Are We All Willing and Able? Exploring the Intra-Organisational Dynamics of Substantive vs Symbolic Adoption of Sustainability Standards

Abstract A large stream of studies has documented varying levels of adoption of sustainability standards (from the symbolic to the substantive), emphasising the organisational-level decoupling processes in the face of external normative pressures. Yet, such calls presuppose organisational actors consciously, collectively, and strategically articulate a modus operandi consistent with a decoupling approach. In this paper, we offer an alternative view by arguing that the extent to which sustainability standards are adopted resides at individual and group levels. Based on the case of a family-owned multinational company and relying on Durand et al.’s (2019) framing and social identity theory, we ask: how does social identity(ies) shape the willingness and ability to adopt (substantively or symbolically) sustainability standards? Following interviews with managers, a survey of employees, and a review of internal documents, the findings reveal that despite the group of sustainability promoters’ ability and willingness to adopt standards substantively, broader organisational change remained uneven. Specifically our findings suggest that organisational responses are likely to be symbolic when: (i) when individuals do not consider membership in the promoter group to be salient and are less likely to prioritise and internalise its norms and values over external ones; (ii) the promoters’ group does not assume the prototypical leadership role; (iii) there is little or no recognition of the presence of multiple social groups, each with their own distinct identities; (iv) ethical dilemmas (e.g., respecting subsidiaries’ autonomy versus enforcing alignment, and balancing sustainability values with fiduciary duties to shareholders) are not addressed. This paper contributes to the literature by cautioning against an oversimplification of judgments about symbolic versus substantive organisational responses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Business Ethics
Published
2026-07-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-026-06388-4
Primary Topic
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are We All Willing and Able? Exploring the Intra-Organisational Dynamics of Substantive vs Symbolic Adoption of Sustainability Standards

Caterina Pesci, Teerooven Soobaroyen, Akylai Anarbaeva
Journal of Business Ethics
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
article

Are We All Willing and Able? Exploring the Intra-Organisational Dynamics of Substantive vs Symbolic Adoption of Sustainability Standards

Caterina Pesci, Teerooven Soobaroyen, Akylai Anarbaeva
article en

Abstract

Abstract A large stream of studies has documented varying levels of adoption of sustainability standards (from the symbolic to the substantive), emphasising the organisational-level decoupling processes in the face of external normative pressures. Yet, such calls presuppose organisational actors consciously, collectively, and strategically articulate a modus operandi consistent with a decoupling approach. In this paper, we offer an alternative view by arguing that the extent to which sustainability standards are adopted resides at individual and group levels. Based on the case of a family-owned multinational company and relying on Durand et al.’s (2019) framing and social identity theory, we ask: how does social identity(ies) shape the willingness and ability to adopt (substantively or symbolically) sustainability standards? Following interviews with managers, a survey of employees, and a review of internal documents, the findings reveal that despite the group of sustainability promoters’ ability and willingness to adopt standards substantively, broader organisational change remained uneven. Specifically our findings suggest that organisational responses are likely to be symbolic when: (i) when individuals do not consider membership in the promoter group to be salient and are less likely to prioritise and internalise its norms and values over external ones; (ii) the promoters’ group does not assume the prototypical leadership role; (iii) there is little or no recognition of the presence of multiple social groups, each with their own distinct identities; (iv) ethical dilemmas (e.g., respecting subsidiaries’ autonomy versus enforcing alignment, and balancing sustainability values with fiduciary duties to shareholders) are not addressed. This paper contributes to the literature by cautioning against an oversimplification of judgments about symbolic versus substantive organisational responses.

Journal of Business Ethics
Aston University (GB), University of Trento (IT)
Università degli Studi di Trento
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.