Institutional pressures and supplier involvement: a perspective on sustainability

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aitzaz Khurshid ◽  
Asif Muzaffar ◽  
Mohammed Khurrum S. Bhutta
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Pressures ◽  
Supplier Involvement

How Do Institutional Pressures and Behavioral Intentions Affect Mobile Services Adoption?

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Owolabi Justine Abayomi ◽  
Xuehe Zhang ◽  
Xiaobao Peng ◽  
Shuliang Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Intentions ◽  
Mobile Services ◽  
Institutional Pressures

Why Do Firms Participate in Voluntary Environmental Programs? A Meta-Analysis of the Role of Institutions, Resources, and Program Stringency

2021 ◽  
pp. 108602662199006
Author(s):  
Peter Tashman ◽  
Svetlana Flankova ◽  
Marc van Essen ◽  
Valentina Marano
Keyword(s):  
Quality Management ◽  
Prior Experience ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Institutional Pressures ◽  
Environmental Programs ◽  
Voluntary Environmental Programs ◽  
Management Standards ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Impact

We meta-analyze research on why firms join voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) to assess the impact of program stringency, or the extent to which they have rigorous, enforceable standards on these decisions. Stringency creates trade-offs for firms by affecting programs’ effectiveness, legitimacy, and adoption costs. Most research considers singular programs and lacks cross program variation needed to analyze program stringency’s impact. Our meta-analysis addresses this by sampling 127 studies and 23 VEPs. We begin by identifying common institutional and resource-based drivers of participation in the literature, and then analyze how program stringency moderates their impacts. Our results suggest that strictly governed VEPs encourage participation among highly visible and profitable firms, and discourage it when informal institutional pressures are higher, and firms have prior experience with other VEPs or quality management standards. We demonstrate that VEP stringency has nuanced effects on firm participation based on the institutional and resource-based factors facing them.

scholarly journals ‘I’m not being paid for this conversation’: Uncovering the challenges of artist–academic collaborations in the neoliberal institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-333
Author(s):  
Alena Pfoser ◽  
Sara de Jong
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
Institutional Pressures ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Collective Response ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
The Impact

Artist–academic collaborations are fuelled by increasing institutional pressures to show the impact of academic research. This article departs from the celebratory accounts of collaborative work and pragmatic toolkits for successful partnerships, which are dominant in existing scholarship, arguing for the need to critically interrogate the structural conditions under which collaborations take place. Based on a reflexive case study of a project developed in the context of Tate Exchange, one of the UK’s highest-profile platforms for knowledge exchange, we reveal three sets of (unequal) pressures, which mark artist–academic collaborations in the contemporary neoliberal academy: asymmetric funding and remuneration structures; uneven pressures of audit cultures; acceleration and temporal asymmetries. Innovations at the level of individual projects or partners can only mitigate the negative effects to a limited extent. Instead this article offers a systemic critique of the political economy of artist–academic collaborations and shifts the research agenda to developing a collective response.

Haunted by the past: transformations and daily challenges of China's prosthetics

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Chunchun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Institutional Pressures ◽  
Rehabilitation Center ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Past ◽  
Daily Experiences ◽  
History Of ◽  
Depth Interviews

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the transformations of prosthetic practices in China, as well as the daily experiences and dilemmas arising from the everchanging practices since 1949. On the basis of materials, this paper explores an everyday perspective to review the history of technology.Design/methodology/approachEthnography was collected with the application of participant observations, informal interviews and in-depth interviews during a 13-months study at a rehabilitation center in Chengdu, China. The literature on prosthetic manufacturing was also reviewed for this paper.FindingsChina's prosthetic technology seems to evolve from traditional to modern. However, this progressive narrative – innovation-based timeline (Edgerton, 2006, xi) – has been challenged by daily practices. Due to institutional pressures, prosthetists are in a dilemma of selectively using their knowledge to create one kind of device for all prosthesis users with a certain kind of disability, thereby regulating the physical and social experiences of prosthesis users. Besides, prosthesis users are accustomed to prostheses made with old techniques, and must correct themselves from old experiences to the daily practices recognized by the selected techniques.Originality/valueThis paper provides a cross-cultural case to reexamine Edgerton's criticism of the progressive and orderly innovation-centric technological narrative. More importantly, it reviews the history and practices of China's prosthetics from daily experiences rather than Edgerton's concentration on technology; therefore, it provides an everyday perspective for future research on technological transformations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document