The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. SMEs
2.2. Coercive Isomorphism
2.3. Sustainable Development
2.3.1. Economic Sustainability
2.3.2. Environmental Sustainability
2.3.3. Social Sustainability
3. Research Methodology
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Measurement Model
4.2. Structural Equation Modelling
4.3. Discussion of Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Item | Code |
---|---|
Coercive isomorphism | |
Our main customers that matter to us believe that we should use sustainable business practices. | Coe1 |
We may not retain our important customers without sustainable business practices. | Coe2 |
Our suppliers that matter to us believe that we should use sustainable business practices. | Coe3 |
There are rules and regulations that enforce us to use sustainable business practices. | Coe4 |
Environmental sustainability | |
Our sustainable business practices focus on environmental issues. | Env1 |
Our sustainable business practices make the most efficient use of the resources available in the environment. | Env2 |
Our sustainable business practices recycle, reuse and reduce waste. | Env3 |
Our sustainable business practices are based upon environmental monitoring. | Env4 |
Our sustainable business practices are increasing energy efficiency. | Env5 |
Our sustainable business practices emphasise on use of renewable energy. | Env6 |
Our sustainable business practices make use of reduction/replacement of hazardous chemicals or materials (e.g., substituting hazardous chemicals with less hazardous alternatives). | Env7 |
Our sustainable business practices adhere to Environmental Protection Agency regulations on effluents/emissions/waste. | Env8 |
Economic sustainability | |
Our sustainable development practices rest on economic considerations such as efficiency and productivity. | Eco1 |
Our sustainable development practices focus on survival in the marketplace. | Eco2 |
Our sustainable development practices save money for the firm. | Eco3 |
Our sustainable development practices meet tax obligations. | Eco4 |
Our sustainable development practices provide products and services that are important for the community. | Eco5 |
Our sustainable development practices focus on long-term profitability even if it means losses in the short-term. | Eco6 |
Social sustainability | |
Our sustainable development practices take current activities in the community into account. | Soc1 |
Our sustainable development practices consider the social well-being of society. | Soc2 |
Our sustainable business practices provide entitlements to workers. | Soc3 |
Our sustainable business practices promote women to senior management positions. | Soc4 |
Our sustainable business practices focus on equity and safety of the community. | Soc5 |
Our sustainable business practices focus on improving the general education level. | Soc6 |
Our sustainable business practices promote individual rights both civil and human rights. | Soc7 |
References
- Masocha, R.; Fatoki, O. The role of mimicry isomorphism in sustainable development operationalization by SMEs in South Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rishi, M.; Jauhari, V.; Joshi, G. Marketing sustainability in the luxury lodging industry: A thematic analysis of preferences amongst the Indian transition generation. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 32, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borim-de-Souza, R.; Balbinot, Z.; Travis, E.F.; Munck, L.; Takahashi, A.R.W. Sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory. Cross Cult. Manag. 2015, 22, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, L.A.; Zhang, D.D. Perspectives on corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2012, 23, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratiu, C.; Anderson, B.B. The identity crisis of sustainable development. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 11, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Høgevold, N.M.; Svensson, G.; Klopper, H.B.; Wagner, B.; Valera, J.C.S.; Padin, C.; Ferro, C.; Petzer, D. A triple bottom line construct and reasons for implementing sustainable business practices in companies and their business networks. Corp. Gov. 2015, 15, 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamil, C.Z.M.; Mohamed, A.A.; Muhammad, F.; Ali, A. Environmental management accounting practices in small medium manufacturing firms. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chow, W.S.; Chen, Y. Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 519–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y. What are the biggest obstacles to growth of SMEs in developing countries? An empirical evidence from an enterprise survey. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2016, 16, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iederan, O.C.; Curçeu, P.L.; Vermeulen, P.A.M.; Geurts, J.L.A. Antecedents of Strategic Orientations in Romanian SMEs: An Institutional Framing Perspective. J. East Eur. Manag. Stud. 2013, 18, 386–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maduku, D.K.; Mpinganjira, M.; Duha, H. Understanding mobile marketing adoption intention by South African SMEs: A multi-perspective framework. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cambra-Fierro, J.; Hart, S.; Polo-Redondo, Y. Environmental Respect: Ethics or Simply Business? A Study in the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.; Yu, C.J. Adoption of Practices by Subsidiaries and Institutional Interaction within Internationalised Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Manag. Int. Rev. 2012, 52, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windolph, S.E.; Schaltegger, S.; Herzig, C. Implementing corporate sustainability: What drives the application of sustainability management tools in Germany. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2014, 5, 378–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatraman, S.; Nayak, R.R. Corporate sustainability: An IS approach for integrating triple bottom line elements. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 482–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Ferrero, J.; García-Sánchez, I. Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 26, 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutheewasinnon, P.; Hoque, Z.; Nyamori, R.O. Development of a performance management system in the Thailand public sector: Isomorphism and the role and strategies of institutional entrepreneurs. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2016, 40, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, K.; Wong, C.W.Y.; Cheng, E. Institutional isomorphism and the adoption of information technology for supply chain management. Comput. Ind. 2006, 57, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, R.; Sheu, C. Why do Firms Adopt/Implement Green Practices-An Institutional Theory Perspective. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 57, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban, B.; Naidoo, R. Business sustainability: Empirical evidence on operational skills in SMEs in South Africa. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2012, 19, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deniz, D. Improving sustainability concept in developing countries: Sustainable thinking and environmental awareness through design education. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 34, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Issahaku, A.; Ganiyu, A.A.; Sophia, A. Reducing the Rate of Poverty in Tamale Metropolis: The Role of Small and Medium Enterprises. Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. UK 2015, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Moreira, D.F. The microeconomic impact on growth of SMEs when the access to finance widens: Evidence from internet & high-tech industry. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 220, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eze, U.C.; Goh, G.G.G.; Goh, C.Y.; Tan, T.T. Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge sharing. VINE 2013, 43, 210–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asamoah, E.S. Customer based brand equity (CBBE) and the competitive performance of SMEs in Ghana. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2014, 21, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Maggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields. Am. Soc. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchko, A. Institutionalization, Coercive Isomorphism, and the Homogeneity of Strategy. Adv. Bus. Res. 2011, 2, 27–45. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, T.; Daniel, E.M.; Hinton, M.; Quintas, P. Isomorphic mechanisms in manufacturing supply chains: A comparison of indigenous Chinese firms and foreign-owned MNCs. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, C. Insights into current practices in auditing environmental matters. Manag. Audit. J. 2010, 25, 912–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauppi, K. Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain management research. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 33, 1318–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kshetri, N. The development of market orientation: A consideration of institutional influence in China. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2009, 2, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.; Hyland, M. Re-examining mimetic isomorphism. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1076–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, J.M.G. Determinants of socially responsible corporate behaviours in the Spanish electricity sector. Soc. Responsib. J. 2010, 6, 386–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, S.; Darus, F.; Arshad, R. The influence of coercive isomorphism on corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation. Soc. Responsib. J. 2011, 7, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giblin, M.J.; Burruss, G.W. Developing a measurement model of institutional processes in policing. Polic. Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 2009, 32, 351–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiel, M. Unlocking the social domain in sustainable development. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 12, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galpin, T.; Whittington, J.L.; Bell, G. Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability. Corp. Gov. 2015, 15, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamali, D.; Mirshak, R. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 72, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jämsä, P.; Tähtinen, J.; Ryan, A.; Pallari, M. Sustainable SMEs network utilization: The case of food enterprises. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2011, 18, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, F.; Mendonça, P.S.M.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Social dimension of sustainability in retail: Case studies of small and medium Brazilian supermarkets. Soc. Responsib. J. 2010, 6, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.P. The triple bottom line. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 432–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebanjo, D.; Teh, P.; Ahmed, P.K. The impact of external pressure and sustainable management practices on manufacturing performance and environmental outcomes. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 995–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 4333–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.; Tan, K.C.; Zailani, S.H.M.; Jayaraman, V. Supply chain drivers that foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 33, 656–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diabat, A.; Govindan, K. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zeijl-Rozema, A.; Cörvers, R.; Kemp, R.; Martens, P. Governance for Sustainable Development: A Framework. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 16, 410–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Conesa, I.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Palacios-Manzano, M. Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: An empirical research in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2374–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, C.; Taplin, R. Local government website sustainability reporting: A mimicry perspective. Soc. Responsib. J. 2012, 8, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortas, E.; Alvarez, I.; Jaussaud, J.; Garayar, A. The impact of institutional and social context on corporate environmental, social and governance performance of companies committed to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryman, A.; Bell, E. Research Methodology: Business and Management Contexts; Oxford University Press: Cape Town, South Africa, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hoyle, R.H. Structural Equation Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology; Sage Publications Inc.: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-0-85702-405-3. [Google Scholar]
- Rajeh, M.; Tookey, J.E.; Rotimi, J.O.B. Estimating transaction costs in the New Zealand construction procurement: A structural equation modelling methodology. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2015, 22, 242–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiqui, K.A.; Mirani, M.A.; Fahim, S.M. Model generation using structural equation modelling. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2015, 2, 112–116. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, P. Business Research Methods; Oxford University Press: New Dehli, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T.A.; Moore, M.T. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. 2013. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Moore8/publication/251573889_Hoyle_CFA_Chapter_-_Final/links/0deec51f14d2070566000000/Hoyle-CFA-Chapter-Final.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2017).
- De Carvalho, J.; Chima, F.O. Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Social Sciences Research. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 2014, 4, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
- Bryne, B.M. Structural Equation Modelling with Amos-Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 9780805863727. [Google Scholar]
- Bondy, K. Isomorphism in the Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence of an Institution and Its Decline; University of Bath School of Management: Bath, UK, 2009; Available online: http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/research/papers.htm (accessed on 5 September 2017).
Variables | Category | Frequency | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 104 | 46.8 |
Female | 118 | 53.2 | |
Age | 20–30 years | 77 | 34.7 |
31–40 years | 88 | 39.6 | |
41–50 years | 46 | 20.7 | |
Above 50 years | 11 | 5.0 | |
Position in business | Owner | 123 | 55.4 |
Manager | 99 | 44.6 | |
Number of employees | 5 and Below | 79 | 35.6 |
6–20 | 96 | 43.2 | |
21–50 | 39 | 17.6 | |
51–200 | 8 | 3.6 | |
Location of business | Rural | 45 | 20.3 |
Urban | 177 | 79.7 |
Factor | Item | SFLs | Cronbach’s α | AVE | CR | R-Squared |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coercive | Coe1 | 0.959 | 0.964 | 0.682 | 0.965 | - |
Coe2 | 0.943 | |||||
Coe3 | 0.937 | |||||
Coe4 | 0.898 | |||||
Economic | Eco1 | 0.683 | 0.912 | 0.622 | 0.907 | 0.37 |
Eco2 | 0.804 | |||||
Eco3 | 0.877 | |||||
Eco4 | 0.936 | |||||
Eco5 | 0.763 | |||||
Eco6 | 0.627 | |||||
Environmental | Env1 | 0.867 | 0.946 | 0.873 | 0.937 | 0.57 |
Env2 | 0.890 | |||||
Env3 | 0.869 | |||||
Env5 | 0.854 | |||||
Env6 | 0.808 | |||||
Env7 | 0.735 | |||||
Env8 | 0.744 | |||||
Social | Soc1 | 0.758 | 0.903 | 0.573 | 0.903 | 0.39 |
Soc2 | 0.842 | |||||
Soc3 | 0.837 | |||||
Soc4 | 0.645 | |||||
Soc5 | 0.839 | |||||
Soc6 | 0.723 | |||||
Soc7 | 0.618 |
Factor/Item | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Coercive Isomorphism | 3.045 | 0.128 | 0.934 | |||
2 Economic Sustainability | 3.825 | 0.042 | 0.61 | 0.789 | ||
3 Environmental sustainability | 2.929 | 0.149 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.826 | |
4 Social sustainability | 3.787 | 0.078 | 0.55 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.757 |
Hypothesised Relationship | β | S.E. | C.R. | p | Rejected or Supported | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic | <--- | Coercive | 0.619 | 0.042 | 7.679 | *** | Supported |
Environmental | <--- | Coercive | 0.725 | 0.056 | 10.269 | *** | Supported |
Social | <--- | Coercive | 0.569 | 0.041 | 7.054 | *** | Supported |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Masocha, R.; Fatoki, O. The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093032
Masocha R, Fatoki O. The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093032
Chicago/Turabian StyleMasocha, Reginald, and Olawale Fatoki. 2018. "The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093032
APA StyleMasocha, R., & Fatoki, O. (2018). The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa. Sustainability, 10(9), 3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093032