1
The impac o s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies on en i onmen al pe o mance:
A mode a ed media ion model
Elisa Al 1; Emilio Pablo Díez de Cas o2; F ancisco Ja ie Llo éns-Mon es3
1 PhD Candida e in Managemen , Uni e si y o Se ille, [email p o ec ed]
2 P o esso o Managemen , Uni e si y o Se ille
3 P o esso o Managemen , Uni e si y o G anada
Abs ac
The p esen s udy examines he associa ion be ween s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies and
en i onmen al pe o mance, wi hin a na u al- esou ce-based iew amewo k. Using su ey
da a om a c oss-coun y and c oss-indus y se ing o 170 i ms, we es ed a mode a ed
media ion model wi h boo s apping me hods, assessing he media ing ole o i ms’
p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies and he mode a ing ole o o ganisa ional lea ning
capabili ies. Resul s e ealed ha i ms’ p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies ac ed as a
media o be ween s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies and en i onmen al pe o mance only
when employees’ usage in luence s a egies was he independen a iable. Speci ically,
p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies media ed he indi ec e ec when lea ning capabili ies
we e high bu no when hey we e low. Ou indings demons a e ha en i onmen al
s a egies and lea ning capabili ies a e key mechanisms in explaining how employees migh
ad ance he co po a e g eening agenda and ul ima ely impac i ms’ en i onmen al
pe o mance.
Key wo ds: en i onmen al pe o mance; lea ning capabili ies; mode a ed media ion;
pe cei ed unce ain y; p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies; s akeholde s’ in luence
2
In oduc ion
Among all he po en ial an eceden s o i ms’ en i onmen al p oac i i y, s akeholde s’
p essu es s and as he cen al de e minan ac o (González-Beni o and González-Beni o,
2006). S akeholde s a e de ined as “any g oup o indi idual who can a ec o is a ec ed by
he achie emen o he o ganisa ion’s objec i es” (F eeman, 1984, p. 46), and hus ha e been
conside ed o s ongly a ec he de elopmen o en i onmen al managemen capabili ies
(Buysse and Ve beke, 2003).
Pa icula ly wi hin he na u al- esou ce-based iew (NRBV) o he i m (Ha , 1995), a
s akeholde in eg a ion capabili y is a key esou ce ha companies may use o os e hei
en i onmen al s a egies, and subsequen ly achie e compe i i e ad an ages and be e
en i onmen al pe o mance. In his con ex , some s udies ha e con ibu ed subs an ially o
ou unde s anding o s akeholde s’ in luences on he adop ion o p oac i e en i onmen al
s a egies (e.g. A agón-Co ea e al., 2008; Da nall e al., 2010; Rueda-Manzana es e al.,
2008; Sha ma and Hen iques, 2005). Howe e , none o hem has conside ed en i onmen al
pe o mance as a dependen a iable. On he o he hand, s udies ha ha e ocused on he
impac o s akeholde s’ p essu es on en i onmen al pe o mance (e.g. Kassinis and Va eas,
2006; Kock e al., o hcoming) did no accoun o he media ing ole o en i onmen al
s a egies.
In his pape we in end o add ess his gap, by simul aneously looking a he di ec e ec
o s akeholde s’ in luence on i ms’ en i onmen al s a egies, and a he indi ec e ec o his
in luence on en i onmen al pe o mance. As pe o mance ou comes may be condi ional on
he in ensi y o o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies displayed by i ms (Bake and Sinkula,
1999), we also aim a es ing hese capabili ies as mode a o s. Fu he mo e, we aim a
looking a di e en ypes o in luence s a egies adop ed by a ious s akeholde s. Depending
3
on he ype o in luence s a egy adop ed by di e en g oups o s akeholde s, ela ions wi h
i ms may be ei he collabo a i e o con on a ional (Sha ma and Hen iques, 2005), hus
p oducing di e gen ou comes.
Theo y de elopmen
S akeholde s’ in luence s a egies and p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies
Di e en ypes o s akeholde s may use a ious in luence s a egies o u he i ms’
en i onmen al p ac ices and en i onmen al pe o mance. These in luence s a egies a y
mainly as a unc ion o he esou ce dependence (P e e and Salancik, 1978) be ween i ms
and s akeholde s, acco ding o F ooman’s (1999) ypology. In scena ios o low
in e dependence o s akeholde powe , s akeholde s as en i onmen al NGOs and local
communi ies (Sha ma and Hen iques, 2005) may choose wi hholding s a egies o in luence
he i m. In scena ios o i m powe o high in e dependence, s akeholde s as cus ome s and
employees may op o usage s a egies. Speci ically, wi hholding s a egies a e a he
con on a ional (e.g. local communi y p o es s), in ha hey may de e mine “whe he he i m
ge s he esou ce i needs”, and usage s a egies a e a he collabo a i e (e.g. employee
sugges ions), in ha hey may de e mine “whe he he i m can use he esou ces in he way
i wan s” (F ooman, 1999, p. 196). Thus, ailing o pe cei e and manage hese s a egies may
lead i ms o isk hei epu a ion and legi imacy, and miss aluable oppo uni ies o
de eloping g een compe encies (Buysse and Ve beke, 2003; Delmas, 2001).
Wi hin he NRBV amewo k, he capabili y o managing s akeholde s’ in luence
s a egies, o en e med s akeholde in eg a ion (Ha , 1995; Sha ma and V edenbu g, 1998),
is a sine qua non o p oac i e en i onmen al managemen (A agón-Co ea e al., 2008;
Da nall e al., 2010; Delmas and To el, 2008; González-Beni o and González-Beni o, 2006;
4
Rueda-Manzana es e al., 2008; Sha ma and Hen iques, 2005). The e o e, manage s ac as
media o s o s akeholde s’ in luence (Fineman and Cla ke, 1996), and examining manage ial
pe cep ions o such in luence is c i ical o unde s and which s akeholde s and which
s a egies can con ibu e o en i onmen al ad ances (Bane jee, 2001; Hen iques and
Sado sky, 1999).
Mos impo an , i s akeholde s’ in luences a e a cen al de e minan o p oac i e
en i onmen al s a egies, hey migh indi ec ly con ibu e o imp o emen s in i ms’
en i onmen al pe o mance. As p e ious esea ch has shown, he le el o in eg a ion o
en i onmen al issues in o i ms’ s a egic planning p ocesses, o he adop ion o
en i onmen al s a egies, is a s ong p edic o o posi i e en i onmen al pe o mance (An on
e al., 2004; Chan, 2005; Judge and Douglas, 1998).
Hypo hesis 1: The pe cei ed impac o s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies will be posi i ely
associa ed wi h a i m’s p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies.
Hypo hesis 2: A i m’s p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies will be posi i ely associa ed wi h
i s en i onmen al pe o mance.
Hypo hesis 3: A i m’s p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies will media e he ela ionship
be ween i s s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies and i s en i onmen al pe o mance.
O ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies
O ganisa ional lea ning is an essen ial p ocess o s a egic enewal (C ossan e al.,
1999), and ela ed capabili ies undamen ally eed ou p ocesses, also known as he 4Is
(C ossan e al., 1999): in ui ing and in e p e ing (indi idual le el), in eg a ing (g oup le el),
5
and ins i u ionalising (o ganisa ional le el). F om an o ganisa ional le el pe spec i e, he
o ien a ion o he i m owa ds hese p ocesses could be essen ially cap u ed in h ee
syne gis ic capabili ies: commi men o lea ning, sha ed ision, and abso p i e capaci y.
A commi men o lea ning capabili y “in luences whe he an o ganisa ion is likely o
p omo e a lea ning cul u e” (Sinkula e al., 1997, p. 309), hus opening spaces o indi iduals’
in ui ing and in e p e ing p ocesses. Ad ancing in he o ganisa ional lea ning s eps, collec i e
ac ion would ollow h ough in eg a ing p ocesses, hus equi ing “sha ed unde s anding by
membe s o he g oup” (C ossan e al., 1999, p. 528), o a sha ed ision capabili y (A agón-
Co ea e al., 2008; Ha , 1995).
Howe e , “con inued in es men in indi idual and e en g oup lea ning may be
coun e p oduc i e i he o ganisa ion does no ha e he capaci y o abso b o u ilise i ”
(C ossan e al. 1999, p. 535). Thus, de eloping a capabili y o abso p i e capaci y, de ined as
“a se o o ganisa ional ou ines and s a egic p ocesses by which i ms acqui e, assimila e,
ans o m, and exploi knowledge o pu pose o alue c ea ion” (Zah a and Geo ge, 2002, p.
198) is o pa icula impo ance o o ganisa ional lea ning (Sun and Ande son, 2010). In his
sense, a capabili y o abso p i e capaci y would no only culmina e in he ins i u ionalising
s age o he o ganisa ional lea ning ladde , as well as in eg a e all 4Is, enabling eedback and
eed- o wa d (C ossan e al., 1999) lea ning p ocesses h ough s ages. Usually linked o
compe i i e ad an age and inno a ion ou comes, as esea ch and de elopmen (R&D)
in ensi y (Wang and Ahmed, 2007), abso p i e capaci y only ecen ly has been associa ed o
co po a e g eening in some s udies (Pinkse e al., 2010; Wol and P imme , 2006).
P e ious esea ch has e idenced he posi i e ela ionship be ween o ganisa ional lea ning
capabili ies and p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies (A agón-Co ea e al., 2008; Zhu e al.,
2008), as well as hei mode a ing ole on he ela ionship be ween s a egy and pe o mance

6
indica o s (Bake and Sinkula, 1999). Consis en ly, such mode a ion may as well be applied
o he en i onmen al managemen ealm.
Hypo hesis 4a: The g ea e a i m’s lea ning capabili ies, he s onge he posi i e e ec
be ween i s p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies and i s en i onmen al pe o mance.
Hypo hesis 4b: Lea ning capabili ies will mode a e he posi i e and indi ec e ec o
s akeholde s’ in luence s a egies on a i m’s en i onmen al pe o mance. Speci ically, a
i m’s p oac i e en i onmen al s a egies will media e he indi ec e ec when lea ning
capabili ies a e high bu no when hey a e low.
Me hod
Pa icipan s and p ocedu es
We es ed ou hypo heses using an online su ey di ec ed a CSR, en i onmen al, and
sus ainabili y manage s and di ec o s. We a ge ed key esponden s in hese co po a e
posi ions because hey a e di ec ly in ol ed in he adop ion o en i onmen al s a egies and
in e o s o enhance en i onmen al pe o mance in gene al (Winn and Angell, 2000).
The s udy popula ion was d awn om a global di ec o y o co po a e non- inancial
epo ing (Co po a eRegis e .com). In Ap il 2009, he di ec o y con ained epo s om 5216
i ms in a wide ange o coun ies and indus ies. We p oceeded o scan 4216 co po a e
epo s spanning om 2006-2009 o manage s and di ec o s email add esses, elimina ing
hose indus ies ha we e i ele an o he pu pose o ou s udy, such as go e nmen , NGOs
and consul ancy i ms. Conside ing all a ailable add esses, ou a ge popula ion consis ed o
1577 i ms, which we e con ac ed be ween June-Oc obe 2009. A e sending 3 eminde s o
7
po en ial pa icipan s, we ob ained 196 answe s and a esponse a e o 12.4%. Incomple e and
i ele an answe s we e dele ed, and 170 i ms accoun ed o ou inal da a se . Sample
cha ac e is ics a e desc ibed in Table 1.
Table 1. Sample Cha ac e is ics
A e age Wo k Expe ience in he Field (N = 165)
9.98 (SD a = 9.32) yea s
A e age Job Tenu e (N = 163)
12 (SD a = 10.02) yea s
Size (N = 169)
La ge (> 1000 employees)
129 (76.3%)
Medium (250 – 1000 employees)
22 (13%)
Small (< 250 employees)
18 (10.7%)
Indus y (N = 170)
Financials
33 (19.4%)
Indus ials
32 (18.8%)
U ili ies
26 (15.3%)
Consume Se ices
18 (10.6%)
Basic Ma e ials
17 (10%)
Consume Goods
17 (10%)
Telecommunica ions
8 (4.7%)
Heal h Ca e
7 (4.1%)
Oil & Gas
6 (3.5%)
Technology
6 (3.5%)
Coun y De elopmen Le el (N = 170)
Ad anced Economies
132 (77.6%)
Eme ging and De eloping Economies
38 (22.4%)
Con inen N = 170
Eu ope
108 (63.5%)
La in Ame ica
24 (14.1%)
Asia
17 (10%)
No he n Ame ica
10 (5.9%)
Oceania
7 (4.1%)
A ica
4 (2.4%)
a S anda d De ia ion
Measu es1
S akeholde s’ In luence S a egies (SIS). We assessed SIS by using Sha ma and
Hen ique’s (2005) wi hholding (9 i ems) and usage (8 i ems) in luence s a egies scales. We
asked esponden s o a e o wha ex en hese in luences we e impo an in shaping hei
i ms’ en i onmen al p ac ices ( om 1= No impac o 7 = Comple e in luence). Explo a o y
p incipal componen analysis wi h a imax o a ion e ealed ha i ems o med h ee ac o s
1 Su ey i ems and explo a o y ac o analyses esul s a e a ailable upon eques .
8
wi h eigen alues o e 1: wi hholding SIS (9 i ems, α = .938), cus ome s’ usage SIS (3 i ems,
α = .907), and employees’ usage SIS (3 i ems, α = .807).
P oac i e En i onmen al S a egies (PES). We measu ed he deg ee o implemen a ion
o PES in sampled i ms by using 10 i ems om A agón-Co ea (1998) scale, complemen ed
by 2 addi ional i ems in oduced by Ma ín-Tapia e al. (2008) and Rueda-Manzana es e al.
(2008). Responden s we e asked o a e he de elopmen o 12 en i onmen al managemen
p ac ices in hei o ganisa ions ( om 0 = We ha e no add essed his issue a all and ha e no
plans o do so in he nea u u e o 7 = We a e he leade s on his in ou sec o ). Explo a o y
p incipal componen analysis wi h a imax o a ion showed ha i ems o med h ee ac o s.
Howe e , he ac o s uc u e was unclea , as 3 i ems had loadings o e .500 in mo e han 1
ac o . Fo his eason, we measu ed PES as he a i hme ical mean o he sco es on he 10
i ems (α = .890), as in A agón-Co ea e al. (2004).
En i onmen al Pe o mance. En i onmen al pe o mance was measu ed wi h a 5-i em
scale (α = .884) d awn p oposed by Hubba d (2009). Manage s and di ec o s we e asked o
a e whe he hei i ms’ cu en pe o mance (2008/2009) on each indica o was be e o
wo se han p io pe o mance (2006/2007), using 7-poin Like scales ( om 1 = Much wo se
o 7 = Much be e ). Al hough ou o iginal in en ion was o use co po a e epo s o assess
en i onmen al pe o mance indica o s, he he e ogenei y o ou sample implied signi ican
indus y di e ences in accoun ing con en ions (Powell, 1995), and hus epo s di e ed
subs an ially in con en . Ne e heless, he use o subjec i e pe cep ions o manage s and
di ec o s o measu e i m pe o mance is widely accep ed in he s a egy and ONE li e a u es
(e.g. A agón-Co ea e al., 2008; B anzei e al., 2004; Clemens, 2006; Chan, 2005; Judge and
Douglas, 1998; Sha ma and V edenbu g, 1998).
O ganisa ional Lea ning Capabili ies. We gauged o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies by
using esponden s’ a ings o 5 i ems om Szulanski’s abso p i e capaci y (1996) scale (α =
9
.918), 4 i ems o Bake and Sinkula’s (1999) commi men o lea ning scale (α = .867), and 3
i ems om A agón-Co ea and colleagues’ (2008) sha ed ision scale (α = .813).
Responden s we e asked o a e hei ex en o ag eemen wi h s a emen s conce ning hei
i ms’ o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies ( om 1 = S ongly disag ee o 7 = S ongly ag ee).
Explo a o y p incipal componen analysis wi h p omax o a ion showed ha i ems o med
h ee highly co ela ed ac o s (co ela ions anging om .491 o .541). In o de o educe he
po en ial h ea o mul icollinea i y, we hen measu ed o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies as
he a i hme ical mean o he sco es on he 12 i ems (α = .911).
Con ol a iables. P o i able i ms a e mo e likely o in es in en i onmen al
managemen imp o emen s ha migh impac en i onmen al pe o mance (Ambec and
Lanoie, 2008; Bansal, 2005). The e o e, we con olled o inancial pe o mance by using
Judge and Douglas’ (1998) 4-i em scale (α = .896). Conside ing he c oss-indus y na u e o
ou sample, esponden s we e asked o a e hei o ganisa ions’ pe o mance in ou
ca ego ies ela i e o o he i ms in hei speci ic indus ies. Addi ionally, we used dummy-
coded a iables o con ol o indus y e ec s, size measu ed as he numbe o employees
acco ding o h ee ca ego ies (see able 1), and coun y de elopmen le el (c . Raines and
P akash, 2005).
Resul s
In able 2 we p esen he co ela ions and desc ip i e s a is ics o all con inuous
a iables. An examina ion o he co ela ions e ealed ha all he h ee SIS a iables we e
posi i ely ela ed o PES, bu only employees’ usage SIS esul s we e signi ican ( = .36, p <
.01). The e o e, employees’ usage SIS was he only independen a iable in ou media ion
16
chain ha ing inancial pe o mance as an ou come a iable. To ou knowledge, ou s udy is
he i s o es simila ela ionships ha ing en i onmen al pe o mance as an ou come
a iable. In his sense, ou pape shi s om he ‘pay o be g een’ o he ‘how o be g een’
ques ion, sugges ing ha he NRBV may success ully espond o ei e a ing calls o s udies
in es iga ing how companies become mo e esponsible, sus ainable o g een h ough hei
s uc u es and p ocesses (de Bakke e al. 2005; Bowen 2007; Peloza and Yachnin 2008;
Wood 2010).
Al hough he impac o s akeholde s on en i onmen al s a egies is a equen opic in
ONE esea ch, he di e en ia ion among di e en ypes o s akeholde s and hei di e en
in luence s a egies is ela i ely new (e.g. Da nall e al., 2010; Sha ma and Hen iques, 2005).
In his ega d, we con ibu e o cu en heo y by iden i ying a ca ego y o SIS ha is
consis en ly salien and ele an o shaping mo e gene al PES (and consequen ly imp o ing
en i onmen al pe o mance) ac oss a ious indus ies and coun ies.
Fu he mo e, we p o ide a new pe spec i e on he ole o o ganisa ional lea ning
capabili ies in he co po a e g eening p ocess. Speci ically, we examined o ganisa ional
lea ning capabili ies as mode a o s o he NRBV causal chain, a he han including hem as
an eceden s. In doing ha , we highligh ha s ong o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies no
only con ibu e o s a egic enewal hemsel es, bu also in ensi y he bene i s eaped om
he capabili y o pe cei ing and managing SIS, in ou case employees’ usage SIS.
Manage ial Implica ions
Fo manage s, ou esul s pinpoin ha employees a e c i ical o en i onmen al
managemen success ac oss di e en indus ies and coun ies. Mo eo e , his in luence is
s eng hened in i ms ha display high o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies.
These indings highligh he impo ance o in es ing in applied aining and de elopmen

17
o employees, and o cul i a ing a cul u e o lea ning and easy low o in o ma ion among
hie a chical le els. Employees migh ac in he in e s ices o hei job desc ip ions, o
adop ing an in ap eneu ial s ance owa ds he in ended change-making p ocess (B enneke
and Spi zeck, 2010), as de e mined by di e se indi idual cha ac e is ics and o ganisa ional
con ex s. In o de o le e age hese in luences, and hus s a egically engage employees o
imp o e en i onmen al pe o mance, middle and op-le el manage s play a c i ical ole no
only enabling bo om-up communica ion, bu also suppo ing employees’ e o s h oughou
he many di e en le els and depa men s o he i m.
Limi a ions and Fu u e Di ec ions
Th ee majo limi a ions cha ac e ise ou s udy. Fi s , he c oss-sec ional na u e o ou
da a only allows us o es ablish associa ions among esea ched a iables, as causali y canno
be in e ed. Second, by applying ou s udy in a c oss-indus y se ing, we had o sac i ice
indus y-speci ic measu es o gene alisabili y, hus possibly excluding in e es ing aspec s
ha would add o he unde s anding o SIS’ impac on en i onmen al pe o mance in ce ain
con ex s. Thi d, due o da a limi a ions, we could no assess whe he he CSR, en i onmen al,
and sus ainabili y manage s sampled had e ec i ely decision-making powe , wha migh
a ec hei pe cep ions ega ding measu ed a iables (Da nall e al., 2010).
As ega ds u u e esea ch, he ques ions he ein explo ed o e a numbe o po en ial
ex ensions. In e ms o me hods, u u e s udies could shed mo e ligh on he dynamics o he
ela ionships be ween SIS and en i onmen al pe o mance adop ing indus y and coun y-
speci ic quali a i e case s udies (see e.g. Jiang and Bansal, 2003), as well as longi udinal da a
collec ion. This ype o design would allow esea che s o de ine in de ail he en i onmen al
s a egy p o iles o sampled i ms and he s akeholde g oups in ol ed (Buysse and Ve beke,
2003), as well as changes ac oss ime. As ega ds quan i a i e me hods, mul i-le el s udies
18
could deepen ou unde s anding o he ole o o ganisa ional lea ning capabili ies in he
NRBV causal chain a he indi idual, g oup, and o ganisa ional le els, cla i ying he links
among s akeholde s’ in luences, en i onmen al s a egies, and en i onmen al pe o mance. In
e ms o heo y, we en isage he ex ension o ou mode a ed media ion model in wo on s.
Fi s , u u e s udies could in es iga e how di e en SIS connec wi h manage s’ alues and
mo i a ions o pushing o wa d co po a e g eening (Fineman and Cla ke, 1996; González-
Beni o and González-Beni o, 2010), and how co po a e go e nance mechanisms shape hese
ela ionships (Kock e al., o hcoming). Second, we would pa icula ly encou age a deepe
unde s anding o employees’ SIS as NRBV un olds. Wi hin-g oup s akeholde s’ in luences
a e also he e ogeneous (Kassinis and Va eas, 2006), and hus di e en ypes o employees
may a ec he deploymen o PES and he enhancemen o en i onmen al pe o mance
di e en ly (see e.g. Ro henbe g, 2003).
This is a wo king pape ; please do no ci e o ci cula e wi hou con ac ing he au ho s i s .
Re e ences
Aiken, L. and Wes , S. (1991). Mul iple Reg ession: Tes ing and In e p e ing In e ac ions. London:
Sage.
Ambec, S. and Lanoie, P. (2008). ‘Does i pay o be g een? A sys ema ic o e iew’. Academy o
Managemen Pe spec i es 22, 45–62.
An on, W. R. Q., Del as, G. and Khanna, M. (2004). ‘Incen i es o en i onmen al sel - egula ion and
implica ions o en i onmen al pe o mance’. Jou nal o En i onmen al Economics and
Managemen , 48, 632–54.
A agón-Co ea, J. A. (1998). ‘S a egic p oac i i y and i m app oach o he na u al en i onmen ’.
19
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 41, 556–67.
A agón-Co ea, J. A., Hu ado-To es, N., Sha ma, S. and Ga cía-Mo ales, V. J. (2008).
‘En i onmen al s a egy and pe o mance in small i ms: A esou ce-based pe spec i e’. Jou nal
o En i onmen al Managemen , 86, 88–103.
A agón-Co ea, J. A., Ma ías-Reche, F. and Senise-Ba io, M. E. (2004). ‘Manage ial disc e ion and
co po a e commi men o he na u al en i onmen ’. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 57, 964–975.
Bake , W. E. and Sinkula, J. M. (1999). ‘The syne gis ic e ec o ma ke o ien a ion and lea ning
o ien a ion on o ganiza ional pe o mance’. Jou nal o he Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 27,
411–427.
Bane jee, S. B. (2001). ‘Manage ial pe cep ions o co po a e en i onmen alism: in e p e a ions om
indus y and s a egic implica ions o o ganiza ions’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 38, 489–
513.
Bansal, P. (2005). ‘E ol ing sus ainably: A longi udinal s udy o co po a e sus ainable de elopmen ’.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 26, 197–218.
Bowen, F. E. (2007). ‘Co po a e social s a egy: Compe ing iews om wo heo ies o he i m’.
Jou nal o Business E hics, 75, 97–113.
B anzei, O., U sacki-B yan , T. J., Ve insky, I. and Zhang, W. (2004). ‘The o ma ion o g een
s a egies in Chinese i ms: Ma ching co po a e en i onmen al esponses and indi idual
p inciples’. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 25, 1075–1095.
B enneke, M. and Spi zeck, H. (2010). ‘Social in ap eneu s: Bo om-up social inno a ion’,
In e na ional Re iew o En ep eneu ship, 8.
Buysse, K. and Ve beke, A. (2003). ‘P oac i e en i onmen al s a egies: A s akeholde managemen
pe spec i e’. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 24, 453–470.
Chan, R. Y. K. (2005). ‘Does he na u al- esou ce-based iew o he i m apply in an eme ging
economy? A su ey o o eign in es ed en e p ises in China’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 42,
625–672.
Clemens, B. (2006). ‘Economic incen i es and small i ms: Does i pay o be g een?’ Jou nal o
Business Resea ch, 59, 492–500.
20
C ossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. and Whi e, R. E. (1999). ‘An o ganiza ional lea ning amewo k: F om
in ui ion o ins i u ion’. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 24, 522–537.
Da nall, N., Hen iques, I. and Sado sky, P. (2010). ‘Adop ing p oac i e en i onmen al s a egy: The
in luence o s akeholde s and i m size’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 47, 1072–1094.
de Bakke , F. G. A., G oenewegen, P. and den Hond, F. (2005). ‘A bibliome ic analysis o 30 yea s
o esea ch and heo y on co po a e social esponsibili y and co po a e social pe o mance’.
Business & Socie y, 44, 283–317.
Delmas, M. A. and To el, M. W. (2008). ‘O ganiza ional esponses o en i onmen al demands:
Opening he black box’. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 29, 1027–1055.
Delmas, M. (2001). ‘S akeholde s and compe i i e ad an age: The case o ISO 14001’. P oduc ion
and Ope a ions Managemen , 10, 343–58.
Fineman, S. and Cla ke, K. (1996). ‘G een s akeholde s: Indus y in e p e a ions and esponse’.
Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 33, 715–30.
F eeman, R. E. (1984). S a egic Managemen : A S akeholde App oach. Bos on, MA: Pi man.
F ooman, J. (1999). ‘S akeholde in luence s a egies’. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 24, 191–
205.
González-Beni o, J. and González-Beni o, O. (2006). ‘A e iew o de e minan ac o s o
en i onmen al p oac i i y’. Business S a egy and he En i onmen , 15, 87–102.
González-Beni o, J. and González-Beni o, O. (2010). ‘A s udy o de e minan ac o s o s akeholde
en i onmen al p essu e pe cei ed by indus ial companies’. Business S a egy and he
En i onmen , 19, 164–181.
Ha , S. L. (1995). ‘A na u al- esou ce-based iew o he i m’. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 20,
986–1014.
Hayes, A. F. and Ma hes, J. (2009). ‘Compu a ional p ocedu es o p obing in e ac ions in OLS and
logis ic eg ession: SPSS and SAS implemen a ions’. Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 41, 924–936.
Hen iques, I. and Sado sky, P. (1999). ‘The ela ionship be ween en i onmen al commi men and
manage ial pe cep ions o s akeholde impo ance’. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 42, 87–99.
Hubba d, G. (2009). ‘Measu ing o ganiza ional pe o mance: Beyond he iple bo om line’. Business
21
S a egy and he En i onmen , 19, 177–191.
Jiang, R. J. and Bansal, P. (2003). ‘Seeing he need o ISO 14001’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies,
40, 1047–67.
Judge, W. Q. and Douglas, T. J. (1998). ‘Pe o mance implica ions o inco po a ing na u al
en i onmen al issues in o he s a egic planning p ocess: An empi ical assessmen ’. Jou nal o
Managemen S udies, 35, 241–262.
Kassinis, G. and Va eas, N. (2006). ‘S akeholde p essu es and en i onmen al pe o mance’.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 49, 145–159.
Kock, C. J., San aló, J. and Dies e, L. ( o hcoming). ‘Co po a e go e nance and he en i onmen :
Wha ype o go e nance c ea es g eene companies?’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies.
Ma ín-Tapia, I., A agón-Co ea, J. A. and Senise-Ba io, M. E. (2008). ‘Being g een and expo
in ensi y o SMEs: The mode a ing in luence o pe cei ed unce ain y’. Ecological Economics, 68,
56–67.
Mi chell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997). ‘Towa d a heo y o s akeholde iden i ica ion
and salience: de ining he p inciple o who and wha eally coun s’. Academy o Managemen
Re iew, 22, 853–86.
Peloza, J. and Yachnin, R. (2008). ‘Valuing business sus ainabili y: A sys ema ic e iew’. Resea ch
Ne wo k o Business Sus ainabili y Knowledge P ojec Se ies.
P e e . J. and Salancik. G. R. (1978). The Ex e nal Con ol o O ganiza ions: A Resou ce
Dependence Pe spec i e. New Yo k: Ha pe & Row.
Pinkse, J., Kuss, M. J. and Ho mann, V. H. (2010). ‘On he implemen a ion o a ‘global’
en i onmen al s a egy: The ole o abso p i e capaci y’. In e na ional Business Re iew, 19, 160–
177.
Powell, T. (1995). ‘To al quali y managemen as compe i i e ad an age: A e iew and empi ical
s udy’, S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 16, 15–37.
P eache , K. J. and Hayes, A. F. (2008). ‘Asymp o ic and esampling s a egies o assessing and
compa ing indi ec e ec s in mul iple media o models’. Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 40, 879–
891.

22
P eache , K. J., Rucke , D. D. and Hayes, A. F. (2007). ‘Assessing mode a ed media ion hypo heses:
Theo y, me hods, and p esc ip ions’. Mul i a ia e Beha io al Resea ch, 42, 185–227.
Raines, S. S. and P akash, A. (2005). ‘Leade ship ma e s: Policy en ep eneu ship in co po a e
en i onmen al policy making’. Adminis a ion & Socie y, 37, 3–22.
Ro henbe g, S. (2003). ‘Knowledge con en and wo ke pa icipa ion in en i onmen al managemen a
NUMMI’. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 40, 1783–1802.
Rueda-Manzana es, A., A agón-Co ea, J. A. and Sha ma, S. (2008). ‘The in luence o s akeholde s
on he en i onmen al s a egy o se ice i ms: The mode a ing e ec s o complexi y, unce ain y
and muni icence’. B i ish Jou nal o Managemen , 19, 185–203.
Sha ma, S. and Hen iques, I. (2005). ‘S akeholde in luences on sus ainabili y p ac ices in he
Canadian o es p oduc s indus y’. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 26, 159–80.
Sha ma, S. and V edenbu g, H. (1998). ‘P oac i e co po a e en i onmen al s a egy and he
de elopmen o compe i i ely aluable o ganiza ional capabili ies’. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 19, 729–753.
Sinkula, J. M., Bake , W. E. and Noo dewie , T. (1997). ‘A amewo k o ma ke -based
o ganiza ional lea ning: Linking alues, knowledge, and beha io ’. Jou nal o he Academy o
Ma ke ing Science, 25, 305–318.
Sun, P. Y. T. and Ande son, M. H. (2010). ‘An examina ion o he ela ionship be ween abso p i e
capaci y and o ganiza ional lea ning, and a p oposed in eg a ion’. In e na ional Jou nal o
Managemen Re iews, 12, 130–150.
Szulanski, G. (1996). ‘Explo ing in e nal s ickiness: Impedimen s o he ans e o bes p ac ice
wi hin he i m’. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 17, 27–43.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007). Dynamic capabili ies: a e iew and esea ch agenda.
In e na ional Jou nal o Managemen Re iews, 9, pp. 31–51.
Winn, M. I. and Angell, L. C. (2000). ‘Towa ds a p ocess model o co po a e g eening’, O ganiza ion
S udies 21, 1119–1147.
23
Wol , S. A., and P imme , E. (2006). ‘Be ween incen i es and ac ion: A pilo s udy o biodi e si y
conse a ion compe encies o mul i unc ional o es managemen in Finland’. Socie y & Na u al
Resou ces, 19, 845–861.
Wood, D. J. (2010). ‘Measu ing co po a e social pe o mance: A e iew’. In e na ional Jou nal o
Managemen Re iews, 12, 50–84.
Zah a, S. A. and Geo ge, G. (2002). ‘Abso p i e capaci y: A e iew, econcep ualiza ion, and
ex ension’. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 27, 185–203.
Zhu, Q., Sa kis, J., Co dei o, J. J. and Lai, K.-H. (2008). ‘Fi m-le el co ela es o eme gen g een
supply chain managemen p ac ices in he Chinese con ex ’. Omega, 36, 577–591.