manager’s mind when making out the management agenda. Issues
such as revenue management, marketing and personnel are prioritized. However, from
the perspective of the guest, the use of water is an integral part of his or her experience.
Water restrictions would result in unhappy guest stays and so maintaining adequate
water comfort must be central to all water management strategies. Purchasing water
and the disposal of dirty water are becoming increasingly expensive activities. Any
water use reduction program must have the full support of the staff.
Water consumption in hotels takes place in guest-rooms (guest showers, sinks and
toilets), kitchen operations, laundry and public areas as swimming pool, gardens or
other external areas with flowers trees and plants. As with energy, the approach toward
decreasing water consumption is to regularly train staff on how they can contribute
with simple measures toward decreased water consumption hygiene and cleanliness.
The attention of all staff needs to be focused on water consumption, repairing small
leaks that produce immediate gains, hundreds of liters of water can be lost each week in
a toilet cistem that is not functioning properly. In addition to staff awareness and
correct training, water metering is another activity that some hotels are implementing to
monitor how much water is being used on every single floor or clustered area of the
hotels.
79
4.11.3 Green Purchasing
Green Purchasing, called also Green Procurement is the “affirmative selection and
acquisition of products and services that most effectively minimize negative
environmental impacts over their life cycle of manufacturing, transportation, use and
recycling or disposal” (UE, 2004; Wiens, 2008; Office of Research Facilities 2010).
Green purchasing is about integrating environmental considerations into purchasing
decisions. Because the complexity of the purchasing, is not easy to establish general
rules on it, but is possible to retrieve a list of categories that are included in the Green
Purchasing: Suppliers, IT, Buildings and maintenance, Transportation, Food, Energy,
Manufacturing and Waste Management. One of the most important aspects of green
purchasing is the administration of common products in an organization that are
associated with repetitive contracts for common material. In the last years, the
mediation of contracts considers not only the economic aspects but also green issues.
The economic evaluation has to consider also technical aspects related to the
environmental sustainability of the products and the direct and indirect effects of them.
The negotiating process becomes one of the most important aspects of the purchasing,
especially when an organization plans the general milestones for the acquiring process,
it must consider also green milestones. Green milestones need specific information.
This type of information is fundamental for the sensemaking processes. The acquiring
processes today must consider issues as energy efficiency and waste prevention. The
logics that now are implemented in the green purchasing are not only based on costs
reduction, rather because the consideration of green issues is more important in some
cases the costs can also increase. Recycling is part of the implementation of green
purchasing; this means that an efficient chain can also reduce costs or prices. Analyzing
the green purchasing I can say that the technical evaluation is becoming more
strategically than the economic evaluation. This is true also for the investments in new
technologies and the development of new products based on hi-tech common green
materials.
80
4.11.4 Waste minimization practices
The hospitality industry can become an important actor in the minimization of waste
that is currently hauled off and disposed of at landfill sites. The industry can be active
in the creation of recycling centers and pro- grams, using environmentally friendly
cleaning supplies and techniques and sourcing locally produced goods and services that
reduce transportation expenses. As in other businesses, the top priority in the hotel
industry is maintaining high guest satisfaction (Sloan, Legrand & Chen, 2009).
Thus, there is great concern that any environmental improvements or conservation
methods implemented will not negatively affect customer comfort and satisfaction.
Most people are familiar with the traditional definition of waste management, which
basically concentrates on the removal of rubbish from a private dwelling or business
premises. In the hospitality industry, the scope of this definition continues to evolve as
operators begin to embrace the three “R‘s” of Reuse, Recycling and Reduce (Visser,
Matten, Pohl & Tolhurst, 2007). Every kilo of waste equates to inefficiently used
resources; in addition, the disposal of waste has to be paid for usually directly by the
hospitality operation in the form of a tipping fee. In some cases, the establishment has
to pay a haulage fee to have the waste transferred to a municipal landfill site, a transfer
station or a recycling center.
Although there are costs involved in recycling processes, every cardboard box or
plastic bottle recycled saves the amount of energy that would have otherwise been used
to make it from virgin material. Waste disposal is not an efficient or clean business.
Even though standards are improving, waste management facilities are still significant
polluters. Aside from the problem of illegal dumping, badly managed landfill sites are a
source of pollution; non-biodegradable rubbish for future generations; releases the
greenhouse gas methane into our atmosphere and damage the landscape. Incinerated
rubbish can contribute to air pollution if incorrectly handled, likewise recycling and
composting vegetable material can also pollute if badly run. Within the hospitality
industry, from a waste issue’s perspective, food and beverage operations account for a
substantial amount of waste.
81
This waste can be defined as: Pre and post-consumer food waste, packaging and
operating supplies. Pre-consumer waste is defined as being all the trimmings, spoiled
food and other products from kitchens that end up in the garbage before the finished
menu item makes it to the consumer. Post-consumer waste, naturally, is any rubbish left
once the customer has consumed the meal. Packaging waste, especially in the form of
plastic that cannot biodegrade naturally, as anything used to hold food coming into the
kitchen and going out. Operating supplies encompass every other piece of material used
that becomes wasted in a foodservice operation, such as cooking oil and light bulbs
(Sloan, Legrand & Chen, 2009).
Waste is classified as biodegradable (vegetal and animal matter) and non-biodegradable
(inorganic matter: plastics, glass, metal). In addition, hotels produce so called
biological wastes (human sewage) and ashes if an incinerator is used in the
establishment. Hazardous wastes that are normally associated with heavy industry and
also with manufacturing industries are also present in hotels and restaurants. They
include the solvents used in paint and floor finishes, the chemicals used in some
cleaning products and batteries that contain heavy metals such as mercury. Every effort
must be made to either avoid using such products or, if they are indispensable, they
should be dispose of correctly.
About waste reduction tactics, the management should work with suppliers to procure
products that promote waste prevention. Some suppliers may be able to change
products and packaging to reduce the waste the hotel manages. For example, ask food
service vendors if they can deliver items in reusable shipping containers. Consider
buying or leasing used or remanufactured furniture, fixtures and equipment. Typical
remanufacturing operations performed by suppliers are replacement of worn parts,
refinishing of metal or wooden surfaces, repairing of scratches, dents and holes, and
reupholstering of cushions. Extending the life of furniture, fixtures and equipment
through remanufacturing reduces the rate at which they are discarded. Purchasing in
bulk, using recycled products and buying from suppliers that have a proper
environmental policy in place, are all measures that help to reduce the amount of waste
generated. Moreover, buying products with a longer lifetime will also lead to decreased
waste (Visser, Matten, Pohl & Tolhurst, 2007).
82
Creating less waste or eliminating waste before it is created means creating less
pollution and saving natural resources. This can be done by working together with
suppliers and encouraging them to reduce their packaging, reuse packaging or change
to reusable packaging where possible. Purchasing some items in bulk may be another
option for reduction, cleaning materials, for example, can be purchased in concentrated
form and mixed in the hotel. Many hotels now supply guests with liquid soaps and
shampoos in refillable ceramic containers in the bathrooms. Outsourcing can
sometimes help hotels to reduce waste and cut costs. Services such as dry cleaning that
requires an important capital expenditure and that if badly managed produce hazardous
waste should be considered carefully. Alternatives, such as using a local company
could be more cost effective and result in less pollution.
83
4.11.5 Eco Design
The hospitality industry constitutes one of the most energy and resource intensive
branches of the tourist industry. Energy efficiency in facilities designed for hospitality
is frequently low and the resulting environmental impacts typically greater than those
caused by other types of buildings of a similar size. The negative effects on the
environment during the construction phase are caused by the excessive consumption of
non-renewable resources e.g. water, electricity and fuel, as well as by emissions into
the air, groundwater and soil. Many hospitality travelers demand more from hospitality
facilities (Sloan, Legrand and Chen, 2009). They expect a high level of comfort and
service in accommodation and food and beverage operations, they also desire
experiences that cater to their needs and wants. In addition, the modern guest wishes to
feel that his or her actions are environmentally responsible, they wish for an earthconsciousness experience that will ensure their hospitality stay caters both to them and
the world in which they live. The concepts of service and ecology once appeared to be
polar opposites in the hospitality industry. The traditional idea shared by both the
consumer and the property was that, in introducing more sustainable and
environmentally friendly alternatives, the property would sacrifice ambience, comfort
and the guest’s enjoyable experience. Thanks to technological advancements and
greater environmental knowledge, this is no longer so. In the majority of cases, major
energy saving can be achieved by adopting a common sense approach requiring neither
advanced expertise nor excessive investments. This is particularly true when the
concepts of energy efficiency and resource conservation are accounted for already
when planning and designing a hotel facility (Sloan, Legrand and Chen, 2009). In
recent years, this process has become known as eco-design, green design or sustainable
design. This is a new way to concept and thinks for sustainable tourism. The eco design
produce effects also on the development of environmental strategies into new hotels, as
I founded in one specific hotel based on new technologies and in a new and eco
designed building. In the case of a new building the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management starts earlier: it starts in the construction project through
the choice of particular materials and in the capability to invest in non-energy retailed
resources or recycled materials. This is particularly interesting if considering that in all
western nations, the construction industry is the main consumer of non-renewable
resources (Sloan, Legrand and Chen, 2009). Finally, the environmental impact of
84
construction is also felt in terms of pollution. This is not in the extraction but in the
processing of materials for construction. And again, not surprisingly, the construction
industry has the biggest effect of all sectors because of the quantity of materials used in
construction (Sloan, Legrand and Chen, 2009). In the past, there was a simple general
equation between the amount of pollution and the amount of energy in a process. On
the whole the more energy required, and the more processes, the more waste and the
more pollution was generated. Talking about eco design and sustainability, the goal is
to find architectural solutions that guarantee the wellbeing and coexistence of society,
the environment and profitability (Sloan, Legrand and Chen, 2009). Not only does
sustainable architectural design attempt to reduce negative effects on humans and on
the environment but it also attempts to create greater resource efficiency than found in
conventionally constructed buildings. Efficiency means that these buildings save costs
in terms of energy, and water, while providing at least the same ambient quality (James
& Yang, 2004). Sustainable architecture can be divided into three main parts.
The first being sustainable planning. This means that before construction the planners
and architects must consider all environmental and social impacts. Social impacts can
be health, safety, comfort, productivity or quality of life. The second is considering
waste reduction. Building new structures is a high waste production activity. There are
two ways to reduce waste, a direct and an indirect way: The direct way is based on the
ability to reduce building materials discards. The indirect way is to use recycled
materials during the building processes. The third part concerns the relation between
building and the principles of eco and sustainable urbanism. In other words the eco
efficiency depends also from the interaction of buildings with the surroundings
environment (Benninger, 2001).
85
4.11.6 Green Supply Chain
The analysis of how organizations try to manage their supply chain and try to transform
it into a green one is an efficient way to understand the concept of a firm’s
environmental fitness (Sroufe, 2003). The development of a green supply chain is an
important starting point into my work because give me many information to understand
how managers interact with an important part of their stakeholder (the supplier’s
network) and how they make sense of their different interests. Sensemaking approach is
useful in the analysis of the supply chain because through this framework I can
concretely understand how managers make decisions involving supply chain
management or not. The basis for this model is a collection of information from Hahn
et al. (1990), Rajagopal and Bernard (1993) and Peterson (1996). The efficiency of
corporate and environmental goals in the supply chain can be measured using
performance measures for issues such as quality improvement, cost reduction and waste
reduction (Peterson 1996). Environmental decision-support systems (Frysinger 2001)
or environmental management systems (EMSs) are elements in the process of
evaluating and assessing supply-base data.
The management of a supply chain works as a collector of information and data useful
to better lead with external market place and competition but also from existing
suppliers and any new suppliers being considered, resulting in a supplier assessment
program (Peterson 1996). This evaluation typically will involve the measurement of
efficiency, quality, cost reduction and on-time delivery and will include specific
measurements regarding the environmental practices of the supplier, such as ISO
certification (e.g. within the ISO 14000 series), involvement in pollution-prevention
and waste-reduction program, hazardous waste management, and the meeting of
environmental performance measures. These kinds of information are fundamental to
make the supplier-selection decision. If a supplier does not perform well on the
assessment but is still included in the supply base, the option to implement a supplier
development program can be used.
86
Figure 9 adapted from Sroufe, 2003.
G-$3-$%#&!H!*+,($-+.&+#%/!I=E&)#(,&4
G-.3&#(#(-+!
J%$>&#!K/%)&!
L&9!"033/(&$!
"&/&)#(-+
*M(4#(+'!
"033/(&$4
@+:-$.%#(-+N!G-$3-$%#&!H!*+,($-+.&+#%/N!
G-//&)#(-+!
!
"&/&)#(-+
*,%/0%#(-+
+$,,-"&%'.//&//0&12'
+$,,-"&%'3&4&-5,0&126'
x! @.3%)#!O44&44.&+#!
x! @.3$-,&.&+#!
x! I$'%+(7&!#-!@.3/&.&+#!
x! G-+4&+404!
x! @.3/&.&+#!
@+:-$.%#(-+
748-$82"51'
+$/28"1'950,&2"2"4&'
:5/2$%&
!"#$%&'()*)'B$%.&9-$>!:-$!4&/&)#(+'!%+8!8&,&/-3(+'!%+!&+,($-+.&+#%/!4033/(&$!
This framework reflects the sensemaking phases (Enactment, Selection and Retention)
on how managers use information to interact with suppliers. From different point of
view is possible to agglomerate data developed from different studies and try to overlap
the information to explain different constructs. The management of the Supply Chain is
today one of the most crucial aspects where is possible to judge the level and the
quality of a Corporate Environmental Management strategy.
Because Supply Chain Management is the integration of key business processes across
the supply chain for the purpose of creating value for customers and stakeholders
(Lambert, 2008), a good implementation of a green supply chain depends by the level
of awareness and the commitment of all the subjects that take part of it. On the other
hand, the efficacy depends on the managerial ability to convoy and administrate
different interests.
87
4.11.7 Green Marketing
According to the American Marketing Association, green marketing is the marketing of
products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. Thus green marketing
incorporates a broad range of activities, including product modification, changes to the
production process, packaging changes, as well as modifying advertising. Yet defining
green marketing is not a simple task. Indeed the terminology used in this area has
varied, it includes: Green Marketing, Environmental Marketing and Ecological
Marketing. While green marketing came into prominence in the late 1980s and early
1990s, it was first discussed much earlier. The American Marketing Association
(AMA) held the first workshop on "Ecological Marketing" in 1975. The proceedings of
this workshop resulted in one of the first books on green marketing entitled "Ecological
Marketing" (Henion and Kinnear 1976). The AMA workshop attempted to bring
together academics, practitioners, and public policy makers to examine marketing's
impact on the natural environment. At this workshop ecological marketing was defined
as: The study of the positive and negative aspects of marketing activities on pollution,
energy depletion and non-energy resource depletion. (Henion and Kinnear 1976).
This definition has three key components, (1) it is a subset of the overall marketing
activity; (2) it examines both the positive and negative activities; and (3) a narrow
range of environmental issues are examined. While this definition is a useful starting
point, to be comprehensive green marketing needs to be more broadly defined and the
problem is that there is not an universally accepted definition on it. According to
Polonsky the definition is: “Green or Environmental Marketing consists of all activities
designed to generate and facilitate any exchanges intended to satisfy human needs or
wants, such that the satisfaction of these needs and wants occurs, with minimal
detrimental impact on the natural environment”. (Polonsky 1994b).
This definition contains some important elements that derive from marketing studies
and theories (Stanton and Futrell, 1987) when Polonsky talks about human needs. On
the other hand, the integration in the definition of the impact on the natural
environment enlarges the concept of human needs, including in it the concept of
alternative and complementary elements that is important to consider in the research of
satisfaction to these needs.
88
Thus green marketing should look at minimizing environmental harm, not necessarily
eliminating it. The strength of Green Marketing is that the information that must be
developed are, in a certain way, controlled and verified through the new CEM
instruments available by the organizations. The level of the transparency is higher and
as a consequence the marketing strategies are more clear and reliable. This new
approach represents a great opportunity for all those organizations that try to develop
and implement CEM to communicate and demonstrate their efforts. The green
marketing is different from simple communication because it is an instrument that at
the end can measure and control the effects of the organizational green behaviors
looking at the sales and at the number of goods or services sold.
Because the term green is a sort of umbrella that goes beyond his simple and original
meaning, also the original concept of organization must be a little revisited, including
in the functions interested the concept and the instrument that help to understand how
to use green issues. The green marketing can be a good tool to connect corporate
programs and feedback from customers and clients.
The development of a common and unique terminology is an important aspect that
helps the organizations to make sense of their activities.
89
4.11.8 Ecological Risk
Ecological risk (eco-risk) is a specific model of risk management used to prioritize and
monitor environmental practices that can control the probability and impact of
unfortunate events that can produce environmental damages.
Risk control serves to establish (1) if a risk exists to the environment and (2) the level
of the risk. Methods, definitions and goals vary in regard to the level of engagement
and commitment of the stakeholders. The risks are targeted after the identification of
opportunities and threats that derives from specific practices.
Eco-risk is an important instrument that concretely helps the sensemaking process
because gives the opportunity to calculate the probability, the vulnerability and
alternative consequences of decision-making. One of the most crucial principles of risk
management is that decisions about how to manage and monitor specific activities
derive from the best available information.
The effectiveness results from the ability to achieve the most useful and the latest
information available. The usage of eco-risk management implies that organizations try
to develop connections to facilitate the exchange of information.
Eco-risk is divided in three main branches: health, ecological and population
assessments. To each of this branches correspond a series of interests that can be
combined with opportunities and threats that are linked to the outcomes.
90
4.11.9 Guest’s green attention
The role of the guests is fundamental to understand the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management in the Hospitality Industry. The possibility to involve the
guests in some aspects of environmental management is one of the principal
motivations that I considered in the choice of the industry.
As said before, there are several motivations that justify the fact that there are some
specific industry characteristics that give different results in terms of adaptation to
environmental practices. The consideration of the clients is one of these because clients
can be actively involved in specific green activities as the sense of community, the
development of common sense and responsible consumerism.
Organizations and hotel in particular are entered in a very important business paradigm:
modify the behaviors about consumption. Sustainable consumption needs a strong
engagement of consumers and clients: they are not only passive consumers but they can
provide to the sustainability of the hotels with their activity. Activism is fundamental to
develop sustainable practices.
From a managerial perspective, activism can be developed only if organizations start to
inform and change perceptions in their clients about their possible environmental and
sustainable behaviors. Communication is the crucial tool that helps the development of
new way to perceive environmental issues. Sensemaking is therefore the principal way
to influence the construction of social reality.
91
4.11.10 Food & Beverage
Food & beverage are important arguments that imply many aspects that must be
considered when talk about green activities and sustainability. The importance of this
specific argument is given by the complexity of different areas and activities that must
be considered internally and externally to the organizations. From an internal
perspective, the preparation, conservation, transportation, refrigeration and sanitation of
food and beverage. All these activities can be changed or modified considering new
processes that can reduce energy consumption, waste minimization, and new forms of
logistics network. From a human perspective must be considered the necessity to train
and improve information flows with the employees (in terms of technical knowledge
and cultural attitudes) rethinking to the organizational mission and demonstrate the
concreteness of organizational values.
From an external perspective the elements that must be considered in the adoption of a
sustainable food & beverages policy are the choice of biological or local food, the
storage and the transportation. These elements are important in the development or
maintenance of relationships with specific groups of stakeholders as suppliers,
government and NGOs.
Another element that is part of the external perspective of the food & beverage issue is
the organization and management of specific communication campaigns customized for
groups of stakeholders, as for example customers and media, and realize marketing
advantages through a benchmark with competitors.
92
4.11.11 Green Jobs
Talking about green jobs implies the necessity to align job positions to the requirement
of organizations that act sustainable. The alignment of job positions is based on the
change of routines, culture, behavior and technical knowledge. The development of
green jobs means, first of all, the increase of employers’ behaviors and the research of
internal best practices and pest performer.
The development of a green culture is the core activity that helps organizations to
facilitate the empowerment and the general will to participate to the development of
green practices.
The commitment of the employers depends also on the managerial capability to create
and diffuse the right principles and culture in the organization and transmit the
concreteness of new green values.
Training activities are strategic elements that serve to control and orientate the attitudes
of the employers. It gives also the possibility to transform general and vague arguments
into practices and concrete actions that give the opportunities to talk and discuss about
relevant problems.
93
4.11.12 Traveling
The concept of traveling is an important element that is not primary related to the hotels
and other accommodations but it is part of the concept of tourism in general. In other
words, when we consider the hospitality industry we need to think also at the travel
industry that is an important element that characterizes the development of the
hospitality industry. Without services for travel tourism loses a great part of its
business. Mostly, the concept of tourism is linked with the idea of foreigners (in and
out foreigners) that need to move.
So, considering direct and indirect effects of tourism industry (hospitality and traveling
services together) from a global point of view, the pollution that derives from the
transportations must be considered as an indirect effect in the development of tourism
and hospitality industry.
From an international perspective, there are several considerations that can be achieved
to limit this kind of pollution as a general element of discussion. Inside the hospitality
industry there has been some cases of companies (hotels chains) that have tried to
handle this argument, considering alternative way of pollution compensation. This is
the case of the Co-2 Neutral Hotels program in Denmark. The idea of this program is to
create and sell carbon quota that balance the emissions of Co-2 in terms of energy
production, transportation and general pollution.
Buying a number of carbon quota every single hotel can balance not only the Co-2 that
derives from the energy necessity of the company, but can also work to compensate the
emissions produced by clients to travel from a country to another and produce global
compensating effects.
94
4.12 Stakeholders identification
The first part of the second stage has been organized to identify the key stakeholders in
the process of making sense of Corporate Environmental Management practices —
actors who affected or were affected by one of the seven studied organizations
(Freeman, 1995) — and investigating their involvement to organizational sensemaking
in each issue. The process that allows me to identify the key stakeholder is based on the
analysis of the interviews and the ways in which interviewers (managers) talked about
their stakeholders, “underlying circumstances and the rhythm of those interactions over
time” (Maitlis, 2005: 28). For a more detailed analysis I based my identification process
on the literature on stakeholder theory, searching for some elements that helps me in the
identification of prior stakeholders comparing how scholars identify the most relevant
characteristics that suggest a specific categorization of them.
Starting from a literature review, I based the identification of the most relevant
stakeholders on three branch of research: (1) general research on stakeholder theory,
(2) research on environmental-green stakeholders and (3) industry specific
stakeholder research (tourism and hospitality).
Starting from general stakeholder theory, the identification of the most relevant
stakeholders can be done looking at the classification of potential interests and conflicts
that anime the relationship among the parts (Frooman, 1999), or if a stakeholder has a
legitimate interest in aspects of the organization’s objective (Donaldson & Preston,
1995). I based the identification of interests and conflicts trough the analysis of the
principal issues that concerns Corporate Environmental Management (creation of
narratives) and asking to the interviewers which are the stakeholders that take part of
decision-making activities or are informed about every single issue, trough direct and
indirect strategies of involvement (Rowley, 1997). In addition, considering the
involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making processes is an important element
to understand the notion of stakeholder legitimacy, that is sensitive to the dynamic
nature of stakeholders’ relations (Philips, 2003). In other words, the nature of the
relations among companies and their stakeholders depends from the level of obligation
that companies feel as important or not. The involvement of stakeholders in the
decision-making processes depends also from the moral and social needs that force
companies or not to involve their stakeholders. The level of obligation is not
95
unidirectional but has a reciprocal nature (Rowley, 1997) and is not based on the power
of stakeholders (Mitchel et al., 1997), but also on the nature and the maturity of the
relations. As explained by Pater & van Lierop (2006), the higher a particular
stakeholder scores on particular criteria and issues, the more salient this stakeholder is
to the firm, and I would like to append the higher is the level of relationship with the
company. Another important element that characterizes the identification of the most
salient stakeholders, as explained in the first chapter of my thesis is based on the
identification of internal, external and non-coalition stakeholders (Nasi, 1995). The
interdependency of a company and its stakeholder depends from the level of interests
shared - in terms of inputs and compensation – as explained by Ahlstedt & Jahnukainen
(1971).
From a green-stakeholder perspective, the identification of the most relevant
stakeholders is based on the analysis of the relationship between particular practices that
can influence the decision-making processes of the companies and the level of
ecological dependence that these practices have on specific industries (Sharma &
Henriques, 2004). This idea is an evolution of resource interdependence theory (Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978) with the inclusion of a inter-organizational and industry perspective.
In other terms, the identification of practices and issues that can affect the relationships
between companies and stakeholders depends on the level of attention that every single
issue or practice has in specific industries. According to this analysis, the variety of
economical, social and technical elements that characterizes every industry impacts
strongly on the development of relationships between stakeholders and companies.
Another contribution to this kind of literature has been done by Danrall, Seol & Sarkis
(2009), through the study of the use of ecological audit tools as instruments that
assurance the communication and transparency of environmental practices to the
stakeholders. Also in this case the use of different audit tools and practices depends
from the commitment to environmental issues from internal and external pressures.
Starting from this consideration, the last branch of research that looks at the
identification of the most relevant stakeholders is an industry specific analysis that
looks at how companies can manage stakeholders considering the peculiarities (in terms
of economic, social and technical reasons) in the hospitality industry. For this reason
Sautter & Leisen (1999) talk about the necessity to identify a priori a strategic
orientation of interests that are specific for tourism. They talk about tourism planners as
96
a series of issues and interests that try to convoy different sets of relationships that can
justify specific decision in the hospitality and tourist industry. ”The identification of key
issues for the industry is a set of tools that promote and guide the collaboration among
the key players in the planning process” (Sautter & Leisen, 1999: 325).
Therefore, the stakeholder participation depends on the complexity of environmental
issues; because environmental issues are typically complex, the stakeholder
participation is related to the complexity and the interests that depend from
environmental decisions (Reed, 2008).
Table 5 Stakeholders Identification theories
Branch of theory
Attributes
Autors
General stakeholder Theory
Input and compensation of interests
Ahlstedt & Jahnukainen,
1971
Legitimate interest in aspects of the
organization’s objective
Donaldson & Preston,
1995
Internal, external and non-coalition
stakeholders
Direct and indirect strategies of
involvement
Nasi, 1995
Stakeholders’ Power
Classification of potential interests
and conflicts
Stakeholder legitimacy
Scoring Issues
Mitchel et al., 1997
Frooman ,1999
Ecological dependence of
environmental practices to industry
characteristics
Sharma & Henriques, 2004
Environmental audit tools as
predictors of transparency
Danrall, Seol & Sarkis,
2009
Strategic orientation interests and
identification of industry’s key issues
Sautter & Leisen, 1999
Environmental issues complexity
Reed, 2008
Green Stakeholders
Industry related stakeholders
Rowley, 1997
Philips, 2003
Pater & van Lierop, 2006
At the end of the analysis I developed a list of stakeholders that cover all the possible
issues identified in the first stage asking to the respondents to identify interests and
arguments that can justify the specific relationship between the organizations and the
stakeholders. The result is a list of Stakeholders that directly and indirectly have taken
part in the sensemaking activities of environmental issues developed in the first part of
the data analysis named narratives. The identification of the stakeholders has been done
after the transcription of the interviews, matching the presence of a specific stakeholder
97
in all the interviews. The presence of a stakeholder in all the interviews is an element
that characterizes the identification. From a methodological point of view, during the
interviews I never suggested to the interviewees a specific category of stakeholders. The
interviewees explained me why they considered every single category of stakeholder
important in the making sense of environmental issues, explaining which interest tie the
company with the stakeholders in the understanding of environmental issues. The
processes that serve to make sense of environmental issues are fundamental to the
decision-making activities that prioritize the development of specific practices in term
of implementation of Corporate Environmental Management.
Table 6 Stakeholders categories
Stakeholders
Interests and specific relationships
Owners, Shareholders
Profit, Performance, Reputation, Truthful Reporting
Government
Taxation, Legislation,
Low
unemployment,
Truthful
Reporting,
Environmental Policies, Sustainability Policies, International Benchmarking
Unions - NGOs
Working conditions, Minimum wage, Legal requirements, compliance,
International Reputation
Clients
Value, Quality, Customer Care, Ethical products, Environmental strategies’
fulfillment
Suppliers
Providers of products and services used in the end product for the Customer,
efficiency in the supply chain
Community
Jobs, Involvement, Environmental Protection, Shares, Communication
Non managerial Staff
Job security, Compensation, Respect, Communication,
Other Hotels and
competitors
Best practices, Compliance, supply chain efficiency
Media
Reputation, Compliance, Environmental Policies
98
4.13 Make sense of stakeholder interests and activities: focusing on
issues
Considering that companies “do not simply respond to each stakeholder individually but
they respond to multiple stakeholders simultaneously, as a result of the interaction
between multiple influences from the entire stakeholder set” (Rowley, 1997: 890), the
classical definition of stakes given by Freeman (1984) is not sufficient because we have
to change the focus of attention, from the achievement of firm’s objectives to the
approach of issues that emerge from the interactions among companies and their
relative network of stakeholders (Roloff, 2008).
For this reason the alternative definition of stakeholders given by Roloff is an important
element to consider issues focused activities. For Julia Roloff “ in the context of multistakeholder networks a stakeholder is any group of individual who can affect or is
affected by the approach to the issue addressed by the network” (2008:238). This
definition is important in the development of my analysis because I can use it to explain
the importance of environmental issues and why companies try to make sense of them
through the interaction with stakeholders. From the Roloff perspective, first of all, the
composition of stakeholder’s network is industry based; it depends from peculiarities
and sets of interests that change with the characteristics of different industries where the
networks develop. Within a set of rules and interests, both companies and stakeholders
play a role as participants. Secondly, because multiple-stakeholders networks are issuedriven and because the complexity of the issues depends from the complexity of the
industries (Reed, 2008), the focus of the interactions between a company and its
stakeholders is not a set of company’s objectives but a set of issues that are relevant for
all the participants.
The relevance is an expression that derives from the peculiarities of the industry and
from the characteristics of the participants. From the issue-focused perspective the
research of solutions depends from the capability to collaborate and research
conventional solutions that can achieve solutions that are legitimate and participate
through all the subjects in the issue-referred network.
99
100
CAP V - RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
Sensemaking is influenced by a variety of social factors, the effectiveness and “the
success of sensemaking is about labeling and categorizing the streaming of experience,
to make the world more orderly” (Weick, Sutcliffe, Obstfeld, 2005).
According to Georg and Fussel (2000), the processes of greening as an organization
must be studied in an interpretative, pragmatic and descriptive way. Scholars want to
understand how new practices, incompatible with current understanding of right and
wrong, could gain acceptance (Leblebici et al, 1991). The implementation process is
complicated and differs in every organization because the way it becomes embedded
depends on the organizational context. Corporate Environmental Management must be
explained and acted through symbolic devices to establish certain levels of attention and
to set up a codified language to talk about environmental issues. The code and the
common language serve to achieve or develop legitimacy (Oliver, 1991). As argued by
Weick (1993: 636), sensemaking provides “the clear questions and clear answers”.
The acceptance depends from the context in which organizational embeddedness must
be explained and acted through symbolic devices that serve to establish certain levels of
attention and to establish a codified language. Because differences between situations,
context and subjects have consequences on results, the meaning that different actors
give to the sensemaking process vary depending on the situational company context and
the personal intentions of the change agents (Cramer et al., 2006).
All sensemaking processes start from the own interpretations about specific issues of
who is involved in the processes that need to be contextualized gradually. Sensemaking
serves just to collectively adjust vocabulary and labels about issues that must be
interpreted and shared by the members of an organization and their stakeholder (Cramer
et al., 2006). The reciprocal exchanges between actors in the sensemaking processes
have effects on the enacting and selecting different ways to implement specific issues.
As what explained by Dutton & Ashford (1993), the formality of influence is the key
concept that must be stressed. The formalization of specific issues is crucial to
understand timing, process and success of the relationship between managers and
101
stakeholders. Issues must be managed and shared from the beginning when they arrive
to the attention of managers. The sensemaking and the consequential decision-making
processes are influenced by the interpretation and the comprehension that derives from
a participative process (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
The formalization is used to translate abstract concepts into practice when all the actors
try to exceed difficulties in making them operational (Pedersen, 2006). Sensemaking
has been described as “a process by which individuals develop cognitive maps of their
environment not directly from their external demands but from organizationally
embedded cognitive and linguistic processes” (Basu & Palazzo, 2008). The
development of cognitive maps is the result of the identification of concreteness
relations between different actors. The concreteness derives from the sharing of
experiences and the exchange of equivocal inputs (Weick et. al, 2005). The equivocal
inputs are the results of the way organizations engage with stakeholders in order to cocreate acceptable norms or behavior through the dialogue and the share of interests. The
“stakeholder dialogue” is defined by Pedersen (2006: 140) as the “involvement of
stakeholders in the decision-making processes that concern social and environmental
issues”. The involvement of stakeholders implies that sensemaking processes must be
formalized and shared as an explicit model to externalize and articulate interests
(Matten & Moon, 2008).
The externalization and articulation of interests into an
engagement among multiple subjects is a consequence of the formal combination of
practical interpretation of the issues.
102
5.2 Interpreting sensemaking through the stakeholders’ dialogue
model
The stakeholder dialogue, as described by Pedersen (2006), is divided into three
different phases: the selection, the interpretation and the response. Managers start to
make sense to determined practices assembling together different issues that represent a
formalization of stakeholders’ interests and scopes. The formalization of interests into a
group of issues is what Pedersen call the selection filter that helps managers to limit the
dialogue with the stakeholders that are relevant for the specific scope, because
organizations don’t have the capability and the time to include all the stakeholders
simultaneously in their activities. The formalization of interests is an animated process
where both managers and stakeholders share flows of information. In this phase all of
them make sense of different interests and do not give sense back. It is a reciprocal
phase of sensemaking. Sense giving arrives in a following moment. The exchange of
information is concretely done through the engagement of discussions about the diverse
issues that represent the aspects that must be taken in consideration when they talk
about environmental issues.
103
Table 7 Narratives and the relationship with Stakeholders’ categories of interests
Stakeholders categories
Regulatory
Technical
Managerial
Owners, Shareholders
Reputation, truthful
reporting
Investments
Profit, performance
National-Local
Government
Legislation, policies,
international
benchmarking
Adjustment/complianc
e
Taxation,
unemployment
Unions - NGOs
Working conditions,
minimum wage,
compliance, reputation
Working conditions,
compliance, Security
Reputation
Clients
Environmental strategy
fulfillment, ethical
products
Quality, products,
services
Customer care,
value, quality,
products, services
Suppliers
Legal requirements,
compliance,
Efficiency, quality,
audit
Costs
Community
Involvement,
communication,
security
Environmental
protection
Communication,
Jobs,
Non managerial Staff
Communication,
Job security
Compensation,
communication
Other Hotels and
competitors, Chain
partner
National-international
compliance
Supply chain
efficiency
Benchmark,
marketing,
reputation
Media
Policies, compliance
Monitoring,
benchmark
Relations
This activity of merging issues and different groups of interests remains active over an
extended period. During this period the engagement and the animation of sensemaking
activities of both managers and stakeholders vary in terms of quality and quantity.
Prop6: Selection is a combination of stakeholder and managerial
perspectives. From the stakeholder perspective the sensemaking
activities are explained as the capability to advance interests and
communicate the priority of intervention. From the managerial
perspective the sensemaking activities are explained as the capability
to convoy stakeholders’ interests into determined issues, formalizing
the motivations and the alternative solutions that convoy interests’
resolving problems.
104
The number of discussions and the animation of the debate determine the significance
of every single issue and consequentially the interests that have been convoyed into the
specific issue. At this point starts the second phase of the stakeholder dialogue model,
the interpretation, where Pedersen (2006) talks about the transformation of multiple
stakeholders’ interests into a limited number of decisions.
This is an important element that needs attention because not all the stakeholders can be
satisfied simultaneously and because not all the stakeholders are equally important
(Parent & Deephouse, 2007). Also when organizations try to maintain multiple and
simultaneous relationships with stakeholders they always take a decision on which
group is more relevant than others (Neville & Menguc, 2006). Otherwise if the selection
is not done on the groups of stakeholders it is done on the number of interests that are
satisfied or on the quality of the satisfaction. The interpretation is made combining
different issues and the groups of interests that they include. The richness of interests
determines the positive interpretation of specific issues as one of the alternative
elements that must be considered to resolve specific problems. The relevance of
determined issues derives from the linkages among group of stakeholders identified
through the selection of interests that they share.
In this phase the activity of stakeholders is important because they can compete or
cooperate to increase, influence or moderate the prioritization of determined groups of
interests. This activity has a consequence on the interpretation that managers give to the
issues. That is why managers must work on the sensemaking processes to understand
and filter stakeholders’ actions to align their interests to the goals and the objectives of
the organizations. Because stakeholders are not independent of each other, managers do
not make sense to each stakeholder individually but to the interaction of multiple
stakeholders (Neville & Menguc, 2006) through the interpretation of patterns of
interests and how they convoy into specific issues. The sensemaking processes that
imply the selection and interpretation of specific issues help managers to reduce the
stakeholder multiplicity (Oliver, 1991) increasing cooperation, tempering conflicts and
defining expectations. Handling the stakeholder multiplicity serves also to increase
openness and transparency in the selection of the issues that direct the alignment of
stakeholders’ interests to the organizational objectives.
105
Openness and transparency are consequences of a continuous exchange of information
between the parts; communications in this phase is the most relevant activity that
determines the successful interpretation of issues and interests. The share of information
is just a part of the selection process, where consultation and dialogue are other two
aspects that must be considered. The environment is a source of constant input and
stimulus for the organizations, but individuals and organizations have limited cognitive
capabilities to deal with all available stimuli (Simon, 1947). For this reason individuals
and organizations enact events and facts through a selective perspective of the objective
features of their surroundings (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). People are more willing to accept
explanations and decisions when they perceive the processes through which they were
reached as fair (Pruitt, Peirce, McGillicuddy, Welton & Castrianno, 1993; Tyler, 2002).
The level of acceptance derives from precedent experiences that help subjects to make
sense of their activities, explain what they want to do and take decisions on it. Multiple
subjects build their experiences analyzing in the past decisions the outcomes of
decisions in terms of interests reached. This is a double sense activity where all the parts
communicate there past decisions and share which interests they attempted and which
interests they want to achieve in the future. Resuming, the level of experience on
determined issues impact on the capability to make sense of patterns of interests,
through the perception and explanation of consequences. The similarity of patterns of
interests determines the interpretation of new issues that are combined with hold
experiences.
Prop7: Interpretation depends on precedent experienced decisions.
Experience is a consequence of precedent sensemaking processes that
guide the formalization and development of similar groups of
interests: the higher is the presence of precedent experienced
decisions, the higher it the interpretation of specific issues in the
sensemaking activity.
According to Pater & van Lierop (2006) and Weick (1995), action become object of
attention after it has occurred, but it is alto possible that individuals construct their
sensemaking activities referring to imagining future opportunities. This is what these
authors call the future-oriented sensemaking (Pater & van Lierop, 2006) based on the
106
relationship between past experiences and future alternative opportunities. In this case,
the integration between experience and new elements (as for example new issues or
other elements) contributes in complex environments to the richness of sensemaking
activities, developing important guidelines that facilitate the advance of what Pater &
van Lierop call future opportunities.
Prop7a: The level of experience impacts on the capability to construct
future opportunities and make sense of them. The greater is the
experience, the higher is the richness of elements that facilitates
sensemaking processes.
Making sense of actions and issues is a necessity that derives from the lack of
experience and meaning. Where is not possible to understand new facts looking at past
experiences, sensemaking becomes an explorative process. Sensemaking is a process
that ends only when is not more necessary to make sense of issues or events. The
process can be considered concluded when the participants don’t need more
explanations. On the other hand, sensemaking is a cyclical process that can restart
considering feedbacks and alternative choices that can start when changes are
consequences of feedbacks. The necessity to start a new sensemaking process depends
from how same or different is the outcome from the initial process. Sensemaking is an
evolutionary and dynamic process (Warglien, 2002) that depends from the level of
experience and the capability to identify, classify and routinize potential antecedents
and consequences (Weick & Obstfeld, 2005).
The last phase that Pedersen has developed when he talks about stakeholders dialogue is
the response phase (Pedersen, 2006). In this phase managers start to consider different
alternative initiatives and how they impact on the stakeholders. As said before, not all
the stakeholders can be satisfied and because is still difficult to translate decision into
actions, the response phase depends on the managerial capability to merge the most
relevant and salient interests within different issues. In this last phase starts the
implementation of activities that try to convoy and resolve problems that derives from
the issues.
At this point managers can take decision on which issues are the most preferable that
can be implemented to satisfy the greater number of stakeholders’ interests. During the
107
response phase, organizations communicate to their stakeholders new combinations of
issues and interests as an ongoing process that depends by the general agreement that
the parts reach together. The process doesn’t stop as far as the interpretation and the
evaluation of alternative choices are shared among all the parts.
Table 8 Narratives and the relationship with issues through the identification of
the most salient and repeated Stakeholder’s categories
Issues
Regulatory
Technical
Managerial
Saving Measures
Owners, Suppliers,
Community
Suppliers, Clients,
Staff
Owners, Chain Partner
Green Purchasing
Government, NGOs
Suppliers, Clients,
Staff
Clients, Owners,
Shareholders
Waste Minimization
Practices
Government,
Community
Community, NGOs,
Local government
Suppliers, Staff, Chain
partner, Competitors
Green Marketing
-
Staff, Owners
Clients
Eco-Design
Community,
Government,
NGOs, Owners,
Staff
Shareholders
Green Value Chain
Government,
Suppliers, Chain
Partner,
Competitors, Staff
Suppliers, Staff,
Community
Suppliers, Chain
Partner, Competitors,
NGOs
Eco-Risk
Government,
Unions
Owners, NGOs,
Community
Shareholders, Chain
partner, Competitors
Guests Consideration
Community
Staff, Owners
Clients, Competitors
Food & Beverage
Government,
Suppliers, Chain
partners
Suppliers, Staff
Owners, Chain Partner
Green Jobs
Government,
Unions, Owners,
Clients, Suppliers,
Chain Partners
Staff, Unions,
Government, Chain
Partners
Owners, Staff, Chain
Partners, Suppliers
The sharing processes serve to turn abstract and general concept into plausible and
comprehensive ones (Weick & Obstfeld, 2005). The plausibility is an important element
that impact on the response. Looking at the works of Ravasi and Schultz (2006), I
would like to underline that plausibility is a social construct that is not a sum of
different interests but is the result of complementary aspects of the same phenomenon.
108
The response phase is based on the communications of accurate representations about
which are the consequences and the outcomes of specific sets of decisions. The
response phase is also based on the combination of retrospective and future oriented
elements that balance the misalignment between what is known and what is new.
Prop8: Response is an ongoing process of plausibility research that
finishes when there is an agreement about consequences and
outcomes, through the identification of patterns of interests. The
agreement on interests depends from plausible combination of
alternatives or cumulative issues that represent the evaluation of
alternative patterns of interests. The combination is a result of
retrospective and future-oriented analysis. The higher is the alignment
between issues and patterns of interests, the higher is the possibility to
obtain plausible outcomes. The higher is the plausibility, the higher is
the possibility to make sense of issues.
109
5.3 The stakeholders’ dialogue model in the Hospitality Industry and
the formalization of Environmental Activities
As Weick argued, “The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing
accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense
of what occurs” (1993: 635). Starting from this assumption I analyzed in the different
hotels the instruments, the activities and the arguments that managers used to exploit
stakeholders’ interests in making sense of Corporate Environmental Management.
Organizational sensemaking is fundamentally a social process: organization members
interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, constructing
accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively (Isabella, 1990;
Sackman, 1991; Sandelands & Stablein, 1987; Starbuck & Milliken, 1988; Weick &
Roberts, 1993; Maitlis, 2005). People make sense of things, sharing practical measures
and instruments that could be implemented within their scope of influences (Cramer et
al., 2004). The labeling and categorizing processes serve as discursive constructions of
reality that interpret or explain (Antaki, 1994) events and facts in the social environment
through the production or activation of “accounts” (Antaki, 1994; Gioia & Thomas,
1996). Accounts serve as templates to share and facilitate coordinated collective actions
through different members (Maitlis, 2005). To develop accounts the managers use
environmental issues. The formalization of issues depends on the ways, which different
organizations handle with them.
Every hotel decided (in diverse temporal moments) to build up internally to their
structures different roles and functions (more or less formalized) that started to analyze
two kinds of problems: internal and external relationships among hotels activities and
environmental impact of them. The formalization of environmental activities has been
introduced in most of the cases announcing the effective effort that hotels,
autonomously (D,G,H) or as part of a general project developed in the chain
(A,B,C,E,F), wanted to analyze their environmental impact and start a series of actions
to improve their attitudes. The formalization also has been expressed with a formal
communication and the adoption of the ecolabel called the “Nordic Swan” and an
Environmental Management System the “Green Key”.
The internal decision of the adoption and the communication, which arrived from the
head quarter of the chain, didn’t impact on the managerial freedom to adapt and develop
110
differently their environmental attitudes. This is reliable in the case of Green Key,
where the different practices adopted by the hotels are completely customizable to the
exigencies of every single company. The Green Swan focus is on the sustainability of
manufacturing and consumption and it has implications on relationships among the
company and particular groups of stakeholders as the suppliers that are the most
involved. From a methodological point of view the differences between the two
typologies of practices doesn’t impact on the general evaluation and theoretical analysis
that I have done. The hospitality industry is not a manufacturing industry, it is based on
services and this implies that the ecolabel and the EMS are both focused on activities
that are not the central services of the industry and don’t impact on the core business.
For both of the practices there are general criteria that are customized by country and
organizational levels of environmental awareness. Organizations with different
technologies, different geographical positions and different dimensions can adapt their
behaviors and their attitudes.
”The baseline goals are generic and focused on the idea that every
organization has to demonstrate it will to improve continuously the
commitment and the behaviors” (cit.I).
In addition, there are two other environmental practices that the analyzed hotels
developed autonomously: the CO2 Neutral-Hotels and the CO2 Neutral Building
Programs. These two are new environmental practices that are part of more general
Corporate Environmental Management activities that are specific for the hospitality
industry and are born in Denmark. The CO2 Neutral-Hotels program is “not an option
for the hotel to be self-supplied with energy, it will of course depend on an energy
supplier, who most likely will not be able to deliver carbon neutral energy. Even if the
hotel is reducing its energy consumption, there will still be CO2-emissions from energy
consumption that can not be eliminated” (CO2 Neutral-Hotels declaration). A similar
definition can be developed for the CO2 Neutral Building that is a formal
communication that is applied to new buildings where it is certified that during the
construction there has been adopted particular activities that tried to reduce pollution,
waste of materials and the implementation of new technologies that reduce energy
consumption. All of these activities as explained by Pedersen (2006) serve to facilitate
the relationship with internal and external constituents because organizations find
111
difficulties to understand the real nature of their values. In the specific case of this work,
the stakeholders and organizations dialogue is the crucial element that facilitates the
implementation of Corporate Environmental Management. The implementation needs to
be discussed and participated with stakeholders in order to achieve the greater level of
acceptance and legitimacy (Scott, 1995).
The formalization of environmental activities is the firs step that organizations have
done in order to develop the dialogue with stakeholders. Formalization enables and
facilitates common understanding. The common understanding is a fundamental social
process that allows the interactions between different subjects and permits them to act
collectively (Isabella, 1990; Sackman, 1991; Weick e Roberts, 1993). The common
understanding is a consequence of clarification activities based on the development of
internal behaviors and expectations about how to develop environmental activities.
When companies start to analyze what they have to do, they must understand also what
others do and what are the expectations of other subjects in terms of outcomes and
patterns of interests. The analysis of outcomes and interests is possible only when
companies decide how to move and how to act. Through the specification of which
practices are interested to implement, they are able to communicate a planned list of
actions. Without a first decision about which model companies want to use, the
dialogue with stakeholders remains inefficient.
Prop9: the adoption of Environmental Management Systems
indicates the formalization of organizational commitment to explicit
environmental activities.
The formalization of environmental practices is the first step that organizations face
with to determine which group of stakeholders is complementary or conflicting, in
terms of patterns of interests, with their decisions. Venkatraman (1980) talks about fitas-matching as a theoretical match between two variables defined by Neville & Menguc
(2006) congruence and agreement. When companies decide a specific set of
environmental management practices, the level of congruency and agreement among
alternative practices outcomes and the stakeholders’ expectation determine if the
internal and external patterns of interests are complimentary or conflicting. Only after
the formalization of what really companies want to do is it possible to work on activities
that tries to fit two or more parties. Formalization obliges companies to identify
112
schemes that serve to interpret environmental considerations with pattern of interests.
The alignment of interests into patterns impact on the plausibility and the
comprehension of the interests. Organizations that use formalized instruments have
more chance to make sense of their activities and identify the best pattern of interests.
Prop9a: Organizations with a formalized commitment are facilitated
in the sensemaking activities: The higher is the formalization
commitment, the higher is the level of comprehension in the
sensemaking of pattern of interests.
Once the organizational commitments were formalized, the hotels started to organize
themselves internally. The dimension and the fact that hotels are part of chains (national
or international chain) influenced the internal organization. From a dimensional
perspective, the complexity of medium and large organizations permitted the
assignment of formal roles to specific teams that where in charge of environmental
activities. On the other side, the fact that hotels where part of national and international
chains implied the necessity that managers have to inform and partially satisfy the head
quarter about their choices on environmental activities. The relationships among
internal groups and head quarters in most of the case are based on a sharing activity of
information and best practices. The environmental audit is always conducted internally.
The internal organization allows companies to communicate their efforts scanning who
where the most appropriate subjects that can be involved in the implementation of their
activities.
Table 9 Team level of formalization in the hotels
Hotel
Dimension
Team
Formality
Chain
A
Mid
Dedicated
Formal
Danish
B
Mid
Work Gorup
Informal
Danish
C
Mid
Work Gorup
Informal
Danish
D
Big
Dedicated
Formal
International
E
Big
Work Gorup
Formal
International
F
Mid
Dedicated
Formal
International
G
Big
Work Gorup
Formal
International
H
Mid
Work Gorup
Informal
Danish
113
The communication of environmental efforts is based on the specification of activities
that are considered critical by the management. The identification of critical elements is
the first subjective element that characterizes the implementation of CEM, because it
depends on the internal beliefs, values and norms that constitute the shared perceptions
about the organizations. But this activity cannot be considered only as an internal
activity of scanning elements that influence CEM or not.
5.4 Enact and select: the reconstruction of environmental performance
The different groups born in the hotels, started formally to work on the identification of
potential green projects that will be implemented afterwards. The principal scope of the
groups was to identify transversal problems in the organizations. The composition of
the groups where done with the intention to convoy different experiences into the
discussion. All the hotels organized meetings to discuss particular topics from different
point of view.
“In every meeting there is always some one that is in charge for the most
relevant functions as the kitchen, cleaning staff, room services etc (Cit.
F)”
The identification process was conducted looking at the match between problems and
solutions. Every team in the hotels worked on the research of elements that can produce
data on environmental performance. The success of this activity depends by the
managerial ability to aggregate figures with different competences and capabilities. The
principal scope of this preliminary activity is the construction and reconstruction of a
common sense of what does it mean environmental activities in different places and
roles in the hotels. The first step of sensemaking activity depends by the managerial
capability to transform common perceptions about particular activities into a set of data
that allow companies to determine the relevance of different issues. The analysis of
environmental performance helps to reduce asymmetry, direct a common scope, built a
more stable commitment and calculate potential benefits and realistic errors.
”First of all I am in charge to organize different groups that work on the
development of common definitions about what is green, what
environmental performance means environmental performance, why it is
114
important for our organization. They give me general criteria and I try to
transform their information into statistics and numbers. I find this
preliminary work very important because we need to develop a common
sense about what is green. This is a very unclear argument and we need
more precise elements to discuss on it. Because of the complexity of the
argument I think that the best way to start to do something is discuss with
the greatest number of persons about this topic, not only in our company
but also with external subjects that give us different points of view.”
(cit.F).
According to Sonenshein (2007), individuals make up stories to give meaning to a set of
unfolding events in the environment, based on what they understand and which are the
elements that they can use to reframe and rationalize their understands. From a
sensemaking perspective, the attention to environmental performance is an activity that
stimulates the research of measurements that are compared to patterns of interests and
their relative groups of stakeholders. The analysis of environmental performance is an
opportunity to objectively discuss of alternative solutions that can be applied in the
organizations. Working on the analysis of environmental performance helps to develop
a gradual confidence about a common definition of the situation (Maitlis & Sonenhsein,
2010). The confidence is a consequence of the adoption of general criteria in specific
contexts (Georg & Fussel, 2000). This is what happened in several meetings where the
teams faced different arguments trying to concentrate on how to improve or reduce
environmental performance in the different functions, considering alternatives
limitations and opportunities. The objective elements given by the analysis of
environmental performance facilitated the development of a common set of meanings as
a consequence of good performing activities. Inside the same organizations was
possible to find diverse functions, or diverse individuals, that approach differently the
same issue because the diversity of the needs, the
In other words, the measurement of environmental activities and the identification of
their impacts allows managers to identify the contexts were they can be applied and, as
a consequence, the specific patterns of interests and groups of stakeholders that are
involved in these activities. The identification of contexts serves to identify which
coalition (Nasi, 1995) is interested in a particular activity. The individuation of the
115
coalition helps to develop elements that facilitate the data that serve to calculate specific
sets of environmental performance. Environmental performance is not a general
criterion that can be applied generally; the relevance of the performance depends from
particular elements of every single context and can also vary among different
organizations because there are different coalitions with different expectations. Another
important aspect is that environmental performance depends from the expectation of the
subjects that are involved in every activity. On the other hand, the identification of what
can determine different level of performance serves to formalize economic elements
that are present in the patterns of interests. It is another important step of the
formalization process and it depends on the capability that companies must demonstrate
to develop plausible activities.
Prop10: formalization depends on the company’s capabilities to
identify elements of performance that can facilitate the sensemaking
activities.
The
evidence
interpretation/selection
of
of
performance
issues.
The
determines
the
interpretation/selection
depends from the explanation of regulatory, technical and
managerial performances.
When companies select particular issues they also create an internal consensus of what
are the elements that determine the urgency of the issues. Because particular issues are
the transposition of patterns of interests, therefore it is possible to observe also the
urgency of interests. From a performance perspective, the urgency, the experiences and
the expectations. For this reason the cumulative analysis of different activities helped to
define a common set of rules about every single issue through the benchmark of diverse
levels of performance. Without a common strategy, different functions and different
individuals developed their own specific meaning of the issues and a specific version of
performance. The sensemaking activity derived, firstly, from the comparison among
different meanings and activities; the more virtuous activities became the best practices
that must be followed. In this phase one of the most relevant limitations was the
definition of a common meaning of environmental performance as an unequivocal
expression of particular issues. Without a general committee every individual arrive to
different conclusion about what is environmental performance. Therefore, the research
of a common set of definitions and elements that characterized the meanings of
116
environmental performance helped the companies to develop a common sensemaking
activity named by Pater & van Lierop (2006) the collective-sensemaking, as a result of a
deconstructive activity where every single individual is engaged to give plausible
definitions and explanations of single issues. Both the definition and explanation of the
activities are issue-related and issue-specific. In other words, the definition of a
particular activity depends from the characteristics of the issue and from the
combination of expectations, patterns of interests and outcomes: is for this reason that
similar activities can be managed differently depending from the issues and the
functions associated.
And is for this reason that the benchmark of different levels of performance is an
important element that helps the sensemaking activity of specific issues and the
development of a common sense on it.
Prop11: high/low levels of environmental performance impact on the
sensemaking activity of environmental issues: the greater is the
opportunity to manage environmental performance, the greater is
the possibility to collectively make sense of a specific environmental
issue.
As described by McCabe & Dutton (1993), when objective performance is poor and
when the organizational environment is complex, the relationship between decision
maker’s perception of uncertainty and perception of effectiveness is negative, because
the inability to create a common sense and a common meaning to specific issues. This is
especially strong when decision makers don’t observe externally to their boundaries do
not considering other individuals that can help them to take decisions. From an
organizational perspective, individuals make sense of the world they live and of their
activities through the perception of how well their unit of organization are performing
(McCabe & Dutton, 1993). This perspective has been normally assumed looking at
internal capabilities and internal interactions among individuals in the organization.
Through the lens of the Nasi stakeholders’ model, the same analysis can be applied in
another way, considering the differences between the internal and external coalitions of
stakeholders. Expanding the concept of unit of organizations as described by McCabe &
Dutton, as a unit where individual have common experiences, use specific knowledge
and have a specific level of performance, with the stakeholders’ network perspective
117
developed by Pater & van Lierop (2006), different individuals (single subjects or
different groups of stakeholders) make sense of their activities exchanging information
about the differences, in terms of performance, on specific issues. Because reality is not
a collection of objective facts that people perceive passively (Weick, 1995) but the
exchange of information and the collectivization (Cramer et al., 2006) of patterns of
interests are fundamental elements that can facilitate the understanding of specific
issues and the possible sensemaking process of them. In the case of Corporate
Environmental Management implementation there are non sector-specific elements that
facilitate or determine the implementation modalities, but it depends from the cultural
characters and the patterns of interests of the subjects that determines it. The
combination of different values determines the understanding of specific issues that are
shared among the parts. The distance among values depends from the typology of
coalition that determines the stakeholders’ relationships. Considering the Nasi model,
based on the distinction between internal and external coalition, and the fact that there
are internal and external patterns of interests, the distance among values is a reflection
of the distance among patterns of interests.
“The internal coalition consists of those stakeholders who have a
permanent ownership or employment relationship with the firm. And the
external coalition consists of those stakeholders who do not fulfill the
conditions to be a part of the internal coalition but are nevertheless, in
an intermediate interaction with the internal coalition” (Nasi, 1995: p
106).
From a values-definition perspective, the distance among values and the distance among
patterns of interests depend from the structure of the relationships between the subjects.
Prop12: The strength and the duration of the relationships among
subjects impact on the distance among their interests, considering
the development of experiences and the construction of common
future-oriented sensemaking activities.
Prop12a: The longer is the duration of the relationship, the higher is
the possibility that they share common patterns of interests. The
longer is the duration of the relationship, the lower is the distance
118
among values. The lower is the distance among values, the easier is
the sensemaking activity.
Considering the duration of the relationships and the patterns of interests - elements that
depend by the duration and the frequency of numbers of relations - subjects that take
part of the internal coalition have more opportunities to develop and maintain
relationships. Therefore, the differences between internal and external coalition impact
on the propensity to develop specific relationships that can impact on the sensemaking
activities and on the consequential implementation of specific activities.
Prop13: internal coalition relationships develop higher chances to
share patterns of interests than external coalition relationships;
because of the nature of the relationships among different subjects.
119
5.5 The advancement of stakeholders’ roles in the development of
sensemaking processes: the evolution of environmental commitment
through the involvement of primary and secondary stakeholders.
One of the most important elements that must be considered when talking about
environmental issues is the fact that it is an ongoing argument that depends from the
evolution of social, economical and cultural trends. The general awareness on
environmental issues depends form the development of information and communication
among the most interested parts. On the other side, global involvement of communities,
people and governments is a long process that will never stop, because the frequent
changes in the issues and in the general level of awareness.
From a managerial perspective the organization of sensemaking serves to identify
equivocal inputs that serve to enact and give back to the world interpretations and
situations to make the world more orderly (Weick & Obstfeld, 2005).
It is for this reason that several companies interpret the sensemaking process as an
ongoing activity that needs time to mature both in terms of internal adaptation and
capability to enact and interpret situations and external capability to convoy and take
advantages form the interactions with external subjects as in the case of stakeholders.
Instead of focusing on a generic responsiveness toward society, stakeholders take part
through their direct and indirect involvement in the sensemaking process as “any group
or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s
objectives” (Freeman, 1984: 46).
According to the Freeman definition, stakeholders have a significant role in the
detection and scanning of social legitimacy, greater social acceptance and prestige
(Garriga & Melé, 2004) because their role of intermediary between general interests and
companies’ best interests. It is important to underline that the alignment between
interests is not impossible to find considering the fact that stakeholders have relevant
interests in the companies, considering the classification done by Clarkson (1995) on
the difference between primary and secondary stakeholders. Several studies have long
underlined the role of primary stakeholders (as employees, customers and stockholders),
as who have a direct stake in the firm’s activities and operations. Nevertheless,
secondary
120
stakeholders
(as
public
institutions,
media,
or
non-governmental
organizations) are increasingly raising research attention in the name of their ability to
pressure companies to gain trust and reputation.
In the cases that I have analyzed, the sensemaking processes of environmental issues,
that serve as an instrument to implement Corporate Environmental Management, is
composed by activities that request time (years) because the necessity to built specific
relations and understand the best way to communicate and share experiences.
When talking about Corporate Environmental Management in the Danish hotels,
sensemaking started as a consequence of an internal decision (top management
decision) to exploit environmental issues. As explained in the earlier paragraphs, the
formalization of environmental awareness has been conducted by the companies
through the decision to adopt particular instruments (as for example the EMSs) useful to
communicate their will to “behave green”.
Table 10 Synthesis of EMS adopted by Hotels in Copenhagen
Hotel
Dimension
EMS
Years of
adoption
A
Mid
Green Key
CO2 Neutral Program
5
B
Mid
Green Key
CO2 Neutral Program
5
C
Mid
Green Key
3
D
Big
Nordic Swan
3
E
Big
Nordic Swan
10
F
Mid
Green Key
2
G
Big
Green Key
CO2 Neutral Building
2
H
Mid
Green Key
2
121
I interpreted (according to the results of the interviews) the decision to formally start
programs to manage environmental issues as signals of openness and intention to
change attitudes and behaviors.
“The Green Key worked as a sparkle in our hotel; before the adoption of
the Green Key, every one was not really careful to environmental issues,
because we considered the topic vague and not really important. The
official involvement of our company in sustainability has been accepted by
the most part of the employers and they start to take care of it and take
part to internal discussions and meetings” (Cit G).
The first decisions about environmental management derive directly from the top
management and the property of the hotels. All the decisions to “behave green” are topdown obligation, an effect of cultural attitudes and managerial evaluations of the top
managers and the properties. The decision derives directly from the CEO (in the cases
of Danish chains) and from the global head quarters, in the case of international chains.
So, because the constrain to formalize environmental attitudes, all of the companies
started to exploit internally which can be the best actions to develop environmental
activities and implement Corporate Environmental Management. Every single hotel
received particular communications and instructions 6 about the new attitudes and
general criteria about environmental indicators of performance and green objectives that
they have to obtain7. After the communication of new green attitudes all the hotels
started to organize a list of activities to enact Corporate Environmental Management
decisions into concepts and experience that can help the single organization to develop
activities and tools useful to reach out the objectives established. According to Weick
there are several questions that every organization try to answer when their members try
to make sense of equivocal inputs and enact this sense back into the world to make that
world more orderly (Weick & Obstfeld, 2005: 410): what should we do? What does it
6
The instructions differ also considering which kind of EMS the hotels adopted: for example, the
usage of Green Key standard is supported by local offices in Denmark where the staff work with the
hotels in the training and organization of all the activities that are necessary to communicate and
inform hotels’ employers. Different is for the Green Swan because they have a group of controllers
that are in charge of the quality o products.
7
The accuracy of KPIs and objectives depend from the formalization of the different EMSs. In the
case of Green Key is available a list of KPIs that serve to plan a list of activities; in the case of CO2
neutral program and Green Swan, because the nature of the two tools (one is an ecolabel and the
other is a new private initiative) there are different attitudes and behaviors that are more generic.
122
means for us? How can it be plausible for us? Which are the consequences of our
activities?
I used the Weick’s list of questions to exploit how the hotels start to consider the new
issues internally looking at the composition of different teams that started to work on
environmental issues. All the hotels started to work on the issues organizing internally
groups and teams of workers that have the competences and the interests to talk about
environmental issues. The organization of the internal teams has been done considering
two different approaches to the topic: some hotels created (1) new dedicated internal
positions and roles that are in charge of environmental management or more in general
of sustainability and CSR that I catalogued as dedicated groups; other hotels decided to
organize (2) groups of personnel that are in charge of different activities and that
collaborate into working groups. The working groups are temporary organized and the
meetings are scheduled depending from particular needs.
All the meetings, both in the working and dedicated groups have been organized
considering the cataloguing that I have used to build the environmental narratives for
the data analysis.
Table 11 Team Works
Hotel
Dimension
Team
A
Mid
Dedicated
B
Mid
Work Group
C
Mid
Work Group
D
Big
Dedicated
E
Big
Work Group
F
Mid
Dedicated
G
Big
Work Group
H
Mid
Work Group
From a stakeholder perspective, the composition of the teams, according to the Nasi’s
theoretical model, is constituted, in this preliminary phase, principally by the distinction
of internal coalition stakeholders - principally composed by middle managers,
employers (non-managerial staff) and in some cases suppliers - and external coalition,
123
composed by those stakeholders that take part indirectly to the sensemaking activity (for
example NGOs, Government, local communities and in a second moment guests),
through the specification of specific stakes. From the Clarkson perspective, the
relevance of stakes implies different levels of stakeholder engagement in the decisionmaking activities.
From a sensemaking perspective, the stakeholder engagement is different because it is
based on the capability that both companies and stakeholders have to collectively share
information and transform abstract arguments into specific and concrete actions or
interests. The relevance of sensemaking activity derives from the fact that stakeholders
are not seemed as groups or individuals who threaten the organization, but considering
the differences between primary and secondary stakeholders, in terms of engagement
and stakes shared, companies identify those stakeholders who have relevant information
and knowledge to understand particular issues. So, when a particular sensemaking
activity starts, this implies that a company and a specific set of stakeholders share
meanings of the issues, find solutions and define responsibilities; in other words they
collaborate to find a common sense, integrating diverse and conflicting views (Pater &
van Lierop, 2006). Both the dedicated and the working groups organized their meeting
(with a temporal and programmed deadlines) to discuss and understand how different
issues were managed in their organizations.
Principally the meetings were structured in three phases: (1) issue discussion and
comprehension, (2) issue interpretation and (3) issue development.
In the first phase, the teams started to discuss about the nature of every single issue,
searching for common comprehensive and plausible definitions: teams members
describe the issues and search contexts to apply them into their companies (Georg &
Fussel, 2000). From a communication perspective every single member of the team is
responsible to communicate to the others members all the information about a specific
issue from his own perspective, explaining why the issue is important in his activity,
how it is managed, which are the potential benefits and the critical elements that
characterize it. In this phase the direction of sensemaking is a self-reflection direction
(Pater & van Lierop, 2006), based on a one-way communication (Morsing & Schultz,
2006), because every one wants to get information as much clear as possible without
124
elements that can influence the comprehension of the issues. The principal scope of this
first phase is to catch the higher number of information available.
“When we started to talk about water consumption was fundamental to
involve in the discussion all the persons that are in charge of activities
that imply the use of water. For this reason I organized specific meetings
with the persons in charge of cleaning, food & beverage (kitchen,
restaurant, bar & breakfast), gardening, Gym and wellness. (Cit C)”.
“Green Key is more an action pack with a list of ideas that can be
improved by every single organization (Cit I).”
“I need NGOs and other similar subjects (as ORESTA or Green Key)
because I don’t have enough time to research information about new
products or innovative green practices. They accomplish an important
role of networking, especially exchanging good ideas from other hotels
or developing new industry based projects (Cit F).”
In the second phase the teams worked on the operationalization of the issues trying to
understand the logic and how to organize their activities to obtain results about every
single issue. The interpretation of the issues is connected with the concept of efficiency
and costs savings. Through the analysis of costs companies can compare alternative
solutions considering the outcomes and where they impact. Costs reduction and costs
efficiency determine the relationships among subjects, because it can be altered the
relevance and the power of coalitions. Costs reduction implies the modification of
behaviors and in some case the radical change of commercial and managerial
relationships (for example when a company decide to change a supplier).
“Is essential to define needs, value and benefits about how we use water in
our work. During the meetings every one explains to the others why water
is important for his work, how does he use water, which can be the most
critical aspects and how to improve them (Cit D).”
125
“Consider sustainability as a whole: if I limit the number of delivering in
the kitchen every 2-3 days, as agreed with my suppliers, can you imagine
how many benefits can I produce to the local community in terms of
pollution, traffic and energy reduction? (Cit F).”
During the third phase, the subjects that participate in the sensemaking activities share
understandings, common sense and consensus (Weick et al., 2005) as an outcome of the
synthesis of individual representations of the issues, through the collection of
expectations, motivations and other social stimuli (Sonenshein, 2007). The development
of a issue’s common sense depends from the team capabilities to (1) link issues and
activities of the business, (2) construct social consensus towards the issue and (3)
synthetize similar opinions and criticisms (Pater & van Lierop, 2006). One of the most
important elements that characterize a common development of the issues is based on
the capability to convoy different opinions and positions, sharing interests and stakes.
“One of the most critical aspects of implementing eco-labeled cleaning
products was the persuasion of the workers: if green detergents don’t
pollute, this means that cleaning activity is harder and takes more time,
because the absence of chemical elements in the products makes the
activity less rapid and more hard. This has been a critical moment for
our company because we had to work strongly on the motivation and the
personal behaviors of every single member of the cleaning staff. We used
three communicative strategies to adjust their attitudes: firstly we used a
technical strategy explaining that the absence of chemical elements in the
products was important for their health; secondly we push on a social
element making similarities with what happens out of work, especially at
home and explaining the positive effects for the community. Last strategy
was an economic based communication: our company policy is based on
a continual research of efficiency and if we can reduce costs being more
efficient probably the company have enough money to pay more or hire
temporal workers (Cit E)”.
As explained by Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005:414), sensemaking depends from
the level of reciprocal exchanges between actors (enactment) and their environments.
126
For this reason sensemaking starts as an individual activity, where every one creates hits
own meaning from a set of stimuli in the environment, and becomes collective when
social influences take the place of single meanings and positions. This process is
empathized when groups of actors intentionally try to influence other’s interpretation of
an issue (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This is particularly true when the influence
derives from the interaction with stakeholders.
For this reason Pater & van Lierop (2006) talk about three different levels of
sensemaking: they distinguish (1) individual (2) collective and (3) guided sensemaking,
looking at the organizational contexts and at the processes that are activated when
companies and their stakeholders try to make sense of particular issues. The most
important difference in the three models is the multi-direction of opinions and
assumptions: in the individual level, every one tries to make sense of issues starting
from his assumptions and comparing them with external information. There is not a
reciprocal construction of meanings: people make sense without give sense to the
issues. In the collective sensemaking during the enactment process both organizations
and stakeholders take part and contribute to the definition and identification of issues.
Sensemaking comes with sensegiving and companies start to build common sense to the
issues collaborating with their stakeholders. In the Guided sensemaking both companies
and their stakeholders are engaged in make sense and give sense to the issues; an
important distinction with the collective sensemaking is that both sensemaking and
sensegiving activities are done not only between organizations and their stakeholders
but also between various groups of stakeholders. Because stakeholders are not
independent of each other, and because organizations are influenced directly or
indirectly through the alliances between stakeholders (Benjamin et al. 2006),
consequentially sensemaking is guided by the development of stakeholders coalitions
and how they pressure on the organizations making and giving sense to specific issues.
127
Table 12 Sensemaking characteristics
Sensemaking Involvement
Direction of sensemaking
Individual
Self-reflection
Collective
Multiple contributions
Guided
Coalition contribution
From a communication perspective, the modalities of involvement determine different
way of dialogue between companies and their stakeholders. As explained by Morsing &
Schultz (2006), there are three different modalities to communicate with stakeholders
about CSR: (1) unidirectional communication - one-way communication - (2)
asymmetric communication - two-way dialogue communication - and (3) symmetric
communication – two-way negotiating communication. Because the essence of
sensemaking is the co-creation of shared understanding done by companies and
stakeholders, increasing the complexity of relationships is needed to develop more
sophisticated communication processes.
Table 13 Sensemaking characteristics and Communication strategies
Sensemaking Involvement
Direction of sensemaking
Communication strategy
Individual
Self-reflection
One-way information
Collective
Collective contribution
Two-way asymmetric information
Guided
Coalition contribution
Two-way symmetric information
Table elaborated on the previous works of Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005, Maitlis, 2005
& Pater & van Lierop, 2006.
As discussed by Morsing (2006), without the loyal support of organizational members,
the stakeholder corporation is an empty shell. Sensemaking is an activity that needs a
strong company-stakeholder relationship to move from an individual to a guided model.
For this reason the roles that stakeholders can play are fundamental in the development
of high level of sensemaking involvement.
128
Table 14 Stakeholders roles definition
Stakeholder Role
Definition of activity
To provide balanced and objective information to assist organizations in
understanding and the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or
solutions.
To obtain feedback for decision-makers on analysis, alternatives and/or
decisions.
Inform
Consult
Involve
To work directly with the organizations throughout the process to ensure
that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and
considered in decision-making processes.
Collaborate
To partner with the organizations in each aspect of the decision including
the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred
solution.
Empower
To place final decision-making in the hands of the organizations.
Table elaborated from previous work of: Trevino, 1986; Carrol, 1991;
As explained for the communication strategies, the relationship between different
stakeholders’ roles and sensemaking involvement depends from the capability that
organizations and stakeholders have to develop from a individual to a collective and
then guided involvement of sensemaking activities. The development of sensemaking
involvement depends from the stakeholders’ attitude to increase their relationships with
companies and change their role from an informative subject to a collaborating and
strategic decision maker.
Table 15 Sensemaking characteristics, Communication strategies and stakeholders
roles
Stakeholder
Role
Sensemaking
Involvement
Direction of
sensemaking
Communication
strategy
Inform
Individual
Self-reflection
One-way information
Collective
Collective contribution
Guided
Coalition contribution
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Empower
Two-way asymmetric
information
Two-way symmetric
information
129
5.6 The evolution of sensemaking processes in the Danish Hotels
Because reality is not a collection of objective facts that people perceive passively but is
a result of people that engage in multiple activities that need questions and answers
(Weick, 1995) sensemaking is a process that is not static but temporally evolves. The
evolution includes also the relations among subjects and their way to communicate and
interact. For this reason, if there is an evolution that regards the communication strategy
there is necessary a change in the sensemaking involvement as a consequence of
changes in the role of stakeholders. This is what exactly happened in the companies that
I have studied in Copenhagen. Once the decision to behave green was introduced, the
hotels, as discussed before, started to make sense of their activities and try to understand
where was necessary to intervene. During the different sensemaking processes that
started, in a first moment the hotels took decisions individually (in-to-out perspective)
based on their knowledge/information.
5.6.1 Individual sensemaking
The individual sensemaking involvement was based on a one-way communication to
the internal and external stakeholders with the principal scope of (1) communication of
new behaviors, (2) proposition of a new strategy and (3) research of collaboration and
suggestions. Although the general purposes were collaborative, in a first moment the
level of collaboration between companies and their stakeholders was very low,
especially because the novelty of the issues and the uncertainty inside the industry about
how to transform and implement general arguments into practices.
“We started 10 years ago using the Swan and communicating to our
stakeholders that the adoption of it is an essential requirement to
interact with us. In ten years we changed all the suppliers that didn’t
want to get certified or doesn’t have products that are compliance with
our behaviors. So, if you want to be one of our suppliers you have to
show us your accreditation to the Green Swan. […] I know that it is a
strong sentence but you need to be strong if you want that others
consider you, especially when you start to do something new. Most of
the person involved in this kind of activities need time to comprehend,
but I am sure, because it has happened in our hotel, that after an initial
130
phase of uncertainty where you need to manage and conduct them, after
this they start to be collaborative and propose solutions and new ways
to work (Cit E)”.
As explained during the narratives creation phase, sensemaking of Corporate
Environmental Management is based on the effective integration and adequacy of (1)
Regulatory (Social dimension), (2) Technical (Environmental dimension) and (3)
Managerial (Economic dimension) categories of issues (Clarcke & Chen, 2007). In the
individual sensemaking involvement phase, stakeholders largely make pressures on the
companies about the regulatory dimension of CEM, informing the companies about new
policies (especially non-compulsory ones) and new trends. The communication of
regulatory information doesn’t need particular typologies of engagement or
collaboration between the parts. Is for this reason that, companies alone, without the
involvement of external subjects, can manage the comprehension of this kind of issues.
This explains why compliance decisions (for example adopt a particular standard or
similar activities) is a top management decisions that not imply the involvement of
employers and just partially involve external coalition stakeholders (communities,
NGOs and government) when companies communicate their decision or ask
information on alternative solutions.
“I know where to go in terms of mission and vision but I need the
collaboration of NGOs and similar because principally I don’t have
time to study or elaborate information on the products or other green
activities. I trust in some organizations and I try to follow their
suggestions (Cit. B)”.
This is an example of informative stakeholders’ role where they are engaged in the
research of information that companies receive neutrally without be involved in the
discussion of it. In this case companies make sense of stakeholders communication
according to their interests. The level and the quality of information is filtered by the
level of interests and stakes that can be founded in the information that are given to the
companies by the stakeholders. One of the most critical aspects of individual
sensemaking stakeholder role is that in case of contrasting information companies
cannot find easily the best solution. Without involving stakeholders into the decisions
131
there are high probabilities that companies cannot find the best solution and need more
time or more information to find the best solution because the tradeoff between
companies and stakeholder interests is high.
Prop13: Individual sensemaking serves to highline interests
tradeoff among the parts, through the making sense of regulatory
issues
132
5.6.2 Collective Sensemaking
The evolution from an individual to a collective sensemaking involvement phase is
explained by the advancement of complexity in the making sense of environmental
issues, where internal knowledge is not sufficient to understand some activities as for
example the introduction of new technologies, the presence of critical decisions about
specific issues (water or energy efficiency). In these cases, companies need to go into
more information, especially from a technical point of view (Clarcke & Chen, 2007).
“We started to collaborate with our stakeholder to resolve a big issue:
water consumption. Firstly we have implemented a new water-cool
system that take advantage of the canal that is near our hotel. The
implementation of this system has been long and interesting because we
needed to involve in our meetings many subjects (public and private) that
where interested in the consequences that derive from our choices. Why
we decided to use this system? Considering the difference between the
needs of drinkable water and the needs of non-drinkable water we
understood that for some activities we could reduce the use of drinkable
water and exploit the canal without compromise it. Salty water can be
used in a water-cool system especially in our country where the
temperature are quite low and the water is always cold. Of course we
had to demonstrate our intentions and we decided to make an open call
and receive suggestions about the best way to do this activity. We worked
a lot with the Danish Water Forum that was our strategic partner and
help us to agglomerate information, suggest other subjects to involve in
the decision and select with us the best solution. It has been difficult
because we are the first hotels that tried to implement this kind of
technology. In a second moment we decided to extend the concept of
water savings and now we are working on the implementation of a new
system that help us to use the canal water to irrigate our gardens,
flowers and plants. The idea is to transform the canal water and use it. It
is not difficult but also in this case we need to be careful and find the best
solution. I think that we will resolve it during the next year, because now
133
we have more competences, we have developed a lot of contacts and we
know where to ask for solutions (Cit. F)”.
“Solar Energy, it is a big challenge, especially if considering that here in
Copenhagen we can also buy another typology of green energy: the wind
energy. This is not my business and I asked to the Green Key consultants
some information on it (Cit. C)”
When companies start to work directly with stakeholders is because they need external
knowledge and they don’t have the time, resources or capabilities to develop it
internally and for this reason they ask outside.
I worked with our suppliers to develop an efficient waste reduction strategy that was
useful for both: it is better to eliminate waste before it is created. Some of our suppliers
have innovative solutions and I worked with them to find how to use their solutions also
with the other suppliers trying to adapt their technology also to other materials or
furnishings (Cit. D)”.
“EMSs are important to enter in particular networks. They can open
doors to getting in dialogue with big companies. My hotel alone is too
small to compete with other realities. Getting part of a network gives me
the opportunity to reduce the costs of information acquisition (Cit A.)”.
Another interesting element that explains the dynamics of collective sensemaking is
reached in the analysis of guests and how the hotels make sense of the environmental
issues considering how they can treat them. When hotels implement Corporate
Environmental Management practices through the enactment of environmental issues,
some of them can be explained and analyzed looking from two different point of view:
the company point of view and the client point of view. The most important differences
between these two points of views are in the obligatoriness of behaviors. Internally to
the hotels, once some practices are established, the employers have to respect
procedures and be compliance; on the other hand, form the guest perspective, there are
non-compulsory activities, but hotels managers try to develop a two-way
communication try to convince guests to act in a green way and ask them for solutions,
preferences and suggestions. All the hotels examined have adopted questionnaires and
134
short interviews to their clients trying to achieve the best way to involve them or find
alternative solutions that can reduce their commitment.
“ Clients are still not enough sensible to this kind of arguments; so we
have to do by our self and try to minimize what clients have to do. For
example: we changed all the TV in the room with the new led one to
reduce Energy consumption; seven years ago we introduced the magnetic
key in all the rooms: when you leave the room and you take the key with
you, all the lights in the room are switched off (Cit. D)”.
“We try to reduce clients possible choices in terms of being green or not.
Where we can be proactive and replace ourselves we try to do it. For
example we changed all the soaps in the room from the hold bar of soap
(consider not only the soap but also the paper and the plastic that you
need for each of them), to the modern soap dispenser that are refilled by
our staff and cannot be wasted too much (Cit B)”.
“During one meeting we found an interesting solution for what concerns
the usage of towels. All the towels are normally available in the
bathroom; also the extra towels are there and you can use all of them.
Looking at this abundance of towels you don’t think to the possibility to
do not leave the towel that you have just used once on the floor. We
decided to change the disposition of the towels in our rooms. Now in the
bathroom are available two towels per person (big and small) and the
extra towels are in the wardrobe. The service is guaranteed but with a
more efficient logic. Trust me, I don’t really know why but we doubled
the number of guests that reuse the towels, especially the small ones (Cit
A.)”
135
What is relevant to underline is that companies need help non-in the implementation of
specific tasks or activities but they need information to understand the best solution that
must be implemented. Companies work directly with stakeholders to ensure that public
aspirations are consistently understood and considered in decision-making processes. So
the collective contribution that derives from the involvement of stakeholder serves to
match stakeholders’ interests and companies’ decisions (Trevino, 1986; Carrol, 1991).
One important aspect that impact on the match of interests and decision is given by the
evolution of technology and the availability of alternative solutions that can cover
specific interests or not.
Prop14: Collective sensemaking involvement serves to obtain
feedbacks and information about the exploitation of stakeholders’
aspirations, through the making sense of social and technical issues.
136
5.6.3 Guided Sensemaking
The maturity of relationships and the enlargement of complex stakes (based on the
enlargement of organizational environment, stakeholder network and pattern of
interests) necessitate change in the sensemaking involvement and, as a consequence,
change in the stakeholders’ role. Is for this reason that sensemaking involvement
evolves from a collective to a guided model where the direction of sensemaking passes
from collective to coalition contributions. When stakeholders are involved as
collaborative and empowerment subjects, the principal scope of the relationship
between a company and their stakeholders are focused on the development of
alternatives and plausible solutions.
When talking about guided sensemaking it means that companies develop strategic
partnership with their stakeholder to diffuse and stimulate determined activities or
strategies. Guided sensemaking is based on an asymmetric real-time communication
where the subjects construct together a sensemaking context, through the sharing and
distribution of contexts, initiatives, goals, information exchanges and team interaction,
decision processes and communication strategies (Gioia & Thomas, 1996).
The
evolution of sensemaking is explained in the sense that, during the firs two phases
sensemaking works with a high or low level of communication between companies and
stakeholders focused on the identification of a set of common attributes necessary to
interpret and understand the different issues; when companies and stakeholders are
allied sensemaking is not the activity that explains the coalition but it is the output of
the coalition. The identification of the issues and the discussion themes is planned in
advance (Maitlis, 2005). In the guided sensemaking both stakeholders and companies
search for a resolution: sensemaking is not yet a way to know each other but it becomes
a context and conceptual arena where the rules and the identity of the players are
known. Without discrepancy (Orligowski & Gash, 1994) and surprises (Louis, 1980)
resolution is plausible.
“After ten years we have now a lot of expertise on sustainability and
environmental issues, but, because the general policy is to constantly try
to improve our behaviors and our activities we enlarged our influence
externally, building new relations and finding new solutions to reduce
ours and yours emissions. The new idea of sustainability is to consider
137
not only the activities that are strictly related to the usage of our rooms
and services but also what we call complementary activities: your
staying in our hotel means that you are in holyday or you are here for
business, so you need to use other services as for example transportation.
For this reason we have developed several agreements with other
companies or some of our stakeholders to start a green and sustainable
policy of transportation. We have for example agreements whit car rental
companies that rent only green cars (hybrids and electric cars), we have
special discounted tickets for the public transportation (Cit. E)”.
“I developed the idea of CO2 Neutral Hotels program starting from the
assumption that alone you can achieve a certain level of satisfaction; if
you work in team or groups the satisfaction is higher. So I started to
collect also other subjects that can be involved in this activity, because
part of the hospitality industry. Through the CO2 Neutral Hotels
program you can buy a full optional service that comprehends the hotel
and the travel services (train, airplane, car etc.). The idea of the CO2
certificate is today the best solution to this problem (Cit. A)”
Guided sensemaking is based on the exploitation of managerial issues (Clarcke & Chen,
2007). Companies search for economic results also when talk about sustainability and
environment: sensemaking comes as a cost (Pater & van Lierop, 2006) and stakeholders
must be able to adopt a role in this process that is expression of economic interests (both
in terms of opportunities and costs).
“We are working to develop strategic alliances between hotels, travel
agencies, governments and other subjects that can be interested in
sustainability policies. We started with the Internet site Wonderful
Copenhagen: there is a section named “green” where are available all
the information about environmental initiatives in the city. For our
industry is important the section named how to be a green tourist with all
the information about hotels, travel services and other activities that
serve to increment green behaviors in the hospitality industry (Cit. I).”
138
“Ecolabelling is a way of showing that sustainability is taken seriously.
But it is also a jungle of symbols. Through the Green Swan, we built a
network of suppliers and other strategic partners that help us to develop
our green commitment. If you use an Ecolabel you must prioritize some
issues instead of others, as for example waste efficiency or reduction. If
you want to be one of our suppliers you have to manage the waste that
derives from the usage of your products. The same is for water, energy
and eco-design: some issues can be managed only with the collaboration
of a high number of experts (Cit. E)”.
“We have a particular Internet site: there is a section dedicated to
explain our sustainability program with graphs, numbers and tables. It is
also possible to comment on it through a dedicated forum where guest
can leave their comments. The forum is not only important for the
reputation of our hotel but especially for the research of new suggestions
(Cit. C).”
In the guided sensemaking the main scope is to establish coalitions with stakeholders in
order to construct common interests, from the fragmented form of previous
sensemaking to a more general shared arena (Maitlis, 2005): the decentralization of
sustainable activities is one important element that characterizes this phase. The
integration of external coalition stakeholders implies the exploitation of environmental
issues into a more general framework.
139
Prop15: Guided sensemaking involvement serves as an instrument to
search of resolutions of general shared frameworks that include all
the environmental issues, through the making sense of social,
technical and managerial categories of issues.
Table 16 Sensemaking aims
Stakeholder
Role
Sensemaking
Involvement
Inform
Individual
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Empower
140
Collective
Guided
Aim of the sensemaking
activity
Highline interests
tradeoff
Obtain Feedback and
explicit aspirations
Search of Resolution
CAP VI - CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Introduction
Given the explorative nature of my, work I would like to end my thesis with a
discussion about findings, limitations and future implications of this research.
The principal aim of my thesis was to examine the sensemaking theory and the role of
stakeholders in the interpretation of environmental issues, suggesting that different
ways to engage with them serves as a framework through which companies interpret
their experience for themselves and for others (the stakeholders). I showed that there is
a great degree of interplay and connection between stakeholders involvement,
communication and the role that they have in the development of sensemaking activities
that help companies to enact green issues. This study demonstrates that all these are
elements of a dynamic process, where the temporal evolution of the relationships is a
fundamental element that characterizes and determines the sensemaking activity.
The sensemaking model, derived from this research might be a useful tool for both
academics and practitioners. At the theoretical and conceptual level, it will allow
researchers to study the processes that underpin the relation between companies and
stakeholders, understanding the differences that affect collaborative and noncollaborative relationships among the parts. This research, and the model derived from
it, will contribute to future researchers and practitioners’ ability to understand the logic
underlying the reasons why companies are engaged in particular activities instead of
others, looking at differences in the industries that have repercussions on the
stakeholders’ engagement.
Finally, the analysis and discussion of the findings in this study demonstrate the value
of an interpretive approach and the usefulness of investigating lived experience to
understand the processes of green issues sensemaking processes. The study has not
only captured the companies experience (through the identification of managerial
experiences) but, has been able to uncover the complex processes which explains how
stakeholders take part of sensemaking activities, considering different attitudes and
behaviors, in terms of passive and active roles.
141
This work contributes to the understanding of sensemaking processes by providing an
explanation of the impact of stakeholders’ involvement in the enactment of green issues.
The findings demonstrate that there is a complex and dynamic inter-relationship
between companies and their stakeholders: the involvement cannot be measured only in
terms of active participation, indeed, also in informal or passive communications,
stakeholders have a marginal role that must be taken into consideration. As noted in the
literature review, there have been debates regarding how stakeholders must be
considered in terms of pressures, relevance and identification of interests. From a
stakeholder theory perspective, the introduction of Nasi’s model [REFERENCE] helped
me understand the complexity of dynamics that explain the composition of internal and
external coalitions. The differences between the coalitions are important to articulate
sensemaking in regards to different typologies of interests and the outcomes that derive
from the interpretation process.
My work has thus contributed in terms of knowledge enlargement in the topic in several
ways:
•
It has increased the literature on sensemaking giving a new definition of it,
as a synthetic exposition of the most relevant works on the topic.
•
It has provided a model which explains the interaction between the
companies
and
stakeholders
in
the
development
of
Corporate
Environmental Management practices, underlying the importance of
sensemaking activity as a fundamental process that ignite new forms of
behaviors.
•
It has provided a more specific means of sustainability in the Hospitality
Industry through the literature review on the topic and giving concrete
examples within the data analysis.
•
Finally, it has shown the utility of the sensemaking approach for
investigating and understanding stakeholders interests and experiences.
142
6.2 Theoretical and research implications
In theoretical and research terms, the model derived from this study, provides a means
whereby researchers can investigate, how different sets of stakeholders’ interests can be
managed by companies through the identification of the principal issues that make sense
of them. The relevance of the model is given by the possibility to read it from the
opposite side: the identification of issues serves to make explicit stakeholders and
companies’ interests and to facilitate their relations.
The model can be also applied to gain a deeper insight into how companies attract
stakeholders and what benefits derive from their experience. It can also be used to
uncover the potential of new relations or new pattern of interests.
Another important element that comes out from my work is that sensemaking is a
continuously improving activity; because organizational environment change,
sensemaking serves also to monitor and control evolution that, if too rapid, can turn into
a menace for the organizations. One of the most important aspects that I would like to
underline is that my work can be important for managers and companies to anticipate or
calculate the alternative sets of outcomes that can derive from the interaction with their
stakeholders.
What really manager need is not a set of alternative decisions to the conflicts that can
arise with stakeholders, because every single situation needs specific set of decisions
and alternative solutions that must be calibrated after the development of a strategy; in
fact the decision of a specific strategy implies also determined behaviors with
stakeholders.
Different is the analysis of possible and alternative scenarios, where companies can
manage and understand how the relationships with and among stakeholders have
consequences on the management of the organizations.
143
6.3 Implication for practitioners
Stakeholder theory argues that companies should make decisions so as to take in
consideration the interests of all stakeholders. I argued that the combination of patterns
of interests that are shared between a company and its stakeholders is determined by the
capability to make sense of interests and interpret the most relevant issues. So the
consideration of particular stakeholders is a consequence of enacting organizational
environment, involving the subjects that respond to the companies’ argumentations.
From a practical point of view, my work might important because it gives some relevant
information on the mechanisms that explain how companies should maximize the
outcomes that derives from the interaction with stakeholders: the relevance of
legitimation is not the only significant aspect that characterizes sensemaking of
stakeholders interests. From the interaction, in fact, derives also a list of practical
suggestions and repercussions that are implemented in the companies’ practices. The
implications of my work can be relevant for companies and their managers, but also
from stakeholders and policy makers.
For policy makers, the model developed in this study can be used as a tool to
understand the mechanism that reduce or increment the relations between companies
and stakeholders and permit them to develop more efficient collaborative plans. Given
the usual practical and financial constraints experienced by destination policy makers
and practitioners, the approach taken in this study could be adapted for use with focus
groups of different kinds stakeholders and companies to open a debate on new ways to
enact environmental issues and find common findings that can be achieved in the
implementation of Corporate Environmental Management practices. The model can also
be used to develop scenarios relating to potential or planned new environmental
strategies. Policy makers can use these understandings to engage with stakeholders and
companies in developing innovative environmental management and marketing
strategies. From a practical level, this research demonstrates the importance and effect
of regulatory, technical and managerial dimensions of sensemaking activities and can be
adapted to be used as a general template useful for the implementation of Corporate
Environmental Management also in other companies and industries. In summary then,
in addition to the theoretical implications and contribution set out above, this research is
144
of practical benefit to policy makers and practitioners in a number of ways. In
particular, the study can be used:
•
At an organizational level, to understand the current mechanisms that permits
the enactment of environmental issues and explores and assesses possibilities for
future destination improvements and developments of sensemaking.
•
At a strategic level, to support the development of stakeholders engagement in
green strategies and initiatives and to balance the economic impact of alternative
patterns of interests in the development of Corporate Environmental
Management strategies.
•
To provide training, which promotes understanding among companies and
stakeholders, using formal and informal team groups for these activities.
145
6.4 Future research implications
From this work it clearly emerges that sensemaking is not a symbolic procedure, but a
relevant activity that serves to concretely enact issues and help companies in their daily
occupations. Once declared the intention to act green, companies start to involve their
stakeholders in different activities. Future studies might explore these kind of processes
trying to understand if they are evolutionary processes or if there are other elements that
characterize different typologies of sensemaking (issues differences or organizational
characteristics).
Another important element that must be underlined is the differences between singular
and multi engagement sensemaking processes, where managers, once decided to
implement green practices start to decentralize gradually sustainable activities, firstly
integrating them into the line of the organization and in a second moment developing
outside the company’s boundaries their activities, handling the explicit communication
of Corporate Environmental Management implementation. So, the level of explicit
corporate policies is another relevant element that impact on the relations between
companies and stakeholders. Also for this topic, a suggestion for future studies is to try
to understand the link between sensemaking and tacit and explicit forms of
stakeholders’ engagement.
In addition, sensemaking is influenced by the identity of the subjects involved in the
process and from facts and circumstances that are antecedent to the start of
sensemaking. For this reason, the history and the quality of relations between
stakeholders and companies impact extraordinarily on the development of common
sensemaking process. Managers decide who must be involved considering also
precedent elements that can anticipate the outcomes of future relations. From this point
of view considering perceptions as something that change during time, it should be
interesting to study the temporal evolution of perceptions and how it impacts on the
stakeholders’ engagement.
Considering the evolution of relationship perception is important in both negative and
positive relationships: companies change their attitudes in terms of explicit and implicit
communication of their green activities, instead of different stakeholders’ perception.
So, the identification of internal and external elements, that influence the perception of
146
groups of stakeholders, is an antecedent element that is relevant, in the development or
not of sensemaking processes, on the enactment of environmental issues and finally on
prioritizing some practices instead of others.
In this study I illustrate the factors that demonstrate how companies take advantage
from their stakeholders in the development of green strategies through a combination of
unidirectional and bilateral communicational activities, subjective experiences and
formalized patterns of interests. First of all, further research could be carried out to gain
deeper understanding of the ways in which previous experience is carried forward into
the sensemaking process. Such further studies should serve to deepen understanding of
that process as experienced in different companies and/or industry contexts to
understand how organizational characteristics can impact on sensemaking involvement.
147
6.5 Concluding remarks
This study has investigated how managers exploit environmental issues to enact
tangible stakeholders’ interests. It has demonstrated the utility of sensemaking approach
that facilitates the engagement of stakeholders into decision-making activities.
Organizations engage with their market and non-market constituents and try to merge
interests about the legitimacy of their practices before they become institutionalized
through social interaction (Delmas & Toffel, 2008) or selecting the most appropriate
practices that merge diverse interests and different categories of constituents. The
acceptance of interests is explained by people that make sense of things, sharing
practical measures and instruments that are implemented within their scope of
influences (Cramer et al., 2004). Finally, it has suggested a number of theoretical,
research and practical implications arising from the findings.
This would not have been as interesting without the support of both university
colleagues and supervisors. Practitioner colleagues were equally generous in facilitating
access and actively supporting the data collection process. This thesis would not exist,
however, without the enthusiasm of the interviewees to take time to talk about their
experiences. It is my hope that the results will be a useful starting point for those who
seek to understand and improve the studies of Corporate Environmental Management
and stakeholder and sensemaking theories.
148
REFERENCES
Affisco, J.F., Nasri F., Paknejad M.J. 1997. Environmental versus quality standards -an
overview and comparison. International Journal of Quality Science, 2(1): 5-23.
Ahlstedt, L. & Jahnukainen I. 1971.
ohjausjarjestelmana, Weilin + Goos, Helsinki.
Yritysorganisaatio
yhteistoiminnan
Ayuso, S. 2005. Adoption of Voluntary Environmental Tools for Sustainable Tourism:
Analyzing the Experience of Spanish Hotels. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 13, 207-220.
Andriof, J., Waddock S., Husted B., Rahman S.S. 2003. Unfolding Stakeholder
thinking: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and Performance, 145-161.
Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Bansal, P. & Howard E. 1997. Business and the Natural Environment. Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.
Balta, W. & Woodside G. 1999. IBM’s experience implementing ISO 14001 on a
global basis: Does ISO 14001 achieves its intended goals? Journal of the Forum for
Environmental Law, Science, Engineering and Finance, 3(9): 1-10.
Barbier, E. 1987. The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environmental
Conservation, 14(2): 101-110.
Barnes, P.E. 1996. Green standards. B&E Review October–December 24-28.
Basu, K. & Palazzo, G. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of
Sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33: 122-136.
Benninger, C. 2001. Principles of Intelligent Urbanism. Ekistics, 69(412): 39-65,
Athens.
Bohdanowicz, P. 2007. A case study of Hilton Environmental Reporting as a tool of
Corporate Social Responsibility. Tourism Review International, 11(2): 115–131.
Bohdanowicz, P., Simanic, B., & Martinac, I. (2005) Environmental training and
measures at Scandic Hotels, Sweden. Tourism Review International, 9(1): 7–19.
Bohdanowicz, P. & Zientara P. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility in Hospitality:
Issues and implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism, 8(4): 271-293.
Boiral, O. 2007. Corporate Greening thorugh ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?
Organization Science, 18(1), pp. 127-146.
Bonilla Priego M.J. & Avilés Palacios C. 2008. Analysis of Environmental Statements
Issued by EMAS-Certified Spanish Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49 381394.
Botterill, D. 2001. The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 20:
199-214.
149
Bramwell, B., Alletorp L. 2001. Attitudes in the Danish tourism industry to the roles of
business and government in sustainable tourism. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 3(2): 91-103.
Brotherton, B. 2003. The International Hospitality Industry: Structure, Characteristics
and Issues. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Brunsson, N. 2003. The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in
organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Campbell, J.L. 2007. Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways?
An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 32: 946-967.
Cary, S.H. 2004. The Tourist Moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31: 61-77.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate
Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
Carroll A. B., 1989. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management.
Cincinnati: South-Western.
Caroll, A. B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August: 30-48.
Carroll A. B., 1993. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (2nd
ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western.
Carroll G. R., & Hannan, M. T., 1989. Density delay in the evolution of organizational
populations: A model and five empirical tests. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34:
411-430.
Carroll A. B., & Nasi J., 1997. Understanding Stakeholder Thinking: Themes from a
Finnish conference. Business Ethics a European review, 6(1): 46-51.
Chan, E. S. W., Wong S. C.K., 2006. Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry.
Tourism Management, 27: 481-492.
Choo C. W. 2006. The Knowing Organization How Organizations Use Information to
Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press.
Chon, K. & Sparrowe R. 2000. Welcome to Hospitality: An Introduction, 2nd edn.
Delmar.
Clarcke, A. & Chen W. 2007. International Hospitality Management, Concepts and
Cases. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.
Clarkson, M.B.E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20: 92-117.
Cramer J., van der Heijden A. & Jonker J. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: making
sense through thinking and acting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4): 380389.
150
Daft, R. L., Weick K. 1984. Towards a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. Academy of Management Review, (9): 284-295.
Darnall, N., Gallagher, D.R., Andrews, R.N.L., Amaral, D. 2000. EMS opportunities for
improved environmental and business strategy. Quality Progress, 9(3): 1-9.
Darnal, N., Inshik S., Sarkis J. 2009. Perceived Stakeholder influences and
organizations’ use of environmental audits. Accounting, Organization and Society,
34: 170-187.
D'Aunno, T., Succi M., & Jeffrey A., 2000. The role of institutional and market forces
in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 679703.
Davis, G.F., 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the
inter-corporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 583-613.
Delmas, M.A. 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe
and the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35: 91-119.
Delmas, M., Keller A. 2005. Strategic free riding in voluntary programs: the case of the
US EPA WasteWise program. Policy Sciences, 38(1): 91-106.
Delmas, M. A. & Terlaak, A. 2001. A framework for enalyzing environmental
voluntary agreements. California Management Review, 43(3): 44-63.
Delmas, M.A., & Toffel M.W., 2004. Institutional pressure and environmental
management practices. In Stakeholders, Environment and Society (New Perspectives in
Research on Corporate Sustainability), Sharma S, Starik M (eds). Edward Elgar
Publishing: Cheltenham, UK.
Delmas, M.A., Toffel M.W., 2008. Organizational responses to environmental
demands: opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10): 1027-1055.
DeSimone, L. & Popoff, F. 1997. Eco-efficiency: The business link to sustainable
development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism
and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review,
48(2): 147-160.
Donaldson T., & Preston L. E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65-91.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14: 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. 2007. Theory Building from Cases; opportunities
and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25-32.
Ericson, T. 2001. Sensemaking in organizations: towards a conceptual framework for
understanding strategic change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1):109131.
151
Erdogan,N. & Baris E. 2007. Environmental protection programs and conservation
practices of hotels in Ankara, Turkey. Tourism Management, 28: 604-614.
Erstad, M. 1997. Empowerment and organisational change. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(7): 325–33.
European Commission, 2004. Buying green. A handbook on environmental public
procurement, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Fineman, S. & Clarke K. 1996. Green Stakeholders: Industry interpretations and
response. Journal of Management Studies, 33.
Fineman, S. 1996a. Constructing the green manager. British Journal of Management.
Fineman, S. 1996b. Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies,
17(3): 479-500.
Fiske S.T. & Taylor S. 1991. Social Cognition, 2nd ed. Random House, New York.
Font, X. 2002. Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: Progress, process
and prospects. Tourism Management, 23:197-205.
Font, X., Tapper R., Schwartz K. & Kornilaki M. 2008. Sustainable Supply Chain
Management in Tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17: 260-271.
Forsyth, T., 1995. Business attitudes to sustainable tourism: self-regulation in the UK
outgoing tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4): 210-231.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pittman
Freeman R. E., & Evan W. M., 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder
interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19: 337-359.
Frysinger, S.P. 2001. Environmental Decision Support Systems: A Tool for
Environmentally Conscious Management in C.N. Madu (ed.), The Handbook of
Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 317-39.
Frooman J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies, Academy of Management Review,
24(2): 191-205.
Garriga, E. & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the
Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71.
Georg, S. & Fussel L. 2000. Making Sense of Greening and Organizational Change,
Business Strategy and the environment, 9: 175-185.
Gioia, D.A. & Thomas J.B. 1996. Identity, Image and Issue interpretation: sensemaking
during strategic change in Academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.
Goodson, L. & Phillimore, J. 2004. The inquiry paradigm in qualitative tourism
research. In Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L. (Eds.) Qualitative Research in Tourism:
ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. London, Routledge.
Gore, Al. 1993. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and Human Spirit. New York: Plume.
152
Greenwood, R. & Hinings C. R., 1996. Understanding radical organizational change:
Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management
Review, 21: 1022-1054.
Govers, R. & Go F.M. 2000 Deconstructing destination image in the information age.
Information Technology & Tourism, 6: 13-29.
James, J.P., Yang,X. 2004. Indoor and Built Environment, Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Several Green and Non-Green Building Materials: A
Comparison.
Jennings, P. D & Zandbergen, P A., 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An
institutional approach. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 1015-1052.
Jeurissen R., 2004. Moral complexity in organizations. In Korthals, M. and Bogers, R.
(Eds.), Ethics for Life Scientists: 11-20. Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson-Cramer M.E., Berman S.L., & Post, J.E., 2003. Re-examining the concept of
‘‘stakeholder management’’. In Andriof, J.,Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Rahman, S.S.
(Eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Relationships, Communication, Reporting and
Performance: 145-161. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Hahn, C.K., Watts C.D. & Kim K.Y. 1990. The Supplier Development Programme: A
Conceptual Model. Journal of Purchasing Management, Spring: 2-7.
Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R., Johnson, P. 2000. Linking operational and
environmental improvement through employee involvement. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 20(2): 148-165.
Henion, K.E. & Kinnear T.C. 1976. Ecological Marketing, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, c1976. vii, 168.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky P. 1999. The relationship between environmental commitment
and managerial perceptions of stakeholders importance. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(1): 87-99.
Hersey, K. 1998. A Close Look at ISO 14000. Professional Safety, 43(7): 26-29.
Hoffman, A. J. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses - The diffusion of
corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14(2): 133-156.
Hoffman A. J., & Ocasio W. 2001. Not All Events are Attended Equally: Toward a
Middle-Range Theory of Industry Attention to External Events. Organization Science,
12(4), 414-434.
Hoffman, A. & Ventresca, M. 1999. The Institutional Framing of Policy Debates.
American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8): 1368-1392.
Hoffman, A. J. & Ventresca, M. J. 2002. Organizations, policy and the natural
environment: institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford, Stanford University
Press.
Horobin, H., Long J. 1996. Sustainable tourism: the role of the small firm.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(5): 15-19.
153
Holcomb, J.L., Upchurch, R.S., & Okumus, F. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility:
What are the top hotel companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 19(6): 461–475.
International Hotels Environment Initiative, 1996. Environmental Management for
Hotels: The Industry Guide for Best Practice, 2nd edn, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Kakabadse, A.P., Kakabadse, N.K. & Rozuel C. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility:
Contrast of Meanings, and Intents. In: Kakabadse, A.P. & Kakabadse, N.K. (ed) (2007).
CSR in Practice: Delving Deep. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kirk, D. 1998. Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel
managers in Edinburgh. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17: 3347.
Knowles, T., Macmillan S., Palmer J., Grabowski P., Hashimoto A. 1999. The
development of environmental initiatives in tourism: responses from the London hotel
sector. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(4): 255-265.
Luoma P., & Goodstein J., 1999. Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional
influences on board composition. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 553-563.
Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1): 21-49.
Maitlis, S. & Lawrence, T.B. 2007. Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 57-84.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social
initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305.
Mason, R.O. & Mitrof I.I. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: theory,
cases. and techniques, New York: Wiley.
Maxwell, J., Rothenberg, S., Briscoe, F., Marcus, A. 1997. Green schemes: corporate
environmental strategies and their implementation. California Management Review,
39(3): 118-120.
McCabe, D. & Dutton J. 1993. Making Sense of the Environment. Human Relations,
46(5): 623-642.
Middleton, V., Hawkins R. 1993. Practical environmental policies in travel and tourism
– Part I: The hotel sector. EIU Travel and Tourism Analyst 6: 63-76.
Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business
Review, (January–February): 107-14.
Mills, J.H. & Weatherbee, T. 2006. Hurricanes Hardly Happen: Sensemaking as a
Framework for Understanding Organizational Disasters. Culture and Organization,
12(3): 265-279.
154
Mills, J.H., Weatherbee, T. & Colwell, S.R. 2006. Ethnostatistics and Sensemaking:
making sense of University and Business School Accreditation and Rankings.
Organizational Research Methods, 9(4): 491-515.
Milstein, M.B., Hart, S.L. & York, A.S. 2002. Coercion breeds variation: The
differential impact of isomorphic pressures on environmental strategies. In
Organizations, policy and the natural environment: institutional and strategic
perspectives. A. J. Hoffman & M.J. Ventresca. Stanford, Stanford University Press:
xxxiv, 489.
Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R., & Wood D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-886.
Morsing, M. & Schultz M. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility Communication:
stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 5: 323-338.
Nasi J. 1995. A Scandinavian Approach to Stakeholder Thinking: an analysis of its
theoretical and practical uses, 1964-1980. In Nasi J., Understanding stakeholder
thinking Helsinki: LSR-Julkaisut Oy.
Nasi J., Nasi, S., & Savage, G.T. 1994. A stubborn entrepreneur under pressure of a
union and the courts: An analysis of stakeholder strategies in a conflict process. In S.
Wartick & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the
International Association for Business and Society: 228-234. Hilton Head, SC.
Nijhof, A. & Jeurissen R. 2006. Editorial: A sensemaking perspective on corporate
social responsibility: introduction to the special issue. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 15(4): 316-322.
Neville B. A., Menguc B., 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of
the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4): 377-391.
Oliver C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of
Management Review, 16: 145-179.
Orst E. W., & Studdler A. 2002. The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder
theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 215-233.
Oxley Green A. & Hunton-Clarke L. 2003. A typology of stakeholder participation for
company environmental decision-making. Business Strategy and the Environment,
12: 292-299.
Parent, M.M. & DeepHouse D. 2007. A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and
Prioritization by Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1): 1-23.
Pater A. & van Lierop K. 2006. Sense and sensitivity: the roles of organization and
stakeholders in managing corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 14(4): 339-351.
Phillips R. A. & Margolis J.M. 1999. Toward an Ethics of Organizations. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 9(4): 637-56.
155
Phillips, R.A. & Reichart J. 2000. The Environmet as a Stakeholder? A Fairness Based
Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, (23)2.
Philips, R. 2003. Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1): 25-41.
Pedersen, E.R. 2006. Making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Operable: How
Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice. Business and Society
Review, 111(2): 137-163.
Pedersen, E.R. 2007. Perceptions of performance: How European organizations
experience EMAS registration. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 14: 61-73.
Pedersen E.R. 2009. Modelling CSR: How Managers Understand the Responsibilities
of Business Towards Society. CBS Working Paper Series. Published by CBS Center
for Corporate Social Responsibility Porcelænshaven 18B DK - 2000 Frederiksberg.
ISBN 978-87-92114-03-7.
Peterson, J. 1996. Stop It and Shrink It, Purchasing Today (July): 28-31.
Polonsky, M.J. 1994a. Green Marketing Regulation in the US and Australia: The
Australian Checklist. Greener Management International, 5: 44-53.
Polonsky, M.J. 1994b. A Stakeholder Theory Approach to Designing Environmental
Marketing Strategy. Unpublished Working Paper.
Polonsky, M.J. 1994c. An introduction to green marketing. Electronic Green Journal,
1(2).
Pruitt, D.G., Peirce R.S., McGillicuddy N.B., Welton, G.L. & Castrianno L.M. 1993.
Long-term success in mediation. Law and Human Behavior, 17: 313-330.
Rajagopal, S. & Bernard K.N. 1993. Strategic Procurement and Competitive
Advantage. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
(Autumn): 13-20.
Reed, M. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature
review. Biological Conservation, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
Roloff, J. 2008. Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed
Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 233-250.
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887-910.
Saarinen, J. 2006. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(4): 1121-1140.
Sarkis, J. 2006. Greening the Supply Chain, Springer.
Sautter, E. & Leisen B. 1999. Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26: 312-328.
Scandic, 2007. Omtanke – A Day in the Life of a Scandic Hotel (Stockholm: Scandic).
156
Scott, W.R. 1992. Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs
N.J., Prentice Hall.
Scott, W.R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage
Publications.
Scott, S.G. & Lane V.R. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 43.
Sharma, S.P. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as pre-dictors
of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43:
681- 697.
Sharma, S.P. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors
of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43:
681- 697.
Sharma, S.P., Amy L. & Vredenbur H. 1999. Corporate environmental responsiveness
strategies: The importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 87-108.
Sharma, S.P. & Niguan O. 1999. The biotechnology industry and biodiversity
conservation strategies: the influence of managerial interpretations and risk propensity.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(Jan-Feb): 46-61.
Sharma, S.P. & Vredenburg H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and
the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(8): 729-753.
Short, J.L. & Toffel M.W. 2008. Coerced confessions: self policing in the shadow of the
regulator. Journal of Law, Economics & Organizations, 24(1): 45-71.
Selin, S. & Beason K. 1991. Interorganizational Relations in Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 18: 639-652.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Sloan, P., Legrand W. & Chen J.S. 2009, Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry
Principles of Sustainable Operations, Oxford: Elsevier
Simon, H. 1947. Administrative Behavior. Free Press, New York.
Smirchich, L. & Stubbart C. 1985. Strategic management in an enacted world.
Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 724-736.
Srouf, R. 2003. A Framework for Strategic Environmental Sourcing. In Sarkis J.,
(2006). Greening the Supply Chain, Springer.
Stabler, M.J. & Goodall B. 1997. Environmental awareness, action and performance in
the Guernsey hospitality sector. Tourism Management, 18(1): 19-33.
Stanton, W.J. & Futrell C. 1987. Fundamentals of Marketing. 8th edition. New York:
McGraw- Hill Book Company.
157
Strand, R. 2009. Corporate Responsibility in Scandinavian Supply Chains. Journal of
Business Ethics, 85: 179-185.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques for
developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, California 91320, Sage Publications Inc.
Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. & Gioia, D.A. 1993. Strategic sense making and
organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2): 239-270.
Tyler, T.R. 2002. Leadership and cooperation in groups. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45: 769-782.
Van Manen, M. 1990. Researching lived experience: human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy, New York, State University of New York Press.
Vernon, J., Essex S., Pinder D., Curry K. 2003. The “greening” of tourism microbusinesses: outcomes of focus group investigations in South East Cornwall. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 12: 49-69.
Visser, W., Matten D., Pohl M. & Tolhurst N. 2007. The A to Z of Corporate Social
Responsibility. A Complete Reference Guide to Concepts, Codes and Organisations.
John Wiley and Sond Ltd.
Walle, A.H. 1997. Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24: 524-536.
Walker, D.H.T. 2000. Client/customer or stakeholder focus? ISO 14000 EMS as a
construction industry case study. The TQM Magazine, 12(1): 18–25.
Warglien, M. 2002. Intraorganizational evolution. J. A. C. Baum ed. The Blackwell
Companion to Organizations. Blackwell, Malden MA, 98-118.
Welford, R. 2007. Corporate Environmental Management. In Visser W., Matten D. Pohl
M. and Tolhurst N., 2007. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility, A Complete
Reference Guide to Concepts, Codes and Organization. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Weick K. E., Sutcliffe K. M. & Obstfeld D. 2005. Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409-421.
Wiens, J. 2008. Green Purchasing: Helping Nature And The Bottom Line. Published on
facilitiesnet.
Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Third Edition, Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Volume 5. Sage Publications.
Yu, L. 1999. The Hospitality Business: Management and Operations. The Haworth
Hospitality Press.
Yurman, D. 1994. Markets for Green Technologies; Working Paper, Current Literature
Review and Bibliography. EcoNet Western Lands Gopher, June. Superseded by "Green
Technology: Markets, Competition and Barriers; New Paradigms for Natural
Resources." September 13.
158
INTERNET SITES
Best Practices Database
http://www.bestpractices.org/
Center for hospitality Research
http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/
chr/
CO2 Neutral Hotels Program
http://co2neutral-hotels.com/uk-index.htm/
Danish Ministry of the
Environment
http://www.mst.dk/English/
Det Norske Veritas
http://www.dnv.com/
Ecolodgical
http://www.yourhomeplanet.com/ecolodgical
/index_ems.php/
EMAS Case Studies
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/casest
udies/terceiramar_en.htm/
European Commission Environment
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.ht
m/
European Environment Agency
http://www.eea.europa.eu/
European Union – Sustainable
Week
http://www.eusew.eu/
Go Beyond Green
http://www.terracurve.com/2010/03/29/hospi
tality-industry-to-show-off-its-sustainabletrends/
Green A blog about Energy and
Environment
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/
Green Facts
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/index.htm/
Green Key
http://www.kmvk.nl/greenkey/
International Organization for
Standardization
http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html/
International Tourism Partnership
http://www.tourismpartnership.org/
Meeting Copenhagen
http://www.meetincopenhagen.com/
Sustainable Business
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/
Travel Daily News Online Website
http://www.traveldailynews.com/
Visit Copenhagen
http://www.meetincopenhagen.com/
159
160
APPENDIX
Presentation Letter
Subject: CBS Research on top Environmental Hotels in Copenhagen: the Case
Dear [Business Owner Name]:
I am a PhD Student, specializing in Environmental Management at LUISS Guido Carli
University of Rome in collaboration with Copenhagen Business School – Centre for
Corporate Social Responsibility. I would like to interview you about your business as
part of a project of my PhD thesis. The purpose of this study is to understand the forms
of multi-stakeholders governance and the legitimacy and effectiveness of different
global Environmental Management Standards. My goal is to use sensemaking and
sensegiving approach to the concrete actions that managers use to interact with their
primary and secondary stakeholders when they have to communicate and develop
Environmental Strategies. Specifically, I would like to interview you about your
environmental strategies to get a detailed look at your direct way to communicate and
get in contact with different kind of stakeholders, inside and outside the boundaries of
your organization – with a focus on how do you concretely use them to exploit your
Environmental Management Systems and how it has perceived (internally and
externally of your company)
This interview should take about 1 hour. I will call you in approximately two - three
days to follow-up on this email and, if you are willing to participate in my study, set up
a time when we can meet for the interview.
Thanks very much for your time, Sincerely, Riccardo Maiolini
161
Interview Introduction and Informed Consent Review Letter
As I’ve mentioned, I am a PhD Student, specializing in Environmental Management,
with LUISS Guido Carli University of Rome and Copenhagen Business School –
Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.
Thanks for agreeing to participate in our case study of sensemaking of Environmental
Management Systems. The purpose of this interview is to get a detailed look at your
direct environmental management approach. I am interviewing you as part of my PhD
Thesis project. The purpose of this study is to use sensemaking and sensegiving
approach to the concrete actions that managers use to interact with their primary and
secondary stakeholders when they have to communicate and develop Environmental
Strategies.
This interview should take about 1 hour. Your participation in the study is completely
voluntary. However, you are in no way obligated to participate in it. You will not be
penalized in any way if you decline to participate in it. You may ask questions about the
study both before committing to participate in it and at any time throughout the study.
If you do choose to participate in the study, I would like to tape record our interview
with you so we have something to refer to, to check facts. You may refuse to have the
interview taped and still participate in the study. If you grant me permission to use the
tape recorder, you may request that the tape recorder be turned off at any time. We will
destroy the tapes no later than six months after the interview. We will destroy the
interview guide notes and data no later than three years after the interview. You may
also refuse to answer any question at any time and you may choose to end the interview
or withdraw from the study at any time.
The information we will be asking you to share WILL be published in a research report.
However, in no way will your name or other identifying factors be linked to individual
economic data for publication purposes. Instead, this information along with other direct
concurrent will be used to illustrate general estimates on levels of investment, income,
and profitability. If there is something you prefer not to have publicly disclosed, please
be sure to let me know. You will also be asked to review and approve any written
materials before they are published. You will also be given a signed and dated copy of
162
this consent form. You may contact me, with any questions, concerns or complaints. I
can be contacted via: email at rmaiolini@luiss.it, phone (+39 3492219793).
Do you understand these conditions? If so, please tell me what your role in this project
is and the rights you have as a participant in this study. If not, please let me know what I
haven’t explained sufficiently. [Clarify anything that the interviewee was unclear
about.]
I addition to agreeing to participate in this interview,
I hereby give _____ / do not give ______ my permission to record this interview.
I also hereby give _____ / do not give _____ my permission to Mr. Riccardo Maiolini
to include information about my organization in reports, and use the name of our
organization in forthcoming publications.
163
List of Questions
Corporate Environmental Management
CEM info historical dissertation
CEM Origins
CEM tools (EMSs or others)
Can you explain the relationship between your activity and CEM?
How are you involved in the development and implementation of CEM?
Who else is involved in CEM in your organization?
There can be different interpretation about Corporate Environmental Strategies?
How did the Corporate Environmental Strategy change your involvement over the time?
How are decisions made to change?
What information would help you in making such decisions in the future?
Environmental Management Systems
Can you explain me how does your EMS work?
What is your role of the EMS in your organization?
Who is getting part in the decision process of EMS?
Who does decide which EMS was the best one to be adopted?
Why do you think your company chooses this particular one?
Which are the benefits that derived from the usage of the EMS?
What are the limits of EMS?
Can you explain how do you are involved in the EMS activities and practices?
Who else is part of EMS?
How do you interact with them?
Which is the most critical part of the EMS?
How do you consider - every category of stakeholders - instead of EMS?
Why do you think they are interests in CEM?
164
CEM and Stakeholders
To who is direct CEM? If the interviewer doesn’t talk about stakeholders ask which are
the stakeholders interested in the development of CEM?
Who are your stakeholders?
How do you consider - every category of stakeholders - instead of CEM?
Why do you think they are interests in CEM?
Which kind of relationships do you have with them?
Do you have some interests that can be in conflict with them?
Are some stakeholders against each other?
What organizations or individuals in the stakeholders’ community do you collaborate
with? How?
How do you communicate with Stakeholders about CEM & EMS?
Why do you share information with them?
Can you give me examples of problems that you share or you use to confront with
stakeholders?
Do they give you feed back on it?
Do you have expectations on their feedback?
Can you estimate the value of this collaboration?
There are some stakeholders that you do not consider seriously? Why? Give me some
example.
Which are the most collaborative stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Who are the most efficient stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Who are the most inefficient stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Environmental Issues and the role of Stakeholders
How do stakeholders take part to the identification and management of environmental
issues in your organization? Give some example of identification and management
activities that involve them.
How do you consider - every category of stakeholders - instead of Environmental
Issues?
165
Why do you think they are interests in environmental issues?
How do you communicate with Stakeholders about environmental issues?
Why do you share information with them?
Can you give me examples of problems that you share or you use to confront with
stakeholders?
Do they give you feed back on it?
Do you have expectations on their feedback?
Can you estimate the value of this collaboration?
There are some stakeholders that you do not consider seriously? Why? Give me some
example.
Which are the most collaborative stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Who are the most efficient stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Who are the most inefficient stakeholders? Why? Give me some example.
Environmental Issues, making sense of
Which are the most discussed arguments in regard of CEM?
How do you manage the single issue?
How do you prioritize green issues?
Can you explain how do you organize internally the development or management of
environmental issues?
Can you give me examples of activities that have been developed to manage
environmental issues?
Which are the regulatory/social implications of the issues?
Which are the technical implications of the issues?
Which are the managerial/economical implications of the issues?
How do you interpret external information about environmental issues?
Did you know about – single specific issue – before the implementation of CEM?
Regarding - specific issue – who is the expert? There are internal subjects into your
organization that have some kind of knowledge or skills about – single issue - ?
166
Did you receive suggestion fro outside? Who gave you the suggestions? Are the
suggestions that you received useful to interpret the issue?
There has been equivocal information or suggestions?
How long was the process of interpretation? How many subjects collaborate in the
interpretation of the issues? There were conflicts among them?
Which are the relationships among stakeholders’ interests and environmental issues in
terms of regulatory, technical and managerial categories of interests
Explain how do you interact with other subjects in terms of creating and receiving
contribution about issues.
How do you communicate with other members of the teams and stakeholders about
specific problems or questions on environmental issues?
Can you explain the direction of the communication?
Do you feel involved in terms of communication with your stakeholders?
How do you think they receive your communication?
Do you think they feel involved? How they communicate their behavior and efforts?
How do you consider the role of stakeholders in regards to the environmental issues in
terms of:
Information
Consultation
Involvement
Collaboration
Empowerment
Which is the principal scope of involving stakeholder in the evaluation and definition of
environmental activities?
Which is the principal scope of involving stakeholder in the definition of environmental
issues?
Which is the principal scope of involving stakeholder in the implementation of
environmental practices?
167