The Impact of Coercive Pressures on Sustainability Practices of Small Businesses in South Africa

Abstract

The study sought to examine the role that coercive isomorphic pressures play in the sustainable development practices by small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The survey research approach was utilised in the research through 222 self-administered questionnaires distributed to SME owners and managers. The structural equation modelling (SEM) method was utilised to analyse the data through the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method in Amos Version 24 software. Major findings in this study are that coercive isomorphic pressures have a significant impact on all the three dimensions of sustainable development which are economic, environmental and social. The implications are that government, environmental pressure groups and other stakeholders need to take into consideration the coercive pressures such as laws and regulations in pressuring small businesses to enhance sustainability practices. The research contributes by unearthing the extent to which coercive pressures impact the behaviour and practices of SMEs in sustainability practices. The study indicates that eventually small firms are expected to behave the same when it comes to adopting sustainability practices due to coercive isomorphism. The findings of this study further contribute toward understanding the concept of sustainable development in practice and theory.

Does Environmental Sustainability Impact Innovation, Ecological and Social Measures of Firm Performance of SMEs? Evidence from South Africa

“…Additionally, Ghazilla et al [26] indicate that many SMEs do not regard their activities as having significant environmental impact when compared with those of large corporations. For that reason, many SMEs do not consider lack of environmental management as a costly practice [27]. Consequently, the aggregation of SMEs' impact coupled with their no-effect mentality towards environmentalism points towards a devastating environmental impact by SMEs, individually and collectively.…”

Education for Sustainable Development: Emerging Themes from Adopters of a Declaration

“…Junaid, Leung, and Buono [19] (p. 492) explain that perceived legitimacy is important for organizations for competitive success and refers to "coercive isomorphism" being the social and political pressure to conform to perceived legitimacy. Masocha and Fatoki [20] find that coercive isomorphism, through policies, laws, standards, and regulations, is a significant driver of small businesses adopting, for example, initiatives related to sustainability. There are two other isomorphic types; one is mimetic, based on mimicking successful organizational structures and initiatives, and the other is normative, whereby expert views and influence become widely adopted [21].…”

“…Adherence to standards, as indicated by the third comment, was a coercive influence [20], which also had elements of normative isomorphism, since expert opinion encouraged standardization and also mimetic isomorphism [21], due to many of the other universities aiming for star ratings on their buildings.…”

Manager’s Age, Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation and Sustainable Performance: A Conceptual Outlook

“…However, based on the dynamic capabilities approach, it is expected that organizations with SEO are being innovative, proactive and taking risks to make their production processes more efficient, leading to zero wastage and full utilization of resources. This will result in better economic performance [64,65]. Based on this justification, we propose that:…”

“…It is based on the premise that human activities should not destroy the limited resources of land, water and air on earth. The environmental performance involves practices such as cautious use of resources, pollution prevention and waste minimization [64]. Broadly, it takes account of material used, products produced, energy and water use, waste and emissions, compliance with environmental regulations, transportation of products and overall eco-friendly actions that a firm undertakes [35,68].…”