The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?
Abstract
The process used by organizations to integrate the ISO 14001 standard has not yet been the subject of extensive research in environmental management despite the rapid development of this standard, particularly in industrial companies. The results of a case study conducted among nine ISO 14001 certified Canadian organizations showed that adopting this standard tends to lead to a ceremonial behaviour intended to superficially show that the certified organizations conformed to the standard. Although rigorous compliance with the standard often resulted in real improvements, these improvements were primarily technical and administrative in nature. However, in most of the cases studied, daily practices remained somewhat decoupled from the prescriptions of the ISO 14001 system, of which employees generally had only a vague understanding. The organizations studied adopted different strategies to reconcile external pressures in favour of adopting this standard and internal constraints associated with a management system whose support varied from one case to the next. While the standard often appeared to be some sort of “rational myth” (Meyer and Rowan 1977) to which organizations superficially committed themselves, the adaptation to institutional pressures was not necessarily straightforward. Using the example of the ISO 14001 standard, our study helps to show how this myth can be integrated, transformed, and even created through rhetoric by organizations to resolve certain contradictions. This research also illustrates how adopting the ISO 14001 system can have an ambiguous effect on environmental management practices and performances.
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., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 2×
“The reliability of the qualitative data categorization process has been debated by some authors (Miles and Huberman 1994, Neuendorf 2002, Morse et al 2002).”
BackgroundVerification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690200100202 · Cited by 4,978
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
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Cited by
The Means and End of Greenwash
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026615575332 · Cited by 1,636
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.-H. (2012) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.571937 · Cited by 614
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013) · Organization · doi:10.1177/1350508413478310 · Cited by 591
The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies
Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840612450120 · Cited by 392
Metadata
- Authors
- Boiral, O.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 127-146
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2159759833
- Cited by
- 726
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 37.28
- 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
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.