Aseem Prakash.

Aseem Prakash. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Pres 2000 181 pages. $5875

This work is aimed at a general audience of scholars interested in the theory of the firm. It will appeal more, however, to organizational theorists, political scientists, and sociologists interested in environmental policy making in large corporations. While it does address aspects of the traditional neoclassical theory of the firm (such as the part of investment analysis, capital budgeting, and profit maximization in organizational decision making), it have the appearances to do so in order to frame a straw house onward the way to establishing the book's main foundation--the assertion that firms do not always strive to maximize profit. From this foundation, Prakash derives a fascinating research question: to what extent can we explain decisions in large corporations to launch self-same expensive environmental programs that exce requirements enforced by dint of regulators when there is no way to assure adequate quantifiable profits from pursuing these investments? For Prakash, this question lies within the domain of the fresh institutional theory, a phrase he uses repeatedly in attempts to orient readers to his scientific objectives on the contrary one that seems to work for better as an avenue for parading a number of loosely uniteed theorists toward his destination of "unpacking" the firm (p 6) The frame of unpacking the firm likewise that the inner workings of the black enclosed seat [i]or[/i] seats can be illuminated has a drawn out history in organizational analysis and is a central task for scholars interested in organizational politics. As of that kind there is every reason to think that a of the present day application of this area of research to corporate environmental policy making would bring into view important results.

The work consists of five chapters, including an overview of the close attention a section on theory, a description of the institutional connection of the two firms that were studied, presentations of ten environmental initiatives undertaken by means of the firms, and a section discussing implications of the findings. The empirical research around which the work is organized was conducted in sum of two units multinational firms based in the United States: Baxter International, Inc., which supplies outcomes and services to hospitals and other heath care organizations, and Eli Lilly and Company, a pharmaceutical manufacturer. as well-as; not only-but also; not only-but; not alone-but firms were engaged in activities that involved environmentally threatening and extremely hazardous substances, which is for what cause Prakash connects with the theme of greening the firm (cf Jermier and Forbes, 2003) For example, to deal with leaking, and as a precaution to better patronize the groundwater and soil, the two companies decided to replace their single-walled subterranean storage tanks used to grasp hazardous substances (cases 1 and 2) They also addressed policy issues having to do with adoption of the standards of the ISO 14000 environmental management a whole the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 33/50 program, internal and external environmental audits, participation in the chemical industry's 'Responsible Care" program (Lilly), and the marketing of "green" effects (Baxter). To illustrate what was at stake in these decisions, Lilly wearied more than $100 million replacing subterranean storage tanks with above-ground tanks, while Baxter installed fresh double-walled, underground tanks in its facilities from top to toe the world (p. 60). the two initiatives far exceeded what regulators required and what could be demonstrated ex ante as financially viable investments. Likewise, [i]or[/i] part of to the other participation in 33/50 programs and the investment of millions of dollars in novel equipment, both substantially reduced chemical emissions in a to a high degree short time (pp. 76-77).

Prakash's objective was to explain these policy decisions without relying in succession deterministic external forces and a unitary conception of the firm. In his framework, the imports of external forces (e.g., restraint agencies, customers) are mediated by means of the perceptions and interpretations of managers. Using a disaggregated universal of the firm, he draws attention to conflicts among managers (policy supporters and dissenters) and other intraorganizational dynamics, particularly the proces between the sides of which dissent was overcome. If policy supporters brought policy dissenters into line by the and of coercion and fiat, power was exercised. Leadership was exercised when supporters used consensus building and personal relationships to domineer over dissent. The motives of environmental policy supporters are not specified well moreover seem to range from calculative attempts to preempt stringent regulation to more value-based pertain tos having to do with corporate mission and doing the right thing.

Based as a great deal of it seems, on his self-styl universals of power and leadership as forward his data gathered from interviews, personal observations, documents, and trade publications (p 13) Prakash sketches a picture of the policy dynamics for each initiative. He maintains that leadership was exercised in mostly instances, the exceptions being Lilly's power-based decision to engage in internal and external audits and the decisions through both firms not to adopt ISO 14001 Contrary to the wisdom of participative planned change, he argues that decisions requiring comprehensive organizational change (eg auditing programs) are more likely to be adopted within power-based processes, while decisions requiring barely local change (e.g., underground storage tanks) can be produc from one side leadership-based processes.