In Vino Veritas

Environmental Certified Management Standards

Certified management standards (CMS) specify sets of standardized internal organizational management practices across adopting firms, without constraining or specifying the nature or quality of a firm’s output (Terlaak, 2007). These standards are commonly not directly linked to firm performance, nor do these standards necessarily specify how firms are required to meet the minimum level of compliance (Terlaak, 2007). A subset of CMS types, ECMS programs specify a minimum set of environmental management standards with which adopting firms must comply (Terlaak, 2007; Tilley, 1999). In general, ECMS programs are designed to motivate firms to improve environmental performance, but commonly permit firms to determine how they will do so (King & Lenox, 2000). Often termed voluntary regulations, ECMS specify practices regarding environmental management in adopting firms, and have been demonstrated to supplement regulations in neutralizing opportunistic behaviors by other firms that threaten a common resource pool or shared reputation (Barnett & King, 2008; King & Lenox, 2000).

ECMS have primarily been studied through the lenses of strategy, institutional, and stakeholder theories, focusing on how firms are perceived by competitors and influential stakeholders after adopting an ECMS (Terlaak, 2007). Looking internally, prior research emphasizes that often firms adopt an ECMS only symbolically, integrating only the most visible practices required by the ECMS in order to signal compliance to influential stakeholders (Darnall, Henriques, & Sadorsky, 2010; Howard et al., 1999; Masurel, 2007). For instance, firms are typically permitted to place an ecolabel (Ecolabelindex.com, 2014) associated with the ECMS adopted on their products and marketing materials, while avoiding the costs of implementing the ECMS practices in their entirety (Rivera, 2002; Tilley, 1999). This strategy is often successful for firms because many ECMS programs are voluntary in nature and often lack stringent oversight or strict enforcement (Potoski & Prakash, 2005). In this way, firms that symbolically adopt ECMS aim to use the ECMS as a “stakeholder-signaling device” to increase revenue through the appeasing of stakeholder demands or as a value signal, rather than as a means through which to increase operational efficiencies (Delmas, 2001; Howard et al., 1999; Rivera, 2002).

Organizational Culture

The cultural construction of organizational life has been discussed in various ways within management literature. Over time, the conceptualization of organizational culture has evolved from a monolithic structure guiding collective action to an individually enacted, emergent construct describing “the way things are done” in an organization (Martin, 2002; Weber & Dacin, 2011). More recently, research demonstrates that the perspective of culture as a “repertoire” holds promise for scholars to investigate social processes involving the interaction of individual actors and collectives across cultural groups and levels of analysis, along with the ability to once again consider identifying and comparing aspects of organizational cultures (Weber, 2005; Weber & Dacin, 2011). The repertoire perspective conceptualizes cultures as being composed of various beliefs and values, which are experienced and utilized at the collective and individual levels in organizational life to inform everyday organizational actions (Swidler, 1986; Weber, 2005). In this framework, organizational culture does not cause or shape action directly; rather “culture appears to shape action only in that the cultural repertoire limits the available range of strategies of action” (Swidler, 1986, p. 284). Culture is thus made up of shared meanings, beliefs, and values that organizations understand and employ uniquely to guide decision making and navigate complex environments (Swidler, 1986; Weber, 2005).

Connecting Standardized Practice Adoption and Organizational Culture

With prior research emphasizing ECMS adoption as stakeholder-signaling devices, we have little research examining the adoption of standardized practices through the lens of organizational culture. However, regardless of a firm’s motivations to adopt an ECMS, integrating the practices required by an ECMS presumably interrupt the patterned actions of everyday organizational life (Gouyou et al., 2012; Howard-Grenville et al., 2014). Yet prior literature based on corporate codes and standards only suggest that such integration of new practices required by an ECMS might be correlated with changes in how organizations understand and act on environmental issues. Some literature has focused on indirect links between standards adoption and environmental performance, citing a firm’s internal motivation to internalize the required practices (Gouyou et al., 2012) or the inclusion of performance indicators (Yin & Schmeidler, 2009) as key moderators of improved environmental performance. There are a few studies that demonstrate more direct links between organizational culture and the adoption of standardized practices, providing examples in which aspects of organizational cultures are altered after the adoption of standardized practices (Canato et al., 2013; Marnburg, 2000; Valentine & Burnett, 2003).

Relevant to this study, Canato et al. (2013) analyzed how 3M experienced a cultural change over time as a result of the coerced practice implementation of Six Sigma. The authors found that 3M organizational members partially changed their cultural beliefs and practices to align better with the Six Sigma practices, instead of adapting the practices of Six Sigma to fit the existing organizational culture at 3M (Canato et al., 2013). The authors suggested that alignment is a mechanism by which organizational members internalize and make sense of the coerced changes in organizational practices. Thus, this study demonstrates that the adoption of standardized practices is associated with cultural change, resulting in greater alignment between organizational beliefs and the standardized practices.

Similarly, prior studies have demonstrated that corporate-level codes can be effective instruments for shaping employees’ understandings of and behaviors related to sustainability, and suggest that corporate culture plays a role in this process (Marnburg, 2000; Stevens, 2008). For instance, in a study on the effects of corporate ethical codes on employee behavior, Stevens (2008) demonstrated that if managers model corporate ethical standards in their everyday actions and decision making, employees will be more likely to perceive the codes as “a key component of the organizational fabric” (p. 607). Findings from this study further suggest that employees who perceive their organization’s ethical codes as important are more likely to engage in behaviors that comply with the standards set forth by the codes. A study by Marnburg (2000) corroborates the findings that active engagement of an organization’s ethical codes is vital to behavioral changes in employees. This study demonstrates that if the codes are merely passed down in written form without management engagement, employees will be less likely to adopt an ethical mind-set in their everyday actions and decision making. Finally, in a study involving large firms, Valentine and Burnett (2003) find that sales professionals employed by firms with explicit, codified ethical standards perceive their work environment to have more positive ethical values than sales professionals employed by firms without such standards.

ECMS Aligning Organizational Cultural Beliefs Surrounding Sustainability

In sum, these prior studies suggest potential for a connection among standardized practice adoption and organizational culture, but do not explain whether and how the adoption of industry level standards is associated with organizational understandings of and practices surrounding sustainability. In particular, the research linking corporate codes to employee behavior does not address how adopted standards developed external to organizational boundaries might be related to employees’ understandings of the management issues addressed by the standards or codes (Howard-Grenville et al., 2014). This means that, at a higher level, there is a distinct lack of research regarding how organizations make sense of standardized sustainability practices developed at supra-organizational level (Christmann & Taylor, 2006). To address these gaps, I investigate how organizations that have adopted various ECMS understand and apply sustainability through an exploratory study in the Pacific Northwest wine industry.

ECMS in Pacific Northwest Wine Industry

A variety of ECMS have gained popularity with organizations throughout the global wine industry, including both generic (i.e., ISO 14001) and industry specific (i.e., California Certified Sustainable Winegrowing) programs. In the Pacific Northwest wine industry, there are three categories of ECMS programs that have gained the majority of market share, categorized as sustainable, biodynamic, and organic (Oregon Wine Board, 2013; Robinson, 2006); interestingly, although popular in the California wine industry, as well as many other industries worldwide, ISO 14001 has not gained popularity in the Pacific Northwest wine industry. At the time of this research, there were approximately 300 environmental certifications granted to vineyard firms in the Pacific Northwest, with a higher number of vineyards in Oregon holding at least one of the types of the three available ECMS as compared with Washington. The three ECMS programs have similar goals of enhancing organizational awareness regarding environmental and social management issues, but differ in their levels of specificity to the wine industry, philosophies regarding sustainability, and number and level of detail of the practices required. ¹

Method: Cultural Consensus Modeling

Cultural consensus modeling (CCM) is a mixed methodological approach combining qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analysis techniques to generate both in-depth and generalizable findings regarding the cultural group being studied (Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986). A researcher utilizing CCM first analyzes qualitative data in order to identify the cultural beliefs and practices shared within a group; the researcher then utilizes quantitative survey methods to measure the extent to which this cultural knowledge is shared among group members (Romney et al., 1986; Weller, 2007). In this article, I assume that organization-level cultural understandings can be approximated by the responses of individual vineyard managers, as managers are key decision makers (Simon, 1977), and thus serve as “cultural ambassadors” for their firms (Harrison & Corley, 2011; Weber, 2005).

Data Collection and Analysis

I first analyzed the interview data to generate a list of commonly mentioned sustainability practices, used to formulate the CCM survey instrument (Bernard, 2006; Weller, 2007). Next, I analyzed the survey data using consensus analyses to examine the level of agreement regarding the sustainability of these practices among respondent groups (Weller, 2007). Finally, I conducted a second round of qualitative analysis of the interview data to investigate the nuanced patterns of sustainability understandings within groups that adopted particular ECMS.

Qualitative Interviews

I conducted 25 semistructured, in-depth interviews between July and October 2013 with vineyard managers in the Pacific Northwest. The purpose of these interviews was to identify how organizations across this industry similarly or differently defined and acted on the issue of sustainability. These interviews took place over the telephone, and were recorded and transcribed, having obtained informed consent from each informant before starting the interview (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To select interview participants, I utilized a sampling technique approximating quota sampling, meaning that I chose subpopulations of interest with sets of desired characteristics (Bernard, 2006). I needed to accurately assess common beliefs and practices of organizations in the Pacific Northwest wine industry regarding sustainability, thus I ensured that the interview sample included vineyard firms with various certification statuses and locations to be representative of the regional industry population.

Interview data analyses

Utilizing ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis program, I conducted two rounds of content analysis of the interview data collected (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The purpose of the first round of content analysis was to develop items for the CCM survey. To this end, I identified examples of common practices defined as “sustainable viticulture.” I consolidated related examples of concrete viticulture practices into larger practice categories. This step resulted in 58 practice examples, which were consolidated into five overarching practice categories, including the management of land, materials, viticulture, information, and equipment and facilities. Refer to Table 1 for examples of codes related to the two most prevalent categories of practices: materials management and land management.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Examples of Codes for Materials Management and Land Management Practice Categories.

Emergent practices	Practice categories	Emergent practices	Practice categories
Beneficial insects	Land management	Composting	Materials management
Cover crops		Chemicals
Ecozones		Fertilizers
In-row cultivation		Fuel use
Irrigation		Make own on-farm inputs
Mowing		Packaging
Pest management		Purchase off-farm inputs
Soil testing		Spot treatment
Weed management		Spraying chemicals

A second round of content analysis was conducted after the results of the consensus analyses of the survey data had been obtained, to delineate shared cultural beliefs regarding sustainability within four subgroups of informant organizations, according to the type of ECMS held: LIVE, Biodynamic, Organic, or no ECMS.

Quantitative CCM Survey

The broad definitions of sustainability described above were integrated with sets of commonly mentioned practices to formulate survey items. Specifically, these items were developed for a scale measuring consensus among participating organizations with regard to beliefs and practices surrounding sustainability. These items described scenarios that exemplify sustainable viticulture practices as reported by interview informants, utilizing terminology provided by interview participants (Keller & Loewenstein, 2011). When utilizing a CCM method, it is important that survey items accurately represent the cultural knowledge that informants have proffered, as the survey instrument is intended to measure the extent to which this knowledge is shared (Bernard, 2006). I included 40 items in the scale for cultural consensus (Weller, 2007), drawing on the two most popular practice categories: materials management and land management. Two categories were sufficient to create a set of 40 items; including more than two practice categories would have resulted in over 50 items, which could contribute to response fatigue (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009).

I formulated the 40 scenario-based items in pairs of two. Specifically, there were “unsustainable” and “sustainable” versions of 20 scenarios to capture the boundaries of what did and did not constitute sustainable viticulture in meaning and practice, as was reported by informants (Keller & Loewenstein, 2011). Respondents to the survey were prompted to rate each scenario on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating Very Unsustainable and 4 indicating Very Sustainable. For a subset of scenario-based survey items, refer to Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Examples of Scenario-Based Items for Cultural Consensus Modeling Survey.

Subcategory of item	Response scale	“Level” of item	Item for cultural competency scale
“Chemicals Management”	4-Point Likert-type scale: 1 = Very Unsustainable; 2 = Somewhat Unsustainable; 3 = Somewhat Sustainable; 4 = Very Sustainable	Sustainable	“The vineyard manager designs a system of integrated pest management practices in such a way that minimizes the use of chemicals in the vineyard.”
		Unsustainable	“The vineyard manager relies solely on spraying chemicals to control pest issues in the vineyard.”
“Fuel Management”		Sustainable	“The vineyard manager uses only biodiesel fuel in their tractor.”
		Unsustainable	“The vineyard manager uses only petroleum-based diesel fuel in their tractor.”
“Fertilizer Management”		Sustainable	“The vineyard manager grows a cover crop that is rich in a nutrient that is deficient in the soil in the alleyways between the vine rows.”
		Unsustainable	“The vineyard manager leaves the alleyways between the vine rows unplanted, and spreads fertilizers to address nutrient deficiencies in the soil.”

There were further sections included in the survey to capture information on respondent organizations’ ECMS adoption status and organizational demographics. The survey items were validated by a set of interview informants, and the survey was distributed online to the full population of vineyard managers in the Pacific Northwest wine industry.

Quantitative survey data consensus analyses

Responses to the scenario-based items on the survey provided measures for each organization on their level of consensus with other survey respondents regarding sustainable viticulture conventions in the industry. Data from this cultural consensus scale emerged from the survey as a participant-by-response matrix for each organization, which was then inverted into a response-by-participant matrix, with responses in the rows and participants in the columns (Romney et al., 1986; Weller, 2007). These data were recoded from the 4-point Likert-type scale into binary form, with “0” being substituted for responses of “1” or “2” for “unsustainable” responses, and a “1” being substituted for responses of “3” or “4” for “sustainable” responses (Weller, 2007).

I utilized the consensus analysis tool in UCINET to determine the level of agreement among included organizations regarding the meaning and practice of sustainability (Bernard, 2006; Keller & Loewenstein, 2011). In a consensus analysis, the ratio of the first eigenvalue to the second eigenvalue must be a minimum of three-to-one in order to indicate the existence of agreement regarding shared cultural values and beliefs within the group being analyzed (Romney et al., 1986). The UCINET output also determined the first factor loading score for each respondent organization included in the analysis, which indicated their competency scores (Bernard, 2006; Weller, 2007). Cultural competence scores represents the proportion of the categorization conventions participants share with the group; a higher the competence score indicates that a participant is highly knowledgeable regarding the culture of the group (Keller & Loewenstein, 2011). Two other measures indicate good fit of the survey data to the model produced: zero negative competency scores and a proportion of “sustainable” responses of 50% (Weller, 2007). These measures would indicate that the survey design accurately represented the cultural beliefs of the participating organizations, as the scenario items were designed to be pairs of “unsustainable” (response coded “0”) and “sustainable” (response coded “1”) versions of the same scenarios, and the average of 0 and 1 is 0.5.

I first analyzed consensus among the overall group of respondent organizations, with regard to the set of all scenario-items. I then analyzed the level of consensus among the overall group of respondent organizations with regard to the two sets of practice categories included in the survey: materials management and land management. These analyses determined whether the subgroups of organizations that have adopted the same ECMS—Biodynamic, LIVE, or Organic—shared agreement regarding how to categorize scenario-items by practice category.

I also compared the average competency scores of organizations with various ECMS statuses to determine whether an ECMS can align sustainability meanings among adopting organizations. In a CCM design, the higher the average competency score among a subgroup of organizations, the greater the alignment between the cultural knowledge of those organizations with the overarching culture of the industry. Thus, the higher the average competency score is among organizations that have adopted the same ECMS, the more these organizations share concrete interpretations of sustainability.

Last, I compared how subgroups of organizations, according to ECMS type, categorized materials management and land management practices with regard to being sustainable or unsustainable. I first recoded the response matrix to make “sustainable” answers be represented by “1” and “unsustainable” answers by “−1,” which would make “sustainable” categorizations to tend toward a positive direction and “unsustainable” categorizations toward a negative direction. I then weighted the recoded response patterns of each respondent with their respective competency score, and calculated the average categorization convention scores across practice categories, overall as well as divided by ECMS type. Average categorization convention scores that matched in direction (i.e., positive or negative) would indicate agreement among subgroups of organizations regarding their patterns of categorization of scenario-items; in contrast, scores that did not match in direction would indicate disagreement. All in all, this comparison of categorization convention scores permitted the investigation into potential nuances in patterns of responses among subgroups of organizations.

Survey response rates and demographic statistics

The sample collected from the survey was representative of the industry population regarding location, ECMS adoption status, and size. Regarding locations, the survey was distributed to 539 potential respondents, 334 of which were located in Oregon, and 205 of which were located in Washington. In total, there were a total of 118 completed survey responses collected, so the overall response rate was 22%. This overall response rate is sufficient for reliability in consensus modeling, which requires between 100 and 200 responses (Weller, 2007).

Regarding ECMS status, the survey collected sample is representative of this industry feature, with 56% of respondent organizations having adopted an ECMS, currently or in the past; 6% being in the process of adopting an ECMS; and 35% having never adopted an ECMS. Of those vineyard organizations who had ever adopted an ECMS, or were in the process of adopting an ECMS, 81% had adopted LIVE, 24% had adopted USDA Organic, and 18% had adopted Biodynamic; 23% of respondent organizations had adopted multiple ECMS.

Furthermore, demographic information supports the representative nature of the survey sample collected. In an industry dominated by small firms, the majority of respondents were small organizations, with 55% having 25 acres or less, 29% having 26 to 100 acres, 13% having 101 to 1,000 acres, and only 1% having over 1,000 acres. Another indicator of small size, 76% were staffed by 4 or less full-time employees; 18% were staffed by 5 to 24 full-time employees; and only 3% were staffed by 25 or more full-time employees. Also, the majority of respondents held management positions at the time of the survey, with 68% of total respondents being vineyard managers, 44% being vineyard owners, and 37% being winemakers; 47% of respondents held multiple positions in their vineyard organization.

Overarching Culture Regarding Sustainability Across Organizations in Industry

The results of the consensus analyses provided evidence of unified cultural knowledge regarding the meaning and practice of sustainability among organizations in the Pacific Northwest wine industry. The consensus analysis of all scenario-items generated a ratio of the eigenvalues for the first factor to second factor of 5.36:1, which is higher than the 3:1 criterion, with no negative competency scores. For the consensus analyses within the materials management and land management practice categories, the ratios of the eigenvalues for the first factor to second factor were both above the 3:1 criterion (R_Materials = 4.865; R_Land = 3.803), with no negative competency scores. Overall, the proportion of “sustainable” answers to the scenario-items was 51%, which indicated a culturally representative survey design. All in all, the results of the consensus analyses indicated a good fit to the model of a unified culture surrounding sustainability in this industry, rather than a collection of subcultures. The finding of a unified culture means that organizations across the Pacific Northwest wine industry share specific understandings regarding sustainability. For consensus analyses results, see Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Survey Item Weighted Competency Scores, by Environmental Certified Management Standards Type.

Measure	All items	Land management items	Materials management items
N	118	118	118
First factor	40.83	45.656	41.534
Second factor	7.618	9.834	10.922
First:second factor ratio	5.36 a	4.865 a	3.803 a
No. of negative competency scores	0 b	0 b	0 b
Yes answers (%)	51	63	42

a

Ratio is greater 3:1, which signifies consensus among group (Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986). ^bLack of negative competency scores indicates good fit of model to data (Weller, 2007).

Adoption of ECMS Associated With Higher Average Competency Scores Regarding Sustainability

Comparing average competency scores between subgroups of organizations with various ECMS adoption statuses, I found that organizations that have adopted an ECMS have higher competency scores, on average, regarding sustainability meanings and practices, than do those organizations that have not adopted an ECMS. Overall, the average competency score was 0.568, with the average competency score for organizations with an ECMS being 0.604, which demonstrates that ECMS adoption is associated with above-average cultural knowledge regarding sustainability in this industry. In contrast, the average competency score for organizations without an ECMS was 0.503, which demonstrates that the lack of an ECMS is associated with below average cultural knowledge regarding sustainability in this industry. For a list of average competency scores overall and by ECMS type, see Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Average Competency Scores, by ECMS Type.

Group	n	Mean competency score	Median competency score	Minimum competency score	Maximum competency score
Overall	118	.568	.596	.202	.844
ECMS (Any)	76	.604	.63	.202	.844
Biodynamic	13	.63	.613	.392	.813
LIVE	60	.62	.644	.202	.844
Organic	18	.59	.601	.203	.754
No ECMS	42	.503	.553	.253	.729

Note. ECMS = environmental certified management standards; LIVE = Low Input Viticulture and Enology.

Notably, I find that organizations with the Biodynamic or LIVE certifications have the highest average competency scores out of any other subgroup of organizations. Biodynamic organizations have an average competency score of 0.630, with a median score of 0.613; similarly, LIVE organizations have an average competency score of 0.620, with a median score of 0.644. These average competency scores are above the overall average competency score of 0.568, as well as above the average competency score of organizations holding an Organic certification, which is 0.590. In addition, these differences between the average competency scores of these subgroups suggest that, although there is broad agreement regarding sustainability meanings at the industry level, there are patterned nuances in understandings of sustainability at the organizational level related to the particular ECMS adopted.

Nuanced Patterns of Understandings of Sustainability According to ECMS Adopted

To investigate the patterned nuances in organizational understandings of sustainability related to the particular ECMS adopted that emerged in the analysis of average competency scores, I compared categorization convention scores of scenario-items according to practice category and ECMS type. This analysis step determined the extent to which subgroups of organizations with particular ECMS agreed or disagreed with one another regarding how to categorize sets of practices as sustainable or not. For the comparison of categorization convention scores by ECMS type, see Table 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Similarities and Differences in the Categorization of Practice Types, by ECMS Type.

Overarching consensus	Situation types	Level	Any ECMS	No ECMS	Biodynamic	LIVE	Organic	Average
Matching cultural conventions	Materials management	Sustainable	0.199 (+)	0.21 (+)	0.156 (+)	0.187 (+)	0.188 (+)	0.188 (+)
		Unsustainable	−0.277 (−)	−0.162 (−)	−0.166 (−)	−0.244 (−)	−0.188 (−)	−0.207 (−)
	Land management	Sustainable	0.194 (+)	0.192 (+)	0.211 (+)	0.196 (+)	0.243 (+)	0.207 (+)
		Unsustainable	−0.061 (−)	−0.044 (−)	−0.024 (−)	−0.069 (−)	0.05 (+)	−0.050 (−)

Note. ECMS = environmental certified management standards; LIVE = Low Input Viticulture and Enology. Underlined number denotes lack of matching cultural convention among groups.

In general, I found that subgroups of organizations with various ECMS adoption statuses matched in their categorization of materials management and land management practices as sustainable or unsustainable. As explained above, categorization convention scores weight the response patterns of each respondent with their respective competency score, which measures how aligned organizations’ response patterns are to the overall group’s response pattern. Thus, “sustainable” categorizations are weighted toward a positive direction (i.e., between 0 and 1), and “unsustainable” categorizations toward a negative direction (i.e., between −1 and 0). Within the materials management practice category, all subgroups of organizations—regardless of ECMS adoption status, or type adopted—categorized similar patterns of scenario-items as sustainable (CCS_{Materials Sustainable} = 0.188) or unsustainable (CCS_{Materials Unsustainable} = 0.207), on average. Within the land management category, all subgroups of organizations—regardless of ECMS adoption status or type adopted—also categorized similar patterns of scenario-items as sustainable (CCS_{Materials Sustainable} = 0.207) or unsustainable (CCS_{Materials Unsustainable} = 0.050), on average. However, within the land management practice category, Organic organizations did not match the other subgroups in the categorization of unsustainable practices. Furthermore, the values of categorization convention scores vary among subgroups, even when in the same direction. The results from this analysis provide further evidence of patterned nuances in the responses of subgroups of organizations, primarily related to the type of ECMS adopted.

Qualitative Investigation of Sustainability Meanings Among ECMS Groups

For a deeper examination into the nature of these patterned nuances in understandings of sustainability, I conducted a second round of qualitative analysis of the interview data within four subgroups of organizations: LIVE, Biodynamic, Organic, or no ECMS. I found that the two ECMS associated with the highest average competency scores—Biodynamic and LIVE—are the most detailed and rigorous out of the three ECMS programs available in the Pacific Northwest wine industry. Also, LIVE in particular was formulated specifically for this regional industry. In this way, these results demonstrate that ECMS programs with these three characteristics—detailed practices, rigorous oversight, and industry-specificity—are associated with aligned understandings and practices regarding sustainability in adopting organizations. Refer to Table 6 for a summary of these findings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Summary of Meanings and Practices of “Sustainability” Within ECMS Subgroups.

ECMS	Understanding of sustainability	Key approaches to sustainability	Approach/format	Summary of key practices applied
LIVE	Sustainability as triple bottom line	• Minimal inputs	• Detailed guidelines for practices (i.e., checklists)	• Use input needed for issue at hand, but only minimal amount
	• Integrating environmental, social, and economic demands	• Systems thinking	• Educational seminars	• Plan practices in advance to avoid redundancy and waste
		• Practical decision making	• Prohibited substances	• Keep close track of practices to help in planning future seasons
		• Proactive management	• Calendars to follow
Biodynamic	Sustainability as healing	• Homeopathic remedies	• Sets of values	• Make your own inputs, and use as minimal as possible
	• Taking out of the earth what you put into the earth	• “Hands on” management	• Detailed guidelines for practices	• Do not use any off-farm inputs
		• Systems thinking	• Recipes for making inputs	• Use animals as part of vineyard ecosystem
			• Calendars to follow
Organic	Sustainability as prohibitive	Practical decision making	List of prohibited substances	Use only materials that are made from organically based compounds
	• Avoiding nonorganic compounds
No ECMS	Sustainability as flexibility	• Minimal inputs	(Not applicable)	• Stay flexible on types of materials can use in case of issue
	• Maintaining flexibility in operations	• Practical decision making		• Produce crop for buyers

Note. ECMS = environmental certified management standards; LIVE = Low Input Viticulture and Enology.

More Rigorous, Detailed ECMS Associated With Higher Average Cultural Competencies

The quantitative and qualitative findings show that certain ECMS programs generate high cultural competency scores and strong consensus among adopting organizations regarding sustainability meanings. Specifically, three characteristics about such ECMS, including LIVE and Biodynamic, emerged as having a strong influence on cultural consensus surrounding sustainability meanings among adopting organizations: Their guidelines provide a high level of detail in practice descriptions, the ECMS sets demanding objectives to achieve and maintain, and aspects of the programs were formulated specific to the regional wine industry.

The LIVE and Biodynamic programs are very detailed in their description of the required practices, more so than the Organic program. The Biodynamic program requires ECMS adopters to manufacture most of the inputs used on their vineyard, as well as follow a strict calendar regarding when to apply certain inputs. The LIVE program provides adopting organizations with detailed descriptions and checklists listing required practices, which organizations need to not only implement but also document in order to pass an audit. One vineyard manager expressed that the detailed format of LIVE improves its effectiveness in aligning sustainability meanings among adopting organizations:

There’s a billion different check boxes that we have to fill out and make sure we’re being a part of . . . over the totality of the farm. So I do think that it helped structure our perspective [of sustainability] a little bit more. (Interview, August 2013)

In comparison, the Organic certification is primarily a list of prohibited materials rather than a detailed program of practices.

Organizations that have adopted Biodynamic or LIVE perceive their adopted ECMS as having rigorous oversight. Many LIVE and Biodynamic organizations expressed it can be “tough” to follow all required practices, given the situational constraints of your farm. One LIVE organization stated:

When you have farms . . . . planted wall-to-wall with orchards and/or vineyards, and you don’t really have any room for the required sustainable—or biodiverse—areas. That’s kind of been tough, because the [ECMS] says “That’s what we’re going to do, and we’re not going to do anything different.” So we’re trying to lease some biodiversity areas around the valley to get that 5%. (Interview, August 2013)

Thus, organizations with a Biodynamic or LIVE certification perceive their own adopted ECMS as having rigorous oversight.

Additionally, industry-specificity of ECMS practices emerged as a key characteristic associated with effectiveness of an ECMS program to align sustainability meanings and practices. Interestingly, the LIVE program is the only ECMS out of the three available in the Pacific Northwest that has been formulated specifically for the wine industry, thus industry-specificity is one characteristic on which LIVE and the Biodynamic program differ. However, many organizations, regardless of ECMS adoption status, perceived the industry-specificity of LIVE as being highly effective in framing sustainability meanings. The LIVE program has involved multiple stakeholders, including viticulture experts, in the formulation of program requirements and practices in order to achieve a high level of specificity and accuracy in its practices regarding sustainable vineyard management. One vineyard manager interviewed discussed the partnership between LIVE and one local university:

[Oregon State University] has got a very good viticultural extension service, and in conjunction with [LIVE] . . . they offer the grounds or the classrooms, lots of different seminars, and talks, and demonstrations. . . . Definitely the research that is coming out of OSU and how practical that is to be applied, is pretty positive for the [wine] industry as a whole. (Interview, August 2013)

The involvement of these stakeholders and customization of practices to the wine industry are factors that not only provide LIVE organizations with concrete practices that vineyard managers can implement without interpretation but also connect the conceptualization of sustainability concretely to viticulture and the business of growing grapes. Thus, although not shared by both LIVE and Biodynamic, industry-specificity emerged as a key characteristic driving the alignment of cultural meanings through an ECMS program.

Implications

This study has two primary implications for management theory and practice. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of ECMS programs—and more broadly standardized practices—as potential mechanisms to align cultural beliefs and values regarding sustainability, on which organizations can draw to cultivate sustainability meanings and practices in a tangible way. Whereas prior research has emphasized how organizations often symbolically adopt ECMS as stakeholder-signaling devices, the findings of this study suggest that organizations can also utilize ECMS as a tool with which to instigate deeper level, cultural change toward establishing a more sustainable mind-set on the part of organizational members. More broadly, this study demonstrates promise for researching ECMS adoption through the lens of organizational culture, in that the adoption of an ECMS can guide decision making and actions in everyday organizational life.

This study draws attention to the need to consider that different types of ECMS are more effective than others at instigating organizational alignment regarding sustainability understandings. In particular, this study indicates that detailed, rigorous, and industry-specific ECMS programs are more effective than generic, loosely defined ECMS in aligning sustainability meanings. Importantly, this study has practical implications for organizations, industry associations, and other stakeholder groups in that the formulation of an ECMS can be one mechanism by which to generate organizational alignment, and cohesive action, toward sustainability in an industry. In industries for which action on sustainability remains a challenge, groups of stakeholders can work together to formulate this particular type of ECMS in an effort to assist organizations in developing more effective sustainability programs (Hörisch et al., 2014). This study also brings awareness to organizations attempting a cultural shift toward a more sustainable mind-set, that they can utilize an existing industry-specific ECMS program with rigorous guidelines to cultivate shared understandings of sustainability within organizations.

Limitations and Extensions

There are three primary limitations to this study, primarily regarding the chosen methodology. First, for this study, I utilized interview and survey data, which are reported data that could contain response bias (Bernard, 2006). As this study was investigating aspects of ECMS adoption related to organizational culture, observational data would have been ideal (Bernard, 2006). However, observational data were difficult to obtain for this study due to the limited resources on the part of the researcher. Second, this study relied on the understandings and applications of sustainability of only one informant from each organization interviewed and surveyed. Although the assumptions discussed regarding the validity of utilizing vineyard managers as a proxy for organizational interpretations, the robustness of the findings from this study would be enhanced by interviewing more people at each organization (Bernard, 2006). Finally, this study was conducted in an agricultural industry reliant on environmental forces for both the raw materials and the finished goods organizations produce (Robinson, 2006). This limits the generalizability of this study to other industries.

Future research could address such limitations and extend the findings of this study. Such research could focus on pursuing a deeper investigation into the processes of ECMS adoption that constrain or enable how organizational members utilize an ECMS to understand and apply sustainability. This research could also explore the conditions under which ECMS adoption might be more likely to be associated with greater or lesser understanding of sustainability in an organization. This study illuminated characteristics of an ECMS that enhanced its viability to align sustainability meanings, so perhaps there are particular configurations of organizational characteristics that are more likely to enable or constrain the effectiveness of an ECMS in this way. Furthermore, this study presents the opportunity to investigate the implications of industry-specificity of an ECMS regarding its effectiveness to align sustainability meanings and practices. Along these lines, future research could investigate in more depth similarities and differences in substantive change toward sustainability made in organizations adopting a generic ECMS or an industry-specific ECMS. Such avenues for future research can enhance our deeper understanding of ECMS as tools with which organizations can understand and act on sustainability in everyday organizational life.