Arguments can be made on both sides of the question of whether a stringent global corporate environmental standard represents a competitive asset or liability for multinational enterprises (MNEs) investing in emerging and developing markets. Analyzing the global environmental standards of a sample of U.S.-based MNEs in relation to their stock market performance, we find that firms adopting a single stringent global environmental standard have much higher market values, as measured by Tobin’s q, than firms defaulting to less stringent, or poorly enforced host country standards. Thus, developing countries that use lax environmental regulations to attract foreign direct investment may end up attracting poorer quality, and perhaps less competitive, firms. Our results also suggest that externalities are incorporated to a significant extent in firm valuation. We discuss plausible reasons for this observation.

Ratings of corporations ’ environmental activities and capabilities influence billions of dollars of “socially responsible ” investments as well as some consumers, activists, and potential employees. In one of the first studies to assess these ratings, we examine how well the most widely used ratings— those of Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Research & Analytics (KLD)—provide transparency about past and likely future environmental performance. We find KLD “concern ” ratings to be fairly good summaries of past environmental performance. In addition, firms with more KLD concerns have slightly, but statistically significantly, more pollution and regulatory compliance violations in later years. KLD environmental strengths, in contrast, do not accurately predict pollution levels or compliance violations. Moreover, we find evidence that KLD’s ratings are not optimally using publicly available data. We discuss the implications of our findings for advocates and skeptics of corporate social

UNRISD Discussion Papers are preliminary documents circulated in a limited number of copies to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

research advice of Andrew King, Larry Singell and Stephen Johnson. Thanks also are due to

We believe that the field of organization theory is adrift. In sailing jargon, we are “in irons”—stalled and making little headway toward understanding organizations and their place in our lives. We first attempt to diagnose our maladies and then, in this light, offer three broad research questions that just might reinvigorate our work: First, how can we understand today’s changing organizations? Second, how can we live in these organizations? And third, how can we best live with them? We close by calling attention to how our familiar approaches to building and testing theory might hamper any attempt to revitalize our field. Key words: organization theory; twenty-first century organizations; theory-building agenda We are adrift. The work of organization theorists has been called everything from solipsistic to dangerous, and prominent scholars are concerned. Augier et al. (2005) and Scott (2004) took stock of our field’s history and concluded that our research questions may be constrained by our perhaps too-comfortable academic affiliations with business schools and their economicsoriented, probusiness ethos. Hinings and Greenwood

When integrated with key organizational characteristics, institutional theory can yield new insights to understand differences between firms ’ strategies. We propose that a company’s functional organization and internal power structure influence its facility managers ’ sensitivity to and interpretation of institutional pressures. Combining over 500 responses from an original survey with existing data sources, we show how two corporate departments affect how facility managers perceive and respond to various institutional pressures to adopt environmental management practices.

Coevolution is an established research framework in the biological and evolutionary sciences, and though a new entrant to organization studies, it holds potential to transform the field (Lewin et al., 2003). Its fundamental premise is that entities or organizations evolve in relation to their environments while at the same time these environments evolve in relation to them. This paper argues that a coevolutionary approach is particularly well suited for research on organizations and the natural environment (O&NE), and that O&NE scholars may make significant contributions to organization theory from this perspective. However, this potential depends upon developing and maintaining a clear distinction between coevolution as a verb, or broad logic (a.k.a. macro coevolution), and coevolution as a noun, or specific mechanism (a.k.a. micro coevolution). In building these arguments the paper develops a definition and research framework for coevolutionary research and discusses theoretical and practical implications for O&NE.

may be reproduced in any form by any means without the express consent of the authors. The disposal of hazardous wastes creates major economic and environmental problems for both developed and developing nations. One productive use of hazardous wastes is to blend them into fuel, which mitigates damage to the environment by recycling waste into fuel and reducing fossil-fuel consumption. Operations personnel face a daunting task of efficiently blending hazardous waste into fuel, while at the same time maintaining environmental regulatory requirements. This research develops a goal-programming approach to the waste-fuel-blending process that considers the diverse objectives of fuel managers. A real-world case study at a cement kiln illustrates the effectiveness of this approach, where the implementation followed principles of team building and quality management.

Contrary to prior research, this paper suggests that supposedly standardized, subsidiary environmental communication, in fact varies in terms of its credibility. Further, the study suggests that since most of the subsidiaries ’ communication lacks credibility the MNCs ’ global environmental legitimacy is at risk.

Corporations have responded to society’s plea to provide innovative solutions to deep-seated problems of human misery. Organization and management scholarship can play an important role in understanding and guiding this corporate action. To date, this challenge has largely been ignored. Instead, the empirical quest to link a firm’s social investments to its financial returns has preoccupied researchers. Our goal in this paper is to reorient debate and research about social initiatives by business. We try to stimulate a fresh research agenda in three ways. First, we document the 30-year history of empirical work on the search for a relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). Second, we critically appraise the quality of this work. And third, we question the underlying theoretical and practice-based premises of this research and, in so doing, introduce a set of new research questions to examine. We believe that these alternative questions offer great promise for understanding and, ultimately, guiding possible corporate social initiatives. We close the paper by reflecting upon the role that scholars play, and can play, in guiding the conduct of the business enterprise. 2