Managing Innovation and Standards

Abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

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

“…Second, results from our partial correlations analyses provide tentative support for prior research showing that firms join multiple VEPs or quality management standards to pursue the coupling effect, where firms attempt to leverage the knowledge gained from implementing multiple standards, and even develop that knowledge into standards competencies (Castka & Balzarova, 2018; De Vries et al, 2018). Still harmonizing standards from multiple VEPs and/or quality management programs is resource intensive and challenging (Wiegmann, 2019). Furthermore, as discussed earlier, firms taking this approach seem to join lenient VEPs that promote symbolic environmental practices.…”

“…However, because of their level of specificity, they may be incompatible with other standards that focus on commonality, as opposed to idiosyncratic environmental problems (Castka & Corbett, 2015; Smith & Fischlein, 2010). We also expect stringent monitoring and sanctions to make new VEPs less complementary with existing ones or quality management standards, as they can constrain firms’ flexibility in how they choose and/or install practices in a way that complies with stringent VEP mandates (Wiegmann, 2019). Based on these considerations, we predict that…”

A multilevel, multi-mode framework for standardization in digital B2B platform eco-systems in international cargo transportation—A multiple case study

“…We briefly present the results of the standard type, as it is the most thematized factor with an effect on the standardization mode. We find that each type of standard implicates a different mode of standardization or combination of modes which means that a an approach to better standardization needs to consider more than the institutional and technological context (Wiegmann et al, 2017 ), especially with regards to different standard types. For certain standards (e.g., data standards) it seems advantageous if they are internationally aligned, so a committee-based mode might be advantageous: “ We need that international alignment through ISO.…”

“…We find that the higher levels of competition and fragmentation (e.g., inland shipping industry) make a solely market-based standardization more likely as finding a consensus is more difficult compared to a very concentrated market. The same applies to standard adoption α: 0.16 α: 0.15 β: 0.51 β: 0.45 γ: 0.43 γ: 0.5 Eco-system composition/diversity All: 0.11 All: 0.18 The standardization "culture" (Wiegmann et al, 2017 ) describes the approaches and unwritten conventions regarding the standardization processes of an actor or a group of actors (e.g., industry). On the platform eco-system multiple different actor groups from converging industries are interacting which can have different standardization cultures.…”

“…Accordingly, a better understanding of standardization processes and mechanisms can help to find better standards in the sense of maximizing economic welfare and efficiency without getting “trapped” with an obsolete or inferior standard (Farrell and Saloner 1985 ). Additionally, reaching a standard in a shorter time with less resources, i.e., more efficiently, can be supported by deeper, context-specific knowledge (Wiegmann, 2019 ).…”