The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Environmental Strategy: Construct Development, Reliability, and Validity
Abstract
Inconsistent results in prior work that link environmental strategy to competitive advantage may be due to the empirical difficulties of marrying the theoretical connection between a firm’s resource base and its environmental strategy. The authors contribute to the field by developing a measure that is congruent with the natural resource—based view, a dominant paradigm in this line of work. This article content analyses company reports and secondary data to develop a measure of environmental strategy grounded in the natural resource—based view. They identify six environmental capabilities that form components of a reliable, multidimensional construct of proactive environmental strategy. They also identify a measure of reactive compliance strategy. They verify reliability of their new measure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, establish convergent and discriminant validity via a multitrait, multimethod matrix and demonstrate superior predictive validity of their measure compared to two others commonly used in the literature. In the conclusion, they discuss implications for research and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910 · Cited by 7,641
WHY COMPANIES GO GREEN: A MODEL OF ECOLOGICAL RESPONSIVENESS.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556363 · Cited by 4,020
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview
Stefan, A., & Paul, L. (2008) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2008.35590353 · Cited by 1,759
Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative analytical framework
Edwards, J. R. (2001) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810142004 · Cited by 1,128
Cited by
Corporate governance and environmental performance: is there really a link?
Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.1952 · Cited by 1,160
Self-citationDoes Environmental Management Improve Financial Performance? A Meta-Analytical Review
Albertini, E. (2013) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026613510301 · Cited by 685
Varadarajan, R. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0461-6 · Cited by 362
Cordeiro, J. J., & Tewari, M. (2015) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2115-x · Cited by 311
Dzhengiz, T., & Niesten, E. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04360-z · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Walls, J. L., Phan, P. H., & Berrone, P.
- Venue
- Business & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-02-24
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-115
- ISSN
- 0007-6503 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4205
- OpenAlex
- W2053852132
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 28.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Environmental Strategy: Construct Development, Reliability, and Validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0007650310394427
- The paper
- Walls, J. L., Phan, P. H., & Berrone, P. (2011). Measuring Environmental Strategy: Construct Development, Reliability, and Validity. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394427
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.