Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing How Natural Environmental Competency, Organizational Social Consciousness, and Innovativeness Relate

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the moderating effects of organizational social consciousness on the natural environmental competency and innovativeness relationship. Organizational social consciousness reflects the organization’s awareness of its place and contribution to the larger system in which it exists and is developed through an organization’s social responsibility, ethics, culture, corporate values, and the view of its stakeholders. Through our study of key strategic decision makers from organizations located in the USA, we operationalize organizational social consciousness and demonstrate the efficacy of this construct in relation to the organizational-level constructs of environmental management competency and innovativeness. Our results reveal that organizational social consciousness positively strengthens the natural environmental competency to organizational innovativeness relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Competencies are defined as organization-specific strengths that allow an organization to differentiate its products or achieve substantially lower costs than its rivals, thus potentially providing a competitive advantage (Peteraf 1993).

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression, testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkon, A. H. (2013). The socio-nature of local organic food. Antipode, 45(3), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5), 586–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Correa, J. A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, N. S., & Garcia-Morales, V. J. (2008). Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 88–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & King, A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: an institutional explanation of the benefits of industry self-regulation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1150–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci, L., & King, A. (2007). Postcards from the edge. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 513–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. A., & Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial evolution. Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: traits, configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(summer special issue), 131–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, D. (1996). On dialogue. In L. Nichol (Ed.), The change handbook: Group methods for shaping the future. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier, S. B., & Cohen, M. A. (2003). Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 278–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 766–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., & Palmer, D. K. (1996). Discovering corporate consciousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(4), 389–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2010). Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness, 26(4), 503–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image—Green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 531–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost competitiveness: the role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. B., & Dibrell, C. (2006). The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: a comparative study. Family Business Review, 19(4), 275–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangelico, R. M., Pontrandolfo, P., & Pujari, D. (2013). Developing sustainable new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries: role of external integrative capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 642–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. S., Allen, J. A., & Dibrell, C. (2012). Fostering strategic awareness at an organization’s boundary. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(4), 322–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, D., Busch, T., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2012). Sustaining sustainability in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 151–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibrell, C., Craig, J., & Hansen, E. (2011a). How managerial attitudes toward the natural environment affect market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibrell, C., Craig, J., & Hansen, E. (2011b). The impact of managerial attitudes toward the natural environment in growing versus mature firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(3), 467–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duh, M., Belak, J., & Milfener, B. (2010). Core values, culture and ethical climate as constitutional elements of ethical behaviour: exploring differences between family and non-family enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 473–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: a review. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and- build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Piramal, G., & Bartlett, C. A. (2000). Managing radical change: What Indian companies must do to become world-class. New Delhi: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2012). Stakeholders and sustainability: an evolving theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Hoskisson, R. E., Makri, M., Sirmon, D. G., & Campbell, J. T. (2011). Innovation and the preservation of socioemotional wealth: The paradox of R&D investment in family controlled high technology firms. (Unpublished manuscript). Mays Business School, Texas A&M University.

  • Gottscalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 418–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment, 3, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between pollution prevention and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B., & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: a study of U.K. water and electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2005). Climate change strategy: the business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions. California Management Review, 47(3), 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J., & Jones, P. (1997). Assessing your company’s knowledge management style. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 392–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: a transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 889–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42(8), 1199–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environment technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A., & Hauf, V. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 517–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2007). Towards strategic stakeholder management: integrating perspectives on sustainability challenges such as corporate responses to climate change. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 370–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., Subramanian, R., & Yauger, C. (1998). Examining the market orientation–performance relationship: a context-specific study. Journal of Management, 24(2), 201–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine, M. (2010). The nature of nature as a stakeholder. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, R. G. (1992). Statistical concepts: A second course for education and the behavioral sciences. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579–1590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. A., & Anderson, M. H. (2006). A general dynamic capability: does it propagate business and social competencies in the retail food industry? Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Ozanne, L. (2010). The interactive effects of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L. D., & Harrison, D. E. (2012). Greenwashing to green innovation in automotives and beyond. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 7(1), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2009). The joint impact of quality and innovativeness on short-term new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 984–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. W., Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Dual identities in social ventures: an exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35, 805–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasi, J. (1982). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. In social responsibility in marketing. (Turku: Publication of the Turku School of Economics, Series A-2).

  • Olinsky, A., Chen, S., & Harlow, L. (2003). The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling’. European Journal of Operational Research, 151(1), 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2008). A perspective of collective consciousness of business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 889–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pees, R. C., Hostetter Schoop, G., & Zieganfuss, J. T. (2009). Organizational consciousness. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(5), 505–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. L. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. C. (1996). How much does industry matter? An alternative empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruzan, P. (2001). The question of organizational consciousness: can organizations have values, virtues and visions?’. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 271–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R., & Defillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodan, S. (2004). More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeck, K., & Delobbe, N. (2012). Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations’ legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees’ reactions through organizational identification theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roome, N., & Wijen, F. (2006). Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organization Studies, 27(2), 235–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxas, B., & Coetzer, A. (2012). Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental sustainability orientation in small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 461–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1998). Corporate strategy and environmental regulation: an organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 19(Special Issue), 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, J. R. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 238–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J., & Keli, T. (2005). Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 493–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. L. (1998). Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it yields more green: an economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspective, 23(3), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction Effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (Vol. 1, pp. 48–65). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

  • Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1996). Management for a small planet (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M., & Larsen, G. (2006). Examining the effect of market orientation on innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 529–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredenburg, H., & Westley, F. (1997). Fostering innovation toward sustainability in renewable resource industries: the effects of regulation on organizational response. Optimum: The Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(2), 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2010). Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: a quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 581–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, J. G. (2009). Pragmatic sustainability: translating environmental ethics into competitive advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneurship–environment nexus: uncertainty, innovation and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 449–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zach, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, The University of Mississippi, 320 Holman Hall, University, MS, 38677, USA

    Clay Dibrell

  2. D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, 209A Hayden Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Justin B. Craig

  3. School of Business, The Richard Stockton College of NJ, Galloway, NJ, 08205, USA

    Jaemin Kim

  4. College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83844-2334, Russia

    Aaron J. Johnson

Authors
  1. Clay Dibrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin B. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaemin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aaron J. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clay Dibrell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dibrell, C., B. Craig, J., Kim, J. et al. Establishing How Natural Environmental Competency, Organizational Social Consciousness, and Innovativeness Relate. J Bus Ethics 127, 591–605 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2043-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2043-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation