13,459 words in total

Theorizing Change Revisited: An Amended Process Model of Institutional Innovations and Changes in Institutional Fields

Tim de Leeuw

TIAS School for Business and Society,

Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Address: P.O: Box 90153, NL - 5000 LE Tilburg

Telephone number: +31612628680

Email address. t.deleeuw@tias.edu

Tobias Gössling

Department of Organization Studies, School of Social and Behavioral Science,

and Tilburg Sustainability Center,

Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Abstract

The recent abandonment of old taxis and the introduction and diffusion of new taxis and car ride-sharing services of Uber and the sharing economy in general shows that institutional environments change. This paper provides a review on institutional change based on 29 previously published case studies. Based on this review and the Uber case an overview of antecedents for institutional change is developed. Furthermore, an existing model describing the process of institutional change (Greenwood et al., 2002) is validated and extended. This extended process model describes the development and different phases of institutional change. This paper aims to enrich our theoretical understanding of institutional change and to provide insights for change agents.

Key words: Institutional field; institutionalization; innovation; change.

1. Introduction

Societies and organizations are breaking away from their old ways of thinking and aim to create sustainable and equitable solutions, which include new or improved production processes, products and services. An important aspect of these solutions is that they interact with their institutional environment (e.g., Suzuki, 2014), which in turn can facilitate or prevent the learning, acceptance and implementation of these solutions (e.g., Levänen, 2015). These external and institutional environments are defined as “systems of established and embedded social rules that structure social interactions” (Hodgson, 2006; p.2).

Recent examples and cases discuss the potential for sustainability advances in the “sharing economy” (Sunderararjan, 2013; Zervas et al., 2014). The principle behind the sharing economy is that, based upon communication and IT, consumers can jointly make use of products to the extent that eventually less products are needed (Hamari et al., 2015). Consequently, less production takes place, less emissions and use of resources, and less waste. Examples range from commonly used tools (NeighbourGoods), bicycles (Liquid), internet access (Fon), to cars (RelayRides) and houses (AirBnB). However, the use and consumption in the sharing economy is also related to changes in the perception of products and possession. The sharing economy demands a consumption habit wherein the consumer perceives satisfaction on the basis of using a product, not on the basis of possession (c.f. Woodward, 2011; Afshar, 2014). In other words: The informal institutions that describe individual consumption patterns need to change in order to allow for a transgression from the possession economy to the sharing economy.

An ambivalently discussed example for the sharing economy, which illustrates the importance and potential impact of these interactions with the institutional environment, is the taxi and car ride-sharing services offered through Uber with their apps for mobile devices, which started in 2010 in San Francisco. Individuals can register as a “cap” driver with this organization and can use their own car to drive other individuals. Individuals that want a ride can use the app to request a driver, which is notified though the app of the pick-up location. A driver that is available can confirm the ride and at that time the individual that has requested the ride gets information on the driver (including a picture and reviews of previous individuals) and the exact time of arrival. Payment is done thought the app and the costs of the ride are usually about half the price of traditional cab rides. One of the expected environmental advantages of this initiative is the reduction of the number of cars on the road, due to the ride-sharing, and thereby a reduction in CO2 emissions. The services of Uber are currently offered in 67 countries and are available in more than 369 cities (www.uber.com) and the company is valued $40 Billion (December 2014). At the end of 2015 there were world-wide more than 1.1 million drivers, both professional and amateurs (Uber, 2015a) and more than a billion car rides with passengers were provided up till that point (Uber, 2015b).

However, the UberPop service (i.e., services offered by drivers without a cap driver certification) is a much debated service in many countries in the world (e.g., France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, China, Brazil: see e.g., CNN, 2015; Washingtonpost, 2015). Existing taxi organizations complain about unfair competition and the lack of driver certification, which is legally required in many cities, and are “rallying together against what they consider to be unfair competition” (Sustainable-mobility, 2014). Consequently UberPop is considered illegal in many US and EU cities and the EU has prohibited the use of this service (Europe online, 2015; NBC news, 2015). Subsequently Uber is involved in many international law suits (e.g., CNN, 2015). Nonetheless, the US state California has changed the law to allow organizations like Uber to run their business (Washingtonpost, 2015) and the EU is currently investigating the possibility to change the taxi laws at the EU level as well.

Uber is exemplary for the sharing economy and its sustainability aspects. The principle idea is a better and thus more efficient use of resources. Uber facilitates this shared use by providing effective communication and information exchange at low costs and high speed. The partners to an exchange thus can exchange at extremely low transaction costs. Furthermore, their exchange is characterized by the absence of negative external effects. However, the exchange system shows perceived negative effects for those who hold a quasi-monopolistic position in the formerly established system of personal transportation services. Classical taxi companies are often assumed to be the victim of Uber which also shows in several protests and boycotts initiated by taxi drivers. Hence, this situation is an example for a perceived superiority of an established institutional field whereas the system that Uber provides is designed to be more efficient in terms of sustainability and user preferences.

This example illustrates the importance the institutional environment can have on sustainable businesses, products or services. For the UberPop services to be accepted, the existing environment will need to change with regard to two aspects. On the one hand and with regard to social acceptance, the service cannot be successful as long as consumers will not perceive it as acceptable; on the other hand and with regard to rules and laws, the service will fail if state legislation will not adopt the law to make the Uber service legal.

Since most organizations are part of an institutional field (e.g., a collective of organizations), these fields change over time and these changes can have a significant impact on the organizations in the field, it is relevant to investigate the following research question: what are antecedents and mechanisms of change in institutional fields? Institutional change in institutional fields is thus a complex process between many organizations that evolves over a long time period. As a result the vast majority of the existing academic literature on institutional change at the field level consists of a number of highly detailed retrospective case studies (e.g., Vermeulen et al., 2007). At present, these case studies, on the topic of institutional change, are rather diverse and wide-spread. Such case studies, like the Uber case, can provide detailed insights into institutional mechanisms (i.e., the antecedents and mechanism of change) for that case, however at the cost of generalizability of the results.

To contribute to the generalizability of the knowledge on antecedents and the mechanisms of change at the institutional field level, the aim of this paper is to provide an overview and syntheses of what is currently known about this and is thereby an attempt to integrate and aggregate the diverse and detailed (previously published) case studies. To prevent the exclusion of relevant case studies and theoretical perspectives we not only focus on studies that investigate change with regard to sustainability or the sharing economy, but also incorporate other cases.

As such we aim to provide a number of contributions. The first main contribution of this paper is an overview of antecedents causing institutional change, which is developed, based on 29 highly detailed published case studies and our theorizing. Second, this paper relates these case studies and the Uber case to a model of change in institutional fields that was previous developed by Greenwood et al. (2002). Even though this model is positively referred to (e.g., Battilana et al., 2009; Hardy and Maguire, 2008), the model has never been tested empirically. Therefore, and based on these 29 case studies, the Uber case, and other conceptual papers, this study validates this model and complements it, resulting in an amended model.

Although some recent interesting work has been conducted with regard to institutional change, like the role, impact and process of institutional entrepreneurship (e.g., Battilanaa et al., 2009; Hardy and Maguire, 2008), there is no systematic analysis generalizing antecedents and the mechanisms of change in the institutional field level. This is surprising since a better understanding of institutional change should benefit organizations, change agents, politicians and academics. As such, this is an important research gap that this paper fills. By doing so, we also respond to DiMaggio’s (1988) criticism that scholars are not focusing on the formation of institutions and the mechanisms of institutional change.

2. Institutions, Institutional fields and Institutionalization

We base our theorization and analysis on institutional theory. An institutional field consists of “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life; key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services or products.” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; p. 148-149). An important focus in this definition is on “those organizations” that interact and influence each other and form rules and a collective social reality that structures their social interactions. Hence, changes of members of an organizational field (like the example of Uber) also imply changes with regard to interactions and influences within the respective field (Oliver, 1992). Institutional change in this context is defined as: “a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an institution” (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006: 866).

Institutions are the rules of society that can be either formal (laws and contracts) or informal (culture, customs, habits). For this distinction between formal and informal institutions, see North (1990). Scott (1995) uses a similar distinction between “coercive” and “normative”. Institutions consist in commonly shared norms, values, understandings and beliefs, which enhance predictability and reduce uncertainty and ambiguity (North, 1990). Actors within a society are supposed to behave according to these rules to the extent that one can predict, interpret and understand actors’ behavior in the context of those rules of society.

Institutional theory explains how and why actors behave according to these rules and regulations of the institutional environment. Action is perceived as a consequence of individual choice within constraints (c.f. Wooten and Hoffman, 2008; Gössling, 2003). Since the seminal article by Meyer and Rowan (1977), institutional theory has proliferated and is currently well-established in the field of organizational science. Amongst others, it provides explanations about the degree of similarity of organizations in a particular field (i.e., institutional isomorphism), as a consequence of institutional pressures and compliance to these pressures. The majority of literature has emphasized the process of legitimization and conformity to these existing rules and regulations (Oliver, 1992). As such institutional theory is not always regarded as a theory of change. In line with this, Bruckho (1994) has shown that institutional pressures are a powerful force against transformational change.

On the other hand, institutional theory does explain how behavior of actors can influence and change the institutional environment (North 1990). Tolbert and Zucker (1999), for example, conducted research on the process of institutionalization and explained this in a model consisting of innovation, habitualization, objectification and sedimentation as components of the process of organizational institutionalization and the development of institutional fields. These institutional fields are formed by repeated interactions between organizations. Furthermore, an institutional field exposes the organizations that belong to the respective institutional field to shared institutions that impact upon interactions amongst the organizations.

In line with institutional theory in general, organizations in a field agree to their existing social reality (Zucker, 1987), reinforce it with coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism processes. Institutional forces in the field level can therefore also be understood as a powerful force against transformational change (Buckho, 1994). As such an institutional field can thus limit behavior and highlight distinct preferred behavioral options (Scott, 1991).

However, institutional conditions in fields constantly change, since globalization and technological innovations lead to changing environments for organizations. This holds, for example, for consumer preferences as well as for the awareness of sustainability and the corresponding social rules. New products are introduced, new competitors emerge while other organizations cease to exist, and new rules are established while others change or vanish. This implies that organizations can adopt and correspond or resist to these changes in the institutional environment. In line with Oliver (1992, p: 564), who investigated antecedents of de-institutionalization at the firm level, we argue that these changes cause organizations to: “challenge, discard or abandon legitimated or institutionalized practices”, which incorporates Hoffman’s (1999; p. 352) proposal to see institutional fields “not as static but evolving”.

Relating this discussion to the UBER-case, we see that UBER cannot be successful without changes in its specific institutional field, and those changes would also contain de-institutionalization and institutionalization. De-institutionalization in this case would be a legislative act that discontinues the protection of conventional taxi services, on the one hand and a change in the understanding of the customer that relates taxi services with a taxi stand and a yellow “taxi” sign. Institutionalization would consist in the legality and legitimacy of UBER services, ultimately to the extent that people think and say “let’s call an UBER” instead of saying “let’s call a taxi”.

3. Method to identify relevant case studies

To identify case studies that could contribute to answering the research question, a literature search was utilized. The search was conducted for published academic peer reviewed journal papers, using both the ProQuest interface of ABI/INFORM Global and Google Scholar.

Due to the focus on the institutional field level the first search term was: “institutional field”. More specifically, the search was conducted to incorporate papers that focused on change in institutional fields, hence “change” and “innovation” were added to the search terms. The two search engines were thus searched for “institutional field” AND “change” OR “innovation”, searching through the titles and abstracts of the papers, which resulted in 53 papers. An additional search was conducted using institutionalization and de-institutionalization (i.e., “institutionalization” AND “de-institutionalization” AND “change” OR “innovation”), which resulted in an additional 14 papers.

These initial searches thus provided 67 results which were analyzed on their relevance in relation to this paper, by reading the abstracts and scanning trough these papers. Based on the relevance 40 of these papers were excluded. These were mainly papers presenting research that focused on the level of organizational change and not on the change of an institutional field, or on the influence of institutional change (field level) on individuals or individual organizations.

Additionally, the web of science was used to search for papers that were frequently cited to make sure that no key papers would be excluded. A forward and backward snowball technique (i.e., searching for papers that cite the identified papers and papers that are cited by these papers) was used to search for related papers. Based on this step two additional papers of a special research forum on institutional theory and institutional change by the Academy of Management Journal of 2002 (that were not already selected) and a number of key theoretical papers were added to the final selection. To make sure that the papers would represent the widest area of available literature, no limitation was placed on the publication time period. All the identified papers were analyzed, by two researches independently with regard to their relevance, by reading the abstracts and cross reading these papers. Based on this, 29 case studies (i.e., papers) were included in the detailed analysis.

After this selection process, all case studies were fully analyzed. Two researchers, individually, read the full papers and focused on identifying both possible antecedents and the mechanisms of change. Both were highlighted in the papers and afterwards discussed and synthesized between the two researchers. The results are presented in Tables 3-5, see the appendix. Furthermore, following the recommendations of the reviewers a couple of additional papers are also incorporated in this paper.

4. Findings based on 29 case studies

Most of the 29 case studies investigated a time period of several years (i.e., the period under investigation in these studies), ranging from 1 year to 89 years with an average of 22 years. Changes in institutional fields are studied in a wide variety of organizations which are: governmental organizations (Table 3), non-profit sectors organizations (Table 4), with a majority of profit organizations from the fields of finance, publishing, software or production (Table 5). Due to potential heterogeneity between these different categories of firms (e.g., changes in legislation might be more difficult to resist for governmental organizations than for profit organizations) these different tables where constructed. These tables provide markers for comparison with regard to the research question.

4.1. Antecedents of Change in Institutional Fields

Based on the case studies, summarized in the Tables 3-5, we developed a summary of the antecedents. This was accomplished by extracting the key antecedent(s) per case. Based on categorizations made in previous studies these antecedents are grouped into: 1) originating from inside or outside the institutional field and 2) into political, functional and social sources.

With regard to the first, a valid distinction between inside and outside the institutional field is based on the literature on the diffusion of innovations (e.g., Abrahamson, 1991) where a distinction is made between organizations inside a group and organizations outside that group. This distinction is important since these two groups of organizations can respond differently to institutional changes and might thus partly explain variance in antecedents of institutional change on the field level.

With regard to the second, Oliver’s (1992) paper showed that (on the firm level) political, functional, and social pressures are different categories. The distinction in political, functional, and social sources is furthermore based on the work of Greenwood et al. (2002) who distinguish regulatory, technological, and social precipitating jolts to institutional change. Based on these studies we made the distinction between political, functional and social sources, since variation between these categories might also result in variations with regard to antecedents of institutional change.

The categorization into change originating from inside or outside the institutional field was realized by coding the antecedents into either category based on the best fit with these categories. Furthermore, the categorization between political, functional and social sources was accomplished by categorizing the key antecedents into the group that best fits the source. The paper of Vermeulen et al. (2007) for example describes the resistance of incumbent firms to a change in state policy, which demanded the uses of alternative recycled substitute materials (i.e., more environment friendly materials) in construction projects. . This case has been coded as change originating from outside the institutional field, and the key antecedent (i.e., the change in state policy) is categorized as political. The results of this coding process are presented in Table 1.

XXXXX

Insert Table 1 about here

XXXXX

Based on this Table 1 and the underlying case studies (Tables 3-5) a number of antecedents are identified. One of the antecedents of change derived from these case studies is related to the boundaries of institutional fields. On the one hand, institutional fields can have permeable boundaries indicated by frequent interactions of actors (e.g., firms, organizations, NGOs, individuals) with others outside the respective institutional field. On the other hand, institutional fields can have relatively closed boundaries, which indicates that the actors in the institutional field are relatively immune to influences from the outside. The more permeable the boundaries of the institutional field and the higher the frequency of interactions with actors from the outside, the more likely it is that the field accepts new influences or changes.

Another antecedent of change is the evolution of organizations and their members (e.g., cease to exist, merge, leave or enter an institutional field). These changes can influence the stability of the institutional field due to changes in the process of continuous isomorphism as described by Oliver (1992: 567): “the previously accepted practices are no longer continually reproduced or re-enacted over time”. Hence, actors (like organizations) and institutions in an institutional field can change as a response to internal or external changes or pressures. These changes or pressures can result in dissents about the status quo, which eventually can result in change via the process of de-institutionalization.

The reviewed case studies distinguish additional antecedents of change. Changes in governmental regulations and political conditions are found to be a cause of changes of an institutional field (e.g., Lounsbury, 2002). Lounsbury’s study examines the deregulation of commercial banking and financial services which were related with a cultural shift from a regulatory to a market logic (the retail-oriented financial services revolution). Townley’s (2002) study describes that demands from the provincial government of Alberta resulted in the introduction of business planning and performance measures in cultural organizations. Accordingly, Yang’s (2005) study found that political conditions, opportunities offered by the media, and the internet resulted in the rise of environmental NGOs. These environmental NGO’s, via their relationships with other actors (like governments and other organizations) aim to provide assistance to realize a maximization of the usage of resources and help to establishes environmental friendly solutions to new and existing issues (e.g., nuclear weapons testing, whale hunting, clearing of timber).

Globalization is also identified as another important antecedent of change. Suddaby et al. (2002) found that globalization and the failure of the accounting profession to effectively monitor conflicts of interest, ethics and professional independence resulting in the emergence of intergovernmental trade groups, international trade organizations and conglomerate accounting firms.

Another antecedent of change identified in these case studies are resource limitations and competition. Leblebici et al. (1999) use institutional theory to show that resources and competition can force organizations and institutions to change:

“Suppose a world with no institutional definitions, and in this world there are three ways for doing the same thing, A, B, and C. Distinguishing them, different actors might practice any or all three. Impose, now, upon this world an institution legitimating C. By definition, participants will conform to this standard, but the resources they need to enact it also will become scarcer, since more agents will be seeking them. To the extent resources are not evenly distributed or sufficiently expanded, some players in the field will either fail or be motivated to pursue other practices.” (Leblebici et al., 1999: 337-338).

In line with the above, Sherer and Lee’s (2002) study shows that resource scarcities can lead to search for alternatives in Human Resource practice. Washington’s (2002) study shows that the creation of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) (a conflicting sports association) resulted in the further and quicker emerging of another major interest association that transformed itself in order to maintain control over the structuration of the field. Furthermore, Zilber’s (2002) study showed that high levels of staff turnover and shortage of volunteers, resulted in changes in the self-description of an NGO.

Kraatz and Moore’s (2002) study furthermore shows that leaders entering an institutional field can change the respective field with their skills, understandings, assumptions, and values. Another antecedent of change can develop out of external changes of social values, or from parties like environmentalist or other activist groups. Hoffman (1999), shows that pressures of environmentalists started with the publication of “Silent Spring” and a growing public concern for environmental issues (including lawsuits), resulting in a change in the field of chemical organizations first focusing on end-of-pipe regulation, to waste prevention, through life cycle management and eventually to more sustainable production. In a similar vein, Lawrence and Phillips’s (2004) study illustrates that the interactions of significant change in a set of macro-cultural discourses and individual actions resulted in the emergence of commercial whale watching.

Changes in market demands are identified as another antecedent of change. Thornton (2002) shows that changes in market demand (more books were needed), caused a change in the publishing field, from an editorial (publishing as a profession) to a market logic (publishing as a business). Changes in goals, preferences, technical requirements, external dependence relationships and internal dispenses, lack of commitment, demands for efficiently, declining of performance are also named as antecedents for changes of an institutional field (e.g., Kraatz & Moore, 2002).

Besides these external antecedents, antecedents also emerge from within the institutional field. Some actors in an institutional field collaborate more than others. If actors work together closely and frequently, it is likely that these actors establish their own norms, values, practices and technology, which could lead to the development of “sub-institutional fields” in a larger institutional field. Lawrenceet al. (2002) who studied an NGO that provides nutritional services to women and children in Palestine, call these sub-institutional fields “proto-institutions” and found that collaboration of actors in an institutional field can act as an antecedent of change in institutional fields through the generation and legitimization of these proto-institutions.

New technologies, products and services introduced can also be an antecedent of change; the study by Garud et al. (2002) describe that the successful introduction of Java software led to a wide adoption of that new software platform in the IT sector. Similarly, Munir (2005) points out that the introduction of digital imaging technology in 1981 and later Sony’s introduction of the Mavica (as the first electronic camera) led to the evolvement of the photographic field, eventually resulting in the production and sales of simple and cheap cameras. In- and/or exporting of new products or services might also be a way to introduce innovations into a market, which in turn might facilitate the acceptance of these innovations (Kanda et al., 2015).

Hardy and Maguire (2010) point to information in the form of texts as a potential antecedent of change. They describe the case of the United Nations conference which established new global regulations for the use of chemicals. Other than initially expected and planned, DDT (a toxic organochlorine insecticide), was not banned after health experts pointed to a text reference that recommended the potential use of DDT for fighting malaria.

Altogether, these reviewed case studies provide antecedents of change in institutional fields which are summarized in Table 1. Based on Table 1 and the reviewed case studies a more generic overview of antecedents of change in institutional fields was developed. This was realized by clustering and generalizing the antecedents from Table 1, leading to a more generic overview which is presented in Table 2. Thus based on Table 1 and in line with the work of Oliver (1992), this table shows the source (i.e., inside and outside the institutional field), combined with the political, functional and social sources of change, with in the intersections generalized examples.

With regard to antecedents from inside the institutional fields (i.e., corresponding to the upper half of Table 1) the reviewed cases with inside/political antecedents (i.e., Sherer and Lee, 2002; Suddaby, Coopern and Greenwood, 2007) indicate globalization and failure to effectively monitor conflicts of interests as antecedents. We generalized these to internationalization and (resource) conflicts with partners in Table 2. The inside/functional sources in Table 1 are mainly technological innovations (new Java software, new camera design, new camera imaging technology) and management innovations (new science-based education), which we generalized into technological innovations and innovations in management systems. The inside/social antecedents are mainly pressure to conformity of industry recipes, quality management transferred to subsidiaries, immigration of leaders, new members with new meaning and new perspectives to norms, which we generalized into pressures from within industry and changes in staff and firm norms.

With regard to the antecedents from outside the institutional field (i.e., corresponding to the lower half of Table 1) the cases with outside/political antecedents indicate new conventions, anti-trust law, political conditions and opportunities, change in state policies and financial crisis as antecedents, which we generalized into changes in laws/standards and political/financial crises. The outside/functional antecedents in Table 1 are mainly internet technology, network society induced changes, and the start-up of a competitor, which we generalized into technological changes and new competitors in Table 2. The outside/social antecedents are mainly increased access to capital, pressures of environmentalists, more flexible standards, market demanding larger range of services, market feedback, culture shift and change in macro-cultural discourses, which we generalized into market changes and cultural shifts.

Although we positioned these antecedents into the different categories there are also potential interactions between them. For instance, changes in laws and standards might stem from internationalization or globalization processes and political and financial crises might have to do with resource conflicts. The development of Table 2 revealed that the antecedents of change are not always separable. Kraatz and Moore (2002), for example analyzed the immigration of leaders possessing different skills, understandings, assumptions, and values and how this immigration relates to changes in the field of the American liberal arts colleges. The immigration of these leaders from outside eventually lead to a change of the institutional field from within; hence, the distinction between internal and external influences is not always clear-cut. In a similar vein Clark (1968) has shown that innovations in higher educations are being developed inside and outside the universities.

Furthermore, change can occur because of conflicting internal interests between staff members (political pressures) or by a consensual fragmentation or historical disruption (social pressures). The reviewed case studies thus indicate that antecedents of change are not mutually exclusive and can overlap. In addition to the potential overlap, changes are created in interactions between actors, the environment and the institutional field itself (see, e.g., Lee and Pennings, 2002 in Table 5).

XXXXX

Insert Table 2 about here

XXXXX

4.2. Mechanisms of Change in Institutional Fields

Besides antecedents, the summarized case studies (in Tables 3-5) also present mechanism of change. Greenwood et al., (2002), provided a model of institutional change (as presented in Figure 1). Given the partial overlap between the mechanisms of change identified in the case studies and this model, their model is used as a starting point. Based on our reviews of the case studies and the Uber case from the introduction we validated and improved this model.

XXXXX

Insert Figure 1 about here

XXXXX

4.2.1 Validation of the Greenwood et al. (2002) model

As can be observed from Figure 1, the model of Greenwood et al. (2002) consists of six stages of institutional change; the first stage consists of precipitating jolts that de-stabilize the established practices. Events like technological disruptions, social upheaval, regulatory changes or competitive discontinuities are examples of these precipitating jolts.

The following three case studies provide support for these kinds of events. Carpenter and Feroz’s (2008) study shows that the financial crisis of 1975 eventually caused the governments to adopt a new form of external financial reporting. Stearns and Allan (1996) describe that increased access to capital market funds encouraged fringe players to initiate innovations that enable them to execute mergers. Hirsch’s (1986) study shows that American anti-trust law, preventing large scale horizontal and vertical integration, led to takeovers in other sectors.

In the second stage (deinstitutionalization) of the model, new actors or institutional entrepreneurs enter and disturb the institutional field, by introducing new ideas. This in turn might result in challenges and problems for the incumbent organizations. Evidence for this is, for example, provided by Leblebici et al. (1991), who show that in the US broadcasting industry, new conventions were introduced by fringe players to deal with shifting coordination problems and competitive pressures.

According to Greenwood et al. (2002), in the third stage of institutional change (pre-institutionalization), organizations innovate independently to provide (alternative) solutions or innovations to locally perceived problems. Garud et al. (2002) provide an example of this by referring to Sun Microsystems’ development of the new software platform “Java”.

The central stage of the model is the fourth, which is called theorization. During this stage, actors elaborate on the perceived problems and their solutions or innovations. These solutions or innovations are justified by the actors relating the solutions with the respective outcomes. Furthermore, actors make their solutions or innovations available to other actors. In line with this the case study by Leblebici et al. (1991) in the U.S. radio broadcasting industry shows that, once the new introduced conventions were adopted by central players, these conventions transformed the organization of the industry by changing the basis of transactions. Eventually, the new solutions became new institutional practices. Social consensus about the usefulness of the solution can in turn result in increased legitimacy and the start of re-institutionalization.

Successful theorization can lead to a wider diffusion (stage five in the model) of selected solutions or innovations. Actors then imitate others because they expect the same benefits. In line with this stage, Stearns and Allan (1996) described that in the U.S. business the merger waves executed by fringe players became increasingly successful and that the innovations of these fringe players became imitated throughout the business community. Also Greenwood et al. (2002) provide empirical evidence for the fifth stage of their model by describing that large elite accounting firms from within the institutional field acted as institutional entrepreneurs for the successful expanding of their services.

In the sixth and final stage of the model re-institutionalization occurs when the wider diffusion of the solutions or innovations results in ideas of future legitimacy. In this stage the new solutions, ideas or innovations are widely used and become taken for granted. They are than accepted and considered part of the changed institutional environment, which will be used until the next institutional change takes place. A number of reviewed case studies illustrate this last phase. Hensmans (2003) shows that the emergence of internet and the introduction of MP3 music files changed the music industry. After the successful process of institutional change MP3 files are now frequently used (e.g., ITunes: where one can buy and download individual songs as MP3 files or Spotify: a music provider that streams MP3 files over the internet to more than 20 million users).

As a conclusion it seems that in the academic literature: “a consensus has been developing around this sequential model of de-institutionalization and institutionalization” (Munir, 2005: 94), and given our validation based on the reviewed case studies, it seems that this model is indeed a valuable starting point of a representation of institutional change at the level of an institutional field.

XXXXX

Insert Figure 2 about here

XXXXX

4.2.2 Amendments to the Greenwood et al. (2002) model

A discussion of the embattled Uber example, the sharing economy and the cases from the literature study show some shortcomings of the Greenwood et al (2002) model to the extent that we develop amendments to the model that are compatible with the observations in these cases. Consequently, we develop a new model of change as displayed in Figure 2.

The model of Greenwood at al. (2002) begins with three precipitating jolts, which are social, technological and regulatory. These three jolts can be related to the three antecedents discussed in the previous section of this paper (i.e., political, functional and social), in such a way that the social jolts are incorporated in the social antecedents, the regulatory jolts in the political antecedence and the technological jolts in the functional antecedents. In the sharing economy (e.g., sharing cars, houses, equipment, toys, meals which can reduce the consumption and keeps usable goods out of landfills), the jolts are foremost social and functional, consisting in new possibilities for information sharing and rising demands for a sustainable economy. With regard to changes, and in line with the model of Greenwood et al. (2002), these can thus be triggered by these antecedents as presented in Table 1 and 2.

However, the study of Munir (2005, see Table 5), amongst others shows that the gradual evolvement of photographic equipment was what eventually triggered the process of change. This is in line with the conclusion of Seo and Creed (2002) who found that institutional contradictions, like inefficiency or misaligned interests, resulted in a reflective shift in consciousness, followed by a gradual change. In a similar vein, the study by Smets et al. (2012) shows that practice improvisation can also result in a shift in field-level logic, eventually leading to changes in the institutional field. Hence, institutional change can not only be triggered by the “jolts” as described in the model of Greenwood et al. (2002), but it can also be more incremental in nature. Therefore the incremental development option is added to the model, see Figure 2.

Although the model of Greenwood et al. does incorporate the potential for change triggered from both inside and outside the institutional field this is not explicitly stated in the model (see Figure 1). Since our Tables 1 and 2 clearly illustrate the possibility for change triggered or gradually developed, by organizations or other actors, from inside and outside the institutional field we have explicitly incorporated this in Figure 2. Specifically, the possibility for change from outside the institutional field is worth emphasizing in the model. This was illustrated by the study of Thornton (2002) who showed that the de-institutionalization of the institution in the higher education field was caused by firms from outside the institutional field.

In line with the model, the sharing economy changes (e.g., from a focus on possession towards usage) suggest that different antecedents of change can lead to new practices and the de-institutionalization of the old ones. Concurrent with or after this, organizations and individuals could collectively agree upon the new practices and start the process of re-institutionalization of these practices, which could lead to the wider adaptation and eventually to a new (temporarily) “stable” institutional field.

In the embattled Uber case de-institutionalization took place as a consequence of innovation and the emergence of new players and new institutions. Those institutions were also cognitive-cultural institutions in that the sense that consumers accepted new types of products and services. As such, it is rather new that hospitality services can be offered by other actors than hotels only and that taxi services can be offered by other actors than classical taxi service providers.

Likewise, the reviewed case studies indicated that the process of change in the institutional field level does not always unfold fully sequential and that some of the stages might occur in interaction and or at the same time. Munir and Phillips (2005) describe the intense institutional entrepreneurship of Kodak, as it produced thousands of texts that supported a revolutionary new understanding of the concept “camera”. However, the already invented camera was one of the independent innovations provided as a solution to the new understanding of the concept. The interaction between the creation of the new concept and the innovation eventually led to the successful introduction of the new roll-film camera. In this case the institutional entrepreneurship of the de-institutionalization phase was thus realized in interaction with the innovation in the pre-institutionalization phase.

Another process of change of an institutional field was described by Goodrick (2002) in relation to the adaptation of science-based conceptions of U.S. management education, which was closely followed by the Canadian management education (e.g., Austin, 1998). Goodrick found that high prestige schools blazed the attempt of introducing science-based conceptions of management education (i.e., diffusion of a new practice by a sub-group) and that other schools then followed suit (i.e., the process of theorization), leading to a total transformation of the educational field. This is in contrast with the original model which describes that the theorization phase takes place before the diffusion phase.

In the sharing economy, the theorization and diffusion part was a consequence of the success of early movers in different sectors as well as a result of the relative easy possibility to transfer information and provision technology between sectors; the technological interface of AirBnB (finding and renting a room) is not that dissimilar than the interface of UberPop (finding and ordering a car with driver). With regard to certain sectors and products, we observe a relatively quick re-institutionalization: for consumers, it is relatively easy to habitualize with new service providers since these services are easy to use and access. Furthermore, legitimacy is easily accessible via user ratings for the offered products or services.

For the embattled Uber case it is clear that the change caused by the new services, which is offered via the Uber company and the individuals who provide the taxi services, have an impact in the institutional field but also in the higher level societal and even transnational field (e.g., the debates with regard to legalization within the EU). With regard to the distinction between formal and informal institutions (North, 1990) it seems that informally consumers have perceived the new services as acceptable, but that the incumbent taxi organizations strongly resist the change. These organizations use the formal institutions (the laws that require taxi drivers to be certified) to try to prevent the change from developing from theorizing to diffusion, hoping to prevent the potential (re-)institutionalization of these new services.

At the same time, however, the large scale uses pushes legislators to change these existing laws. The Uber case thus indicates that the change or innovation is more likely to successfully diffuse if the different levels of institutions coincide with the developments. At the moment this is not the case, which hinders the future (re-)institutionalization although the process of diffusion continues (e.g., Uber is expanding its services to more cities and countries). This observation that the process of diffusion takes place while the theorization phase is not finished also illustrates our notion that these phases should not always be interpreted as sequential separate phases, but rather as interacting (incorporated in Figure 2).

Therefore the second and third stage of the model of Greenwood et al. (2002) (i.e., de-institutionalization and pre-institutionalization) and the fourth and fifth stage (i.e., theorization and diffusion) are combined in the revised model. Grouping these stages together enables scholars and practitioners to better understand the potential interactions and interplay between these stages and the organizations in the institutional field.

It is clear that change of an institutional field should be seen as a continued interaction between organizations that constitute the environment and the institutional field as such. An institutional field setting is thus not an end-state as: “change processes tend to be cyclical and recurrent; with time, the synthesis becomes the thesis for a new cycle of dialectical institutional innovation and change” (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2006: 865). Therefore institutional fields should be regarded as dynamic, which we incorporated in Figure 2 by the dashed arrow between the re-institutional phase and the antecedents phase.

Additionally, the review and analysis also reveals that UberPop and the innovations that allowed for Uber and other services in the sharing economy are not just “jolts”, random or voluntary incidents whose success is dependent on changes in institutional fields. Rather, actors can apply methods of institutional work in order to facilitate institutional change, especially theorization and diffusion. Hence, for actors like Uber it will be central to understand what constitutes institutional work and what institutional strategy implies (Lawrence et al., 2013; Whittington, 2003).

The model by Greenwood et al (2002) and our model (Figure 2) could be considered a bit mechanistic in kind, that is, they explain phases of interaction between institutional innovation and change in institutional fields, but these models do not take actual planned behavior of actors into account. In other words these models describe the joint process of change but do not describe the individual characteristics and actions of all respective institutional actors. The discussion about institutional entrepreneurs (Dèjean et al., 2004; Levy and Scully, 2007; Mutch, 2007; North, 1990) and the more recent debate about institutional work (Lawrence et al., 2011; 2013; Suddaby et al., 2015; Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010), however, contribute to an understanding about the way in which actors “ […]create, maintain, and disrupt the practices that are considered legitimate within a field” (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010: 189). For the following discussion, it is important to understand that actors have an influence on the sequence and success of each phase of change in institutional fields.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of this study was to develop an overview of antecedents and the mechanisms of change in the level of institutional fields. Although many different antecedents of change are discussed and documented in the academic literature (e.g., the 29 case studies reviewed), the antecedents summarized in Table 1 and generalized in Table 2 provide an overview of them.

With regard to the mechanisms of change, the model by Greenwood et al. (2002), see Figure 1, more or less received consensus and, based on our validation, seems to be an overall valid model for understanding institutional change. Based on our validation of the model, the Uber case from the sharing economy, and the reviewed case studies a number of amendments are made to this model and summarized in Figure 2. The most important difference between Greenwood et al.’s model and our model is that the revised model takes non-sequential orders of institutional processes into account: Institutional change in an institutional field does not necessarily take place step-by step, rather, the phases of “de-institutionalization” and “pre-institutionalization” can happen simultaneously, as well as the phases of “theorization” and “diffusion”.

The understanding of mechanisms of institutionalization after innovation benefits from insights in the mechanisms of adoption, imitation and sedimentation, or, as Latour (1987) puts it: a new event (like a technological innovation) is like a rugby ball sitting on the ground. It cannot achieve anything on its own; a game needs to be developed around it by agents, who use it to fulfil their own agendas. As such, a second result of our study is that actors’ possibilities to induce change in institutional fields are limited. Even though we show that actors can innovate, imitate or perform institutional work, contingencies and forces from neighboring and higher societal levels influence (promote or prohibit) changes in the respective field.

This illustrates that the mechanisms of change in an institutional field level are related with the reactions of actors to the antecedents of change and with the interplay between these actors. On the one hand, the idea of Uber builds upon changes in the mode of economic interaction that had been introduced in other institutional fields like retail and the hoteling industry. Institutional changes for the use of services and products take place on a societal level, initiated by a multitude of actors in neighboring and distant institutional field which may facilitate change in the respective field. On the other hand, Uber as a fringe player eventually tries to introduce specific institutional changes in the institutional field of taxi services. Other actors from within that institutional field (drivers and customers) would have to accept the new practice, elaborate on it, make it legitimate and start a process of wider distribution. Eventually, the success of the change depends on the willingness of actors in the field as well as the authorities to accept it. If the incumbent actors within the institutional field resist a proposed (sustainable) change the progress of this change can be significantly delayed or stopped. In the Uber case the ongoing legal battles and blocking of services on many fronts aim to realize this delay or even preventing the further theorization of these new services although the diffusion is clearly taking place on a global level. For Uber to become a real success the formal institutions in many countries would have to be changed.

This resistance to institutional change is also illustrated by Vermeulen et al. (2007) who showed that large organizations in the gravel industry had long-lasting contracts with suppliers including sales bonuses, in combination with high entry barriers of the industry, preventing new organizations to join or participate in a more sustainable solution. This led to high levels of power of the incumbent organizations. For those organizations there was no benefit of this change and, although state policies demanded change (i.e., the use of recycled substitute materials), this sustainable change was strongly resisted and eventually the change did not materialize. Thus, in cases where institutional change happens because it is dictated by external governmental forces, it is a matter of forcing change upon organizations: here, there's neither innovation nor a normal process of voluntary adoption and legitimation by participant organizations. These kinds of implementation gaps and discrepancies can indeed prevent a change from materializing (in line with Nilsson, Eklund and Tyskeng, 2009). In this case the process of de-institutionalization was stopped and prevented by firms from within the institutional field. This indicates that the process of institutional change is not always fully successful and sequential.

Because opportunities for some can be threats for others and depending on the perspective actors take on a proposed change, they can willingly change or strongly resist change, as is the case with the existing taxi companies with regard to the Uber narrative. An important conclusion of this paper is that the benefits of changes in institutional fields could differ between (existing/new) actors in the institutional field, which all influence the pace of change. In line with Greenwood and Hinings (1996, p: 1023) we suggest that “the incidence of radical change, and the pace by which such change occurs, will vary across institutional sectors because of differences in the structures of institutional sectors, in particular in the extents to which sectors are tightly coupled and insulated from ideas practiced in other sectors.”

Although there is variation between institutional fields the reviewed case studies and the example from the sharing economy indicate that change is more likely to be adopted and promoted if the institutional field is permeable to ideas like sustainable and equitable solutions from other fields, when these fields are "loosely coupled", characterized by ideological dissent, and when such change is congruent with the values and interests of powerful actors within the field.

Like every study this paper has a number of limitations. First of all this paper builds upon existing published case studies to develop the overview of antecedents and validate and make amendments to the process model of institutional change. Although a wide variety of key words was used to search for publications, unpublished studies and or studies that fall outside the scope of these key words might not have been incorporated. Although this might be the case the relative large number of reviewed and eventually incorporated studies limit the impact these potentially missing studies might have.

Secondly, the amended model of change is a generic model. Although the reviewed case studies, which were used to develop the new model, represent a wide variety of actors and industry settings the model might be less applicable to specific industry settings. Industries which are continually changing might go through the model stages at a different speed compared to a more rigid industry. Future research could investigate this.

Our limitations and findings suggest a research agenda going beyond understanding mechanisms of change in institutional fields, which has two implications. One for the level of analysis and another for the time horizon. With respect to the level of analysis, we suggest to understand the differences of institutional change in the context of their consequences. Hence, we argue that it is helpful for the debate on institutional change to understand the differences in outcomes of different mechanisms of change and understand their underlying mechanisms while relating them with the outcomes. With outcomes, we first of all refer to outcomes from an interactionist perspective (e.g., interactions between actors like individuals and organizations).

This paper focuses on antecedents and mechanisms of change in institutional fields and actors (like organizations) that make up these fields. However, institutional fields are thus also part of larger societal or even transnational fields which might have an impact on the process of change. In turn the organizations that form an institutional field consist of individuals. To summarize the hierarchy of these levels:

· Individuals are part of organizations:

· Organizations are part of institutional fields:

· Institutional fields are part of societal/transnational fields:

· Societal/transnational fields.

Institutions could therefore be seen as institutions at multiple levels, which also builds upon the institutional logics approach (e.g., Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury, 2012). Furthermore, the individuals that are part of an organization are at the same time part of other higher (neighboring) level institutional fields like professions, markets, states, families and religions (in line with Thornton and Ocasio, 2008). Incorporation of this multi-level and multi-interactional complexity into future research could lead to a more comprehensive view on the entire process of institutional change. Hence, an important conclusion to draw from our discussion is that, in order to better understand mechanisms of change in institutional fields, multi-level analyses are necessary.

In the organizational level of analysis specifically, periods of transformation are an important focus for further research because these periods are characterized by conditions of heightened uncertainty, under which new, sustainable, and equitable solutions can emerge, actors can make new kinds of claims, organizational forms can emerge and cease to exist, status orders can be restructured, and rules of engagement can be redefined (Lounsbury, 2002), as is illustrated by the described case studies and the Uber narrative.

With regard to the second point, the time horizon, we suggest to investigate longitudinally how evolvements of multiple sequential process cycles of change at the level of institutional fields occur. In this context, a number of research questions arise:

· Does a “first” change of a newly created institutional field meet more resistance and takes more time, than a second or a third change?

· To what extent and under which conditions do actors that facilitate the first change also facilitate a second change?

· In which way do changes in an institutional field interact with changes in neighboring institutional fields and on higher (societal) levels?

· What is the role of institutional entrepreneurs and institutional work in processes of change of institutional fields?

· Which factors influence the changing role of institutional entrepreneurs over time?

Altogether this paper provides an overview of antecedents and mechanisms of change in the institutional field level. The results are a syntheses and generalization of change described in many specific (previously published) case studies and an example from the sharing economy (Uber), which provides insights which are summarized in a model of institutional change. Due to the important role institutional fields can have on the behavior of individuals and organizations, especially with regard to sustainable change, the interactions between these actors and the institutional field remains and interesting area of research.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank Royston Greenwood for his friendly review en suggestions to improve this paper. Additionally, we would like to thank four anonymous reviewers and the editors of the Journal of Cleaner Production, as well as three anonymous reviewers for the Academy of Management conference, for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank the reviewers for the Journal of Cleaner Production for his/her suggestions for the inclusion of a number of additional papers.

References

Abrahamson, E., 1991. Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations, Academy of Management Review,16, 586-612

Afshar, M., 2014. Understanding possession attachment in the era of the Internet of Things: A comparative analysis of the nature, motivation and strength of attachment to material objects versus meta objects, Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 439-443.

Austin. C.J.A.S. 1998. The role of administrative sciences association in institutionalizing management education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15, 255-266.

Battilana, J., Lecab, B., Boxenbaum, E., 2009. How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship, Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65-107.

Buchko, A.A., 1994. Barriers to Strategic Transformation, in. Shrivastava, P., Huff, A., Dutton, J. (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, 10, 81-106.

Carpenter, V.L., Feroz, E.H., 2008. Institutional Theory and Accounting Rule Choice: An Analysis of the Four US State Governments' Decision to Adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 565-596.

Casile, M., Bavis-Blake, A., 2002. When Accreditation Standards Change: Factors Affecting Differential Responsiveness of Public and Private Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 180-195.

Clark, T.N. 1968. Institutionalization of Innovations in Higher Education: Four Models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 1-25.

CNN, 2015. French government orders Paris police to crack down on Uber after protests. Retrieved from: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-protests/ Accessed on 01-10-2015.

Deephouse, D.L., 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate?, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024-1039.

Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., Leca, B., 2007. Measuring the Unmeasured: An Institutional Entrepreneur Strategy in an Emerging Industry, Human Relations, 57(6), 741-764.

DiMaggio, P., 1988. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory, In L. G. Zucker (eds.),

Institutional Patterns and Organizations. 3-21, Cambridge: Ballinger.

DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W., 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W., 1991. Introduction, In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 1-38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Europe online, 2015. Brussels court declares UberPop illegal. Retrieved from: http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/brussels-court-declares-uberpop-illegal_414101.html Accessed on 01-10-2015.

Garud, R., Jain, S., Kumaraswamy, A., 2002. Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Sponsorship of Common Technological Standards: The Case of Sun Microsystems and Java, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 196-214.

Glyn, M.A., Abzug, R., 2002. Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 267-280.

Goodrick, E., 2002. From Management as a Vocation to Management as a Scientific Activity: An Institutional Account of a Paradigm Shift, Journal of Management, 28, 649–668.

Gössling, T., 2003. The Price of Morality. An Analysis of Personality, Moral Behaviour, and Social Rules in Economic Terms, Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 121-131.

Greenwood, R., Hinings, C.R., 1996. Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism, Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022-1054.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., Hinings, C.R., 2002. Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58-80.

Hardy, C., Maguire, S., 2008. Institutional entrepreneurship, in: Greenwood, R. Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., Suddaby, R. (Eds.), Organizational Institutionalism. Sage Publications, London, pp. 198-217.

Hardy, C., Maguire, S., 2010. Discourse, Field-configuring Events, and Change in Organizations and Institutional Fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention, Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1365–1392.

Hargrave, T.J., Van de Ven, A.H., 2006. A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation, Academy of Management Review, 31, 864–888.

Hensmans, M., 2003. Social Movement Organizations: A Metaphor for Strategic Actors in Institutional Fields, Organization Studies, 24, 355-381.

Hirsch, P.M., 1986. From Ambushes to Golden Parachutes: Corporate Takeovers as an Instance of Cultural Framing and Institutional Integration, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 800-837.

Hodgson, G.M., 2006. What are Institutions?, Journal of Economic Issues, 40, 1-25.

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2015. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, forthcoming.

Hoffman, A.J., 1999. Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-371.

Kanda, W. Mejiá-Dugand, S., Hjelm, O., 2015. Governmental Export Promotion Initiatives: Awareness, Participation, and Perceived Effectiveness among Swedish Environmental Technology Firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 222-228.

Khan, F.R., Munir, K.A., Willmott, H., 2007. A Dark Side of Institutional Entrepreneurship: Soccer Balls, Child Labour and Postcolonial Impoverishment, Organization Studies, 28, 1055-1077.

Kostova, T., Roth, K., 2002. Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 215-233.

Kraatz, M.S., Moore, J.H., 2002. Executive Migration and Institutional Change, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 120-143.

Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawrence, T.B., Phillips, N., 2004. From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-Cultural Discourse and Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Institutional Fields, Organization, 11, 689-711.

Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., Philips, N., 2002. Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 281-290.

Lawrence, T.B., Leca, B., Zilber, T.B., 2013. Institutional Work: Current Research, New Directions and Overlooked Issues, Organization Studies, 34, 1023-1033.

Leblebici, H., Salancik, G.R., Copay, A., King, T., 1991. Institutional Change and the Transformation of Inter-organizational fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333-363.

Lee, K., Pennings, J.M., 2002. Mimicry and the Market: Adoption of a New Organizational Form, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 144-162.

Levänen, J., 2015. Ending waste by law: institutions and collective learning in the development of industrial recycling in Finland, Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 542-549.

Levy, D., Scully, M., 2007. The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Power in Contested Fields, Organization Studies, 28(7), 971-991.

Lounsbury, M., 2002. Institutional Transformation and Status Mobility: The Professionalization of the Field of Finance, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255-266.

Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Munir, K.A., (2005. The Social Construction of Events: A Study of Institutional Change in the Photographic Field, Organization Studies, 26, 93-113.

Munir, K.A., Phillips, N., 2005. The Birth of the Kodak Moment: Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies, Organization Studies, 26, 1665-1686.

Mutch, A., 2007. Reflexivity and the Institutional Entrepreneur: A Historical Exploration, Organization Studies, 28(7), 1123-1140.

NBC news, 2015. Uber's European HQ Raided by Dutch Prosecutors in UberPOP Probe. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/ubers-european-hq-raided-dutch-prosecutors-uberpop-probe-n435446 Accessed on 01-10-2015.

Nilsson, M., Eklund, M., & Tyskeng, S. (2009). Environmental integration and policy implementation: competing governance modes in waste management decision making. Environment and planning. C, Government & policy, 27, 1-18.

North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, C., 1992. The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization, Organization Studies, 13, 563-588.

Scott, W.R., 1991. Unpacking Institutional Arguments, In W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. 164-182. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sherer, P. D., Lee, K., 2002. Institutional Change in Large Law Firms - A Resource Dependency and Institutional Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 102-119.

Smets, M., Morris, T., Greenwood, R., 2012. From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change, Academy of Management Journal, 4, 877-904.

Seo, M. Creed, W.E.D., 2002. Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective, Academy of Management Review, 2, 222-247.

Stearns, L. B., Allan, K.D., 1996. Economic Behavior in Institutional Environments: The Corporate Merger Wave of the 1980s, American Sociological Review, 61, 699-718.

Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, Academy of Management Journal, 20, 571-610.

Suddaby, R., Cooper, D.J., Greenwood, R., 2007. Transnational Regulation of Professional Services: Governance Dynamics of Field Level Organizational Change, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 333–362.

Sundararajan, A., 2013. From Zipcar to the Sharing Economy. Harvard Business Review. January 3rd, 2013.

Sustainable-mobility, 2014. UberPop is given a frosty welcome in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainable-mobility.org/innovating-for-tomorrow/services/uberpop-is-given-a-frosty-welcome-in-europe.html Accessed on 01-10-2015.

Suzuki, M., 2014. Identifying roles of international institutions in clean energy technology innovation and diffusion in the developing countries: matching barriers with roles of the institutions, Journal of Cleaner Production, in press.

Thornton, P.H., 2002. The Rise of the Corporation in a Craft Industry: Conflict and Conformity in Institutional Logics, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81-101.

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M., 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxfort University press, Oxfort.

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., 2008. Institutional Logics, in: Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage Publications, London, pp. 99-129.

Tolbert, P.S., Zucker, L.G., 1999. The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory, in: Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. (Eds.), Studying Organization: Theory & Method, Sage publications, London, pp.169-184.

Townley, B., 2002. The Role of Competing Rationalities in Institutional Change, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 163-179.

Uber, 2015a. Uber and the American worker. Retrieved from: https://newsroom.uber.com/1776/ Accessed on: 14-01-2016.

Uber, 2015b. One in a Billion. Retrieved from: https://newsroom.uber.com/one-in-a-billion/ Accessed on: 14-01-2016.

Vermeulen, P., Büch, R., Greenwood, R., 2007. The Impact of Governmental Policies in Institutional Fields: The Case of Innovation in the Dutch Concrete Industry, Organization Studies, 28, 515-540.

Washington, M., 2004. Field Approaches to Institutional Change: The Evolution of the National Collegiate athletic association, Organization Studies, 25, 393-414.

Washingtonpost, 2015. Uber continues to flout laws and brawl with cities, Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-brawl-between-uber-and-traditional-taxis-referees-have-their-place/2015/07/16/621ca112-2bf7-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html Accessed on 01-10-2015.

Woodward, I., 2011. Towards an object-relations theory of consumerism: The aesthetics of desire and the unfolding materiality of social life, Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 366-384.

Wooten, M.E., Hoffman, A., 2008. Organizational Fields: Past, Present and Future of a Core Construct,.in: Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R. & Sahlin, K. (Eds.) Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 130-147, Sage Publications, London

Whittington, R., 2003. The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective, Strategic Organization, 1, 117–126.

Yang, G., 2005. Environmental NGOs and Institutional Dynamics in China, The China Quarterly, 181, 46-66.

Zilber, T.B., 2002. Institutionalization as an Interplay Between Actions, Meanings, and Actors: The Case of a Rape Crisis Center in Israel, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 234-254.

Zucker, L.G., 1987. Institutional Theories of Organization, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., Byers, J.W. 2013. The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry, Boston University Working Paper.

Zietsma, C., Lawrence, T.B., 2010. Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221.

Zukin, S., Maguire, J.S., 2004. Consumers and Consumption, Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 173-197.

Figure 1: Stages of Institutional Change by Greenwood et al. (2002: 60).

(I) Antecedents:

·Jolts

-Political

-Functional

-Social

·Developments(incremental)

Both from within and/or outside

the institutional field

(II, III) De-instittuionalization and

Pre-Institutionalization:

· Innovation

·Emergence of new players

and new institutions

· Institutional entrepreneurship

(VI) Re-institutionalizaion:

·Habitualisation

· Legitimacy

Fads

(IV, V) Theorization and

Diffusion:

·Spread

· Understanding

· Immitaion

Figure 2: A process model of institutional change.

Table 1: Summary of case studies: antecedents of change on the institutional field level

Source

Antecedents of change

Authors/case studies

Inside

Political

-Resource scarcities: lead to search for alternatives in HR practice

Sherer & Lee (2002)

-Globalization, failure of accounting professions to effectively monitor conflicts of interest,

ethics and professional independence

Suddaby, Coopern & Greenwood (2007)

Functional

-Introduction of new software by Sun Microsystems (Java)

Garud, Jain & Kumaraswamy (2002)

-High prestige schools blazed the trial to science-based conceptions of management education

Goodrick (2002)

-Introduction of the roll-film camera design and the corresponding marketing

Munir & Phillips (2005)

-Introduction of digital imaging technology and Sony’s introduction of the first electronic camera

Munir (2005)

Social

-Institutional pressures for conformity to constitutive rules (i.e., industry "recipes") in names

Glyn & Abzug (2002)

-Quality management adopted by headquarters and transferred to its subsidiaries in ten countries

Kostova & Roth (2002)

-Immigration of leaders possessing different skills, understandings, etc. in American colleges

Kraatz & Moore (2002)

-Highly embedded and involved partners --> diffused new practices, technologies, and rules

Lawrence, Hardy & Philips (2002)

-High levels of staff turnover and shortage of volunteers --> new members with new meanings

Zilber (2002)

-Production, distribution and consumption of text --> new perspectives on malaria medicines

Hardy & Maguire (2010)

Outside

Political

-New conventions introduced by fringe players in the broadcasting field

Leblebici, Salancik, Copay & King (1991)

-American anti-trust law --> prevented large scale horizontal and vertical integration

Hirsch (1986)

-Political conditions, opportunities from media, internet --> rise of environmental NGOs

Yang (2005)

-Change in state policies demanding uses of recycled substitute materials in construction projects

Vermeulen, Büch, & Greenwood (2007)

-Financial crisis and decline of investor confidence --> adaptation of new accounting principles

Carpenter & Feroz (2008)

Functional

-Internet technology and network society induced changes --> usage of MP3 files in music

Hensmans (2003)

-The start-up of a competitor --> existing athletics organization changed

Washington (2004)

Social

-Increased access to capital market funds --> initiate innovations to execute mergers

Stearns & Allan (1996)

-External regulation, pressures of environmentalists --> sustainable production

Hoffman (1999)

-New, more flexible accreditation standards adopted by the accreditation association

Casile & Bavis-Blake (2002)

-Market forces: demanding a larger range of services --> broader pallet of services offered

Greenwood, Suddaby & Hining (2002)

-Market feedback: firms vary in their structural arrangements --> new governance structure

Lee & Pennings (2002)

-A cultural shift and deregulation of banking and financial services

Lounsbury (2002)

-Changes in market demand: more books were needed and takeovers --> change to market logic

Thornton (2002)

-A introduced strategy for gaining greater control over public expenditure

Townley (2002)

-Change in a set of macro-cultural discourses --> innovation: commercial whale watching

Lawrence & Phillips (2004)

-A CBS news documentary reporting issue of child labor in the soccer ball industry

Khan, Munir & Willmott (2007)

Table 2: Generalized antecedents of change in institutional fields

In/outside

institutional fields

Political

Functional

Social

Inside

Internationalization

Technological innovations

Pressures from within industry

(Resource)conflicts with partners

Innovations in management systems

Changes in staff and firm norms

Outside

Changes in laws/ standards

Technological

changes

Market

changes

Political/financial crises

New

competitors

Cultural

shifts

Appendix 1: Result tables of 29 case studies

Table 3: Case Studies in Government Actors

Sector, Period

Change

Antecedents of change

Mechanism

Author, Year | Source

Unaccredited collegiate business schools

1990-1994

Change occurred, with regard to the accreditations sought, but there were heterogeneous responses to institutional norms.

New, more flexible accreditation standards adopted by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

Market niche and ties to an accrediting organization affected the responsiveness.

Casile & Bavis-Blake, 2002

Source: Outside,

Social.

Management education in US business schools

1958-1978

Schools start to apply scientific management as basis of educational concepts.

High prestige schools blazed the trial to science-based conceptions of management education.

Historic circumstances, from a vocational model to one that is scientifically based.

Goodrick, 2002

Source: Inside,

Functional.

American liberal arts colleges

1970-1980

Change occurred in the curricula of the colleges (i.e., professional program adoption).

Immigration of leaders possessing different skills, understandings, assumptions, and values.

Migration of managers is important in promoting change in regulative, cognitive, and normative institutional elements. The change was initiated by these "new" leaders.

Kraatz & Moore,

2002

Source: Inside,

Social.

Provincial government of Alberta, cultural facilities

1994-2000

Change occurred, but although there was compliance or acquiescence with coercive isomorphism, there was resistance to mimetic isomorphism: the private sector model was rejected.

Business planning and performance measures have been advocated as a central strategy for gaining greater control over public expenditure.

Conflict accompanies change coalesces around different dimensions of rationality that inform organization members' understandings of organizational and identity and practices.

Townley, 2002

Source: Outside,

Social.

State and local Governments,

1970-1985

Governments first partly resisted adaptation of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, but this failed because of the potency of institutional pressures that resulted from the well-organized professional accounting and governmental institutional fields.

New York City financial crises (1975) and corresponding decline of investor confidence in municipal securities.

Resource dependence as a potent form of coercive institutional pressure was associated with early Generally Accepted Accounting Principles adaptation.

Carpenter & Feroz, 2008

Source: Inside,

Political.

Table 4: Case Studies in Non-Profit/Non-Governmental Actors

Sector, Period

Change

Antecedents of change

Mechanism

Author, Year | Source

NGO in Palestine.

1996-2001

The collaborative activities of Mere et Enfant produced new practices, technologies, and rules that diffused beyond the collaborations themselves.

Highly embedded and highly involved partners are the most likely to generate proto-institutions.

Collaboration can act as a source of change in institutional fields through the generation of "proto-institutions": new practices and rules that transcend a relationship.

Lawrence, Hardy & Philips, 2002

Source: Inside,

Social.

Non-profit rape center, Israel

1995-1996

The center opened its doors to non-feminist members. And, in order not to discourage prospective and new volunteers, the organization's feminist orientation was downplayed.

High levels of staff turnover and shortage of volunteers, lead to the introduction of therapeutically oriented members and the infusion of new meanings.

The role of organization members as carriers of institutions and their agency in infusing actions; how meanings connect actors with actions; and institutional meanings as political resources.

Zilber, 2002

Source: Inside,

Social.

Intercollegiate athletic association

1906-1995

The National Collegiate Athletic Association changed from a confederation with no power over college athletics into a dominant, largely independent control agent influencing the athletic programs of both member and non-member schools.

A response to changes in the field, represented by the creation of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (a conflicting association).

Interest associations are unique institutions in that they may be more concerned with membership growth than with economic gain and these associations play a vital role in the social control and evolution of organizational fields.

Washington, 2004

Source: Outside,

Functional.

NGO's in China

1997-2002

Environmental NGOs have risen.

Political conditions, opportunities offered by the media, the internet and international NGOs.

The rise of environmental NGOs has taken place in interactions with four institutional fields. They not only respond to political conditions, but also to opportunities offered by the media, the internet and INGOs.

Yang, 2005

Source: Outside,

Political.

United Nations Conference

1997-2000

DDT was at first on the list for elimination and rarely mentioned in discussions. Later, the discussion started to permit DDT to fight malaria. Finally, it was scheduled for restriction instead of elimination.

The production, distribution and consumption of text in the multiple discursive spaces generated a field-configuring event, allowing new narratives to be told.

New narratives changed the institutional field through three mechanisms: domination, interpretation and translation.

Hardy & Maguire, 2010

Source: Inside,

Social.

Table 5: Case Studies in Business Actors

Sector, Period

Change

Antecedents of change

Mechanism

Author, Year | Source

U.S. Businesses

1965-1985

Via introduction, to diffusion, and legitimization of hostile takeovers.

American anti-trust law, prevented large scale horizontal and vertical integration.

Normative framing of hostile takeovers facilitated their diffusion and legitimization.

Hirsch, 1986

Source: Outside,

Political.

U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry

1920-1965

New conventions were introduced and adopted in the industry.

Conventions were introduced into the broadcasting field by fringe players to deal with shifting coordination problems and competitive pressures.

Three endogenous mechanisms of change: analogies, private agreements between identifiable parties, and conventions. Central players in the industry introduced conventions that were adopted by other organization of the industry.

Leblebici, Salancik, Copay & King, 1991

Source: Outside,

Political.

U.S. chemical industry

1960-1993

Introduction of life cycle management and eventually to sustainable production.

External regulation and pressures of environmentalists and a growing public concern.

Constituency of an organizational field are related with the institutions adopted by the industry to interpret the