4.7 Article

Institutional pressures for corporate biodiversity management practices in the plantation sector: Evidence from the tea industry in Sri Lanka

期刊

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 2615-2630

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bse.3143

关键词

biodiversity; corporate biodiversity management; institutional pressures; plantations; sustainable development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plantation companies in the tea industry are facing increasing pressures to conserve biodiversity due to regulations and stakeholder demands. This study explores the institutional factors influencing corporate biodiversity management in Sri Lankan tea plantation companies and how these influences translate into organizational practices.
Plantation companies face growing regulatory and stakeholder pressures to conserve biodiversity in their business operations. However, their responses to these institutional pressures remain largely unexplored, particularly in sectors such as tea. This study aims to identify the institutional factors influencing corporate biodiversity management in Sri Lankan tea plantation companies and how such influences are translated into organizational practices. The data gathered using multiple sources, including interviews, field visits and document analysis, were analysed using institutional theory. The study reveals that regulatory influence and certification standards have significantly shaped biodiversity management practices, leading to structural- and field-level changes within tea plantation companies. The tea companies' conservation initiatives have been institutionalized with homogeneous characteristics at the managerial level. However, in the actual practice, institutional pressures have been translated into many heterogeneous practices at the field-level due to the numerous ways in which ideas disembed, travel and reembed across different organizational levels and are implemented by operational staff in a variety of ways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据