TẠP CHÍ KHOA HỌC YERSIN

YERSIN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

ISSN: 2525 - 2372

Tác động của áp lực xã hội đến hiệu quả môi trường - nghiên cứu trường hợp các doanh nghiệp tại tỉnh Bình Thuận

Tóm tắt

Nghiên cứu này có ý nghĩa thiết thực đối với tỉnh Bình Thuận trong vấn đề bảo vệ môi trường, đặc biệt là việc hạn chế gây ô nhiễm môi trường từ khu vực sản xuất kinh doanh trong tỉnh. Mục tiêu cốt lõi của nghiên cứu là kiểm định mối quan hệ giữa áp lực xã hội đến hiệu quả  môi trường của các doanh nghiệp tại Bình Thuận. Tác giả đã sử dụng mô hình của Johan và Hugo (2017) và kiểm định với dữ liệu thị trường. Kết quả cho thấy có sự tác động từ áp lực xã hội đến hành vi sử dụng nguồn lực môi trường một cách có hiệu quả của doanh nghiệp thông qua nhận thức lợi ích thị trường. Bên cạnh đó, hiệu quả môi trường của các doanh nghiệp còn chịu sự tác động từ quy mô doanh nghiệp và động cơ điều chỉnh.

Abstract

The author uses Johan and Hugo’s (2017) model for the study into the effect of ‘social license pressure’ on the ‘environmental performance’ of enterprises in Binh Thuan province. The findings show that ‘social license pressure’ impacts on how the local enterprises decreasingly use the environmental resource. However, these findings are contrary to the findings of Johan and Hugo’s research. In addition, the study also points out that the ‘environmental performance’ of enterprises is affected by the ‘size of enterprise’, ‘perceived market benefits’ and  ‘motivated regulation’.

Từ khóa

Áp lực xã hội, hiệu quả môi trường; nhận thức lợi ích thị trường, động cơ điều chỉnh, doanh nghiệp

Tài liệu tham khảo

  1. Agan. Y., Acar. M. F. & Borodin, A., 2013. Drivers of environmental processes and their impact on performance: a study of Turkish SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 23-33.
  2. Aguilera. R.V., Rupp. D., Williams. C.A. & Ganapathi, J., 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 836-863.
  3. Barney. J. B. & Hansen. M. H., 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Manag. J. 15, 175-190.
  4. Berman. S. L., Wicks. A. C., Kotha. S. & Jones. T. M., 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad. Manag. J. 42 (5), 488-506.
  5. Brammer. S., Hoejmose. S. & Marchant. K., 2012. Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Bus. Strategy Environ. 21, 423-434.
  6. Branco. M. & Rodrigues. L., 2006. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics. 69 (2), 111-132.
  7. Brown. T. J. & Dacin. P. A., 1997. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. J. Mark. 61, 68-84.
  8. Campbell. J. L., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 946-967.
  9. Dare. M. L., Schirmer. J. & Vanclay. F., 2014. Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32 (3), 188-197.
  10. Darnall. N., 2009. Regulatory stringency, green production off sets, and organizations' financial performance. Public Adm. Rev. May/June 418-434.
  11. Doh. J. P. & Guay. T. R., 2006. Corporate social performance, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective. J. Manag. Stud. 43, 47-73.
  12. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S., 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.Psychological methods, 12(1), 1.
  13. Fombrun. C. & Shanley. M., 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 33, 233-258.
  14. Galbreath. J., 2005. Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation. 25 (9), 979-987.
  15. Gardberg. N. & Fombrun. C. F., 2006. Corporate citizenship: creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31, 329-346.
  16. Gunningham. N., Kagan. R. & Thornton. D., 2004. Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 29 (2), 307-341.
  17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J., 2010. RE Anderson Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective.
  18. Hall. N., Lacey. J., Carr-Cornish. S. & Dowd. A., 2015. Social licence to operate: understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 301-310.
  19. Hamilton. J. T., 1995. Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the toxic release inventory data. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28 (1), 98-114.
  20. Hendry. J., 2006. Taking aim at business: what factors lead environmental nongovernmental organizations to target particular firm? Bus. Soc. 45, 47-86.
  21. Johan. G & Hugo. S.,2017, Reconsidering the relevance of social license pressure and government regulation for environmental performance of European SMEs, Journal of Cleaner Production. 141, 967-977.
  22. King. B. G., 2008. A policital mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Adm. Sci. Q. 53, 395-421.
  23. Locke. R. M., Qin. F. & Brausse. A., 2006. Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. MIT Sloan Res. Paper No. 4612-06.
  24. Logsdon. J. M. & Wood. D. J., 2002. Reputation as an emerging construct in the business and society field: an introduction. Bus. Soc. 41, 365-370.
  25. Lynch-Wood. G. & Williamson. D., 2007. The social license as a form of regulation for small and medium enterprises. J. Law Soc. 34, 321-341.
  26. Masurel. E., 2007. Why SMEs invest in environmental measures: sustainability evidence from small and medium-sized printing firms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16, 190-201.
  27. Matten. D. & Moon. J., 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33 (2), 404-424.
  28. Orlitzky. M., 2008. Corporate social performance and financial performance. A research synthesis. In: Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., Siegel, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Performance. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 113-134.
  29. Reinhardt. F., 1999. Market failure and the environmental policies of firms: economic rationales for “beyond compliance” behavior. J. Ind. Ecol. 3 (1), 9-21.
  30. Rivera. J., Oetzel. J., deLeon. P. & Starik, M., 2009. Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis. Policy Sci. 42, 3-32.
  31. Roberts. P. W. & Dowling. G. R., 2002. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Manag. J. 23 (12), 1077-1093.
  32. Shah. K. U., 2011. Organizational legitimacy and the strategic bridging ability of green alliances. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 498-511.
  33. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. & Van Trijp, H. C., 1991. The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in marketing, 8, 283-299.
  34. Surroca. J., Tribo. J. & Waddock, S., 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources. Strategic Manag. J. 31 (5), 463-490.
  35. Turban. D. B. & Greening. D. W., 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 658-672.
  36. Weaver. G., Trevino. L. & Cochran, P., 1999. Corporate ethics programs as control - systems, Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Acad. Manag. J. 42, 41-57.
  37. Williamson. D., Lynch-Wood, G. & Ramsay, J., 2006. Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. J. Bus. Ethics. 67, 317-330.
  38. Wood. D. J., 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: a review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12 (1), 50-84.
  39. World Bank., 2013. Corporate environmental responsibility: Is a common CSR framework.possible?,.accesstohttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en577051468339093024/Corporate

Đăng ký/Đăng Nhập
Tìm kiếm