This summary should be no more than half a page. The format of the summary is flexible, so feel free to use bullet points.
THERE ARE THREE ARTICLES THAT NEED A SUMMARY OF A HALF PAGE OR LESS.
can you type three sentences explaining the following: What did you find most interesting, unexpected, disappointing, etc. about each reading?
Individual Environmental Initiative: Championing Natural Environmental Issues in U.S.
Business Organizations
Author(s): Lynne M. Andersson and Thomas S. Bateman
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 548-570
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org
/stable/1556355 .
Accessed: 01/03/201
1
16:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556355?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom
?
Academy of Management Journal
2000, Vol. 43, No. 4, 548-570.
INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVE:
CHAMPIONING NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN U.S.
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
LYNNE M. ANDERSSON
Temple University
THOMAS S. BATEMAN
University of Virginia
Several bodies of literature contributed to a framework describing how three activi-
ties-identifying, packaging, and selling-can lead to successful environmental cham-
pioning. The results of a field study comparing successful and unsuccessful champi-
oning episodes in U.S. business organizations supported the framework. Specifically,
individuals who successfully championed environmental issues engaged in more en-
vironmental scanning, employed particular framing dimensions and presentation
styles, and used several influence tactics. For some championing behaviors, successful
outcomes depended on the strength of a company’s environmental paradigm.
Which actors and what actions make a difference
in ameliorating or preventing environmental prob-
lems? Many environmentalists fear that only an
environmental crisis of enormous magnitude will
be sufficient to stimulate the public into denounc-
ing widely held industrialist values (McLaughlin,
1993). Others, however, believe that individual ac-
tion can help instigate widespread awareness of the
depth of environmental issues and the need for a
paradigmatic change (Stern, 1992).
Over the past decade, an important area of re-
search concerning actors and actions has been the
role of individuals in determining how business
organizations affect the natural environment
(Starik, 1995; Stern, 1992). The power of individual
initiative in creating action on environmental is-
sues has been suggested in the literature on corpo-
rate environmental management (e.g., Morrison,
1991; Rappaport & Dillon, 1991; Starik & Rands,
1995; Winn, 1995). For example, individuals such
as Michael Roberts at McDonald’s and David Buz-
zelli at Dow Chemical were lauded in the popular
press for launching extensive environmental pro-
grams within their organizations (Hume, 1991;
Rice, 1993). Nonetheless, prior to the present study,
little research has addressed the process through
which individuals help to transform ambiguous en-
vironmental issues into organizational actions. In
our research, we attempt to explain how individu-
We would like to thank Mike Berry, Chris Pearson, and
Ben Rosen for their helpful comments on drafts of this
article. We are also very grateful to Mark Starik and the
three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.
als, as environmental champions, convince and en-
able organization members to turn environmental
issues into successful corporate programs and in-
novations.
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND
THE ROLE OF THE CHAMPION
Environmental issues have become increasingly
important to industry worldwide (Schmidheiny,
1992). However, agreement does not exist in the
business community as to what the relevant envi-
ronmental issues are, how serious they are, and
how they should be addressed. A study of senior
executives in American businesses performed by
Booz-Allen in 1991 revealed that a majority (67%)
believed that environmental issues were extremely
important to their companies, and yet only a small
minority (7%) were confident that they understood
the environmental issues that their companies
faced (Newman & Breeden, 1992).
Viewed together as a distinct class of corporate
issues, environmental issues are often difficult for
managers to comprehend, for several reasons. First,
many managers consider environmental issues to
be too complex and scientific, encrypted in diffi-
cult technical language, and therefore undetectable
and incalculable (Shrivastava, 1995; Stead & Stead,
1992; Stern, 1992). Second, environmental issues
are usually direct results of industrial activity, and
thus managers face the difficulties of acknowledg-
ing fault and changing business systems to counter
the detrimental effects of their products and pro-
cesses (Schmidheiny, 1992; Shrivastava, 1995).
548
Andersson and Bateman
Furthermore, the widespread consequences of en-
vironmental issues may far exceed those of many
other corporate issues (Schmidheiny, 1992; Shriv-
astava, 1995). A corporate environmental crisis
such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill can affect nu-
merous species and communities, translating into a
tremendous financial burden for an organization.
Considering these obstacles to managerial compre-
hension and action, organizations need visible and
credible champions to increase understanding and
promote initiative on environmental issues.
We broadly define champions as individuals
who, through formal organizational roles and/or
personal activism, attempt to introduce or create
change in a product, process, or method within an
organization (e.g., Ginsberg & Abrahamson, 1991;
Maidique, 1980; Schon, 1963). Analogous to “intra-
preneurs” (Pinchot, 1985) and issue sponsors (Dut-
ton, 1993), champions are able to recognize the
business significance of an issue and promote it
within their organizations. Without dedicated
champions, organizational innovations usually do
not proceed beyond the initial idea stage (Frost &
Egri, 1991).
Environmental innovations, like other types of in-
novations, are often formulated and promoted by sin-
gle individuals working in the operating cores of
organizations (Morrison, 1991; Winn, 1995). Individ-
uals who believe that environmental issues are a top
priority and who possess environmental knowledge
and skills are key factors in the mobilization of sup-
port for confronting and ameliorating environmental
issues (Goitein, 1989; Starik & Rands, 1995) and are
considered vital to corporate environmental manage-
ment programs (Winn, 1995).
Although several researchers have generated de-
scriptive or anecdotal accounts of these environmen-
tal champions and their activities (e.g., Goitein, 1989;
Johannson, 1992), no rigorous empirical research on
these individuals has been identified. Much of the
previous research on champions has focused on the
personality characteristics and leadership qualities of
individuals associated with new products or techno-
logical innovations (e.g., Frost & Egri, 1991; Howell &
Higgins, 1990; Markham, Green, & Basu, 1991). Al-
though some champion research has focused on the
context and outcomes of championing (e.g., Howell,
Shea, & Higgins, 1998; Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996),
no empirical research has focused solely on the pro-
cess by which champions champion issues or inno-
vations.
Frost and Egri (1991) wrote that individuals
champion issues or innovations when they bring
them to the attention of those who can provide the
organizational resources necessary for action. As of
championing does not exist in the organizational
science literature (Markham et al., 1991). The pro-
cess of championing has been defined in numerous
ways, including the following: providing important
information about an issue, framing an issue in a
particular manner, and garnering support and re-
sources that attract top management to the issue
(Dutton & Ashford, 1993); introducing new per-
spectives that create pressure for organizational
change and taking political and symbolic actions to
promote that change (Ginsberg & Abrahamson,
1991); seeking out creative ideas from information
sources and then enthusiastically selling them
within an organization (Howell & Higgins, 1990);
creating, defining, or adopting an idea and risking
position or prestige to make possible the innova-
tion’s successful implementation (Maidique, 1980);
strongly advocating a project and generating posi-
tive behavioral support for it during its develop-
ment (Markham et al., 1991); recognizing and pro-
posing a new technical idea or procedure and
pushing it toward formal management approval
(Roberts & Fusfeld, 1981); and identifying an idea
and promoting it actively and vigorously (Schon,
1963).
Three interrelated and yet distinct individual-
level activities that emerge from these and other
definitions can be considered to constitute the
championing process: (1) identifying/generating an
issue or idea, (2) packaging it as attractive, and (3)
selling it to organizational decision makers. This
three-part operational definition of championing
can be used in the context of any type of organiza-
tional program or innovation, whether a new social
issue, a product, or a technology. We offer this
definition as the foundation for the present re-
search on championing natural environmental is-
sues in business organizations.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHAMPIONING
FRAMEWORK
The multitude of potential environmental issues
business organizations faced in the 1990s can be
roughly categorized as follows: (1) air pollution (out-
door and indoor), (2) solid waste disposal, (3) topsoil
erosion, (4) ozone layer depletion, (5) population
growth, (6) marine and fresh water pollution, (7) toxic
waste accumulation and disposal, (8) reduction in
biodiversity, (9) wetlands destruction, (10) deforesta-
tion, and (11) climate modification (Morrison, 1991;
Schmidheiny, 1992; Throop, Starik, & Rands, 1993).
Because these issues can be technical and complex,
are intricately tied to industrial activity, and have
widespread consequences for organizations and com-
this writing, however, a consensual definition of
549 2000
munities (Schmidheiny, 1992; Shrivastava, 1995;
Academy of Management Journal
Stem, 1992), a champion of environmental issues
may need to adopt unique behavioral variations of the
three championing activities. In this section, we inte-
grate findings from the literatures on organizational
innovation, strategic issues management, corporate
environmental management, psychology of global en-
vironmental change, and social influence in organi-
zations to create a framework (shown in Figure 1) and
hypotheses describing how the three championing
activities may be enacted in a successful environmen-
tal championing episode.
Identifying Environmental Issues
Champions must first identify-seek out, create,
define, adopt, generate, or recognize-issues and
ideas (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Maidique, 1980;
Roberts & Fusfeld, 1981; Schon, 1963). Scanning,
or acquiring information about events occurring
inside and outside their organization, is a means by
which champions become aware of issues arising
in the internal and external environments (Culnan,
1983). Through scanning sources such as environ-
mental and industry conferences, public libraries
and databases, meetings with knowledgeable col-
leagues and external consultants, and environmen-
tal and industry periodicals, environmental cham-
pions can monitor organizational, public, and
regulatory priorities and stay abreast of competitive
trends and future environmental legislation (Hen-
riques & Sadorsky, 1995; Winsemius & Guntram,
1992). The more that champions scan the internal
and external environments, the greater chance they
have of gaining access to data that can be used to
develop a meaningful and positive presentation of
a given environmental issue to top management
(Ashford, Dutton, & O’Neill, 1991; Thomas, Clark,
& Gioia, 1993). Thus, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 1. Frequent scanning behaviors
and use of multiple scanning sources in iden-
tifying an issue will increase the likelihood of a
successful environmental championing epi-
sode.
Packaging Environmental Issues
Issue packaging is the term describing how an
issue’s content is framed and the way that an issue
is linguistically presented to others in an organiza-
tion (Dutton &
Ashford, 1993).
Through packaging,
champions can manipulate the issue’s meaning,
enhance its importance, and make certain at-
tributes of the issue more salient, helping to ensure
that it is perceived in the desired manner by orga-
nizational decision makers. Issue packaging may be
a powerful aid in championing environmental is-
sues, especially since organizational decision mak-
FIGURE 1
Framework for Championing Natural Environmental Issues
Potential Enviuoim”antal
Issues Facing Business
Championing Activities Indicators of a Successful
C.hampioning Episode
Ireil;ryiiug Enviu-l,,hlental Issues
* Scanning behaviors
Packsging Enav;uh”.ifntal Issues
* Issue framing
Opportunity, urgent, local impact
* Issue presentation
Drama and emotion, metaphors
Selling Enviir..ti,knetal Issues
* Influence behaviors
Rational persuasion, consultation,
coalition, inspirational appeal H5
Top Mansagemnt Attention
* Naming issue as program/policy
* Creation of task force devoted to issue
Top Management Action
* Allocation of time to issue
* Allocation of money to issue
Champion Perception
* Successful vs. unsuccessful initiative
OrgAnizational Context
* Corporate environmental paradigm (+)
VH
f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
m
I
I
w
I
-1
August 550
I
Andersson and Bateman
ers rarely have complete information regarding
their organizations’ effects on the natural environ-
ment (Goitein, 1989; Rappaport & Dillon, 1991).
Issue framing. Framing an issue in an appropri-
ate manner can capture the attention of organiza-
tional decision makers and thus shape and direct
subsequent issue-relevant activity (Dutton & Ash-
ford, 1993). In framing an issue, champions make
choices concerning what attributes of the issue to
emphasize or downplay (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
For example, a champion may frame something as
a cost issue rather than as a technical issue to
convey to decision makers that addressing it will
save the organization money and not demand that
technical expertise be pulled away from other
projects. Moreover, a champion may frame an issue
as “highly visible” to convey that it may attract the
positive attention of outsiders if acted upon in a
timely manner.
Because most organizational decision makers
have little (although varying) amounts of environ-
mental education and training, it may be necessary
for a champion to use a combination of dimensions
to frame environmental issues (Dutton, Walton, &
Abrahamson, 1989; Rappaport & Dillon, 1991).
Three issue-framing dimensions are predicted to be
particularly important in an environmental cham-
pioning episode: opportunity/threat, urgency, and
geographical impact.
The opportunity/threat dimension is commonly
used in framing organizational issues (Dutton &
Jackson, 1987). Whereas an issue framed as an op-
portunity signifies “a positive situation in which
gain is likely and over which one has a fair amount
of control” (Dutton & Jackson, 1987: 80), an issue
framed as a threat indicates a negative situation in
which loss is imminent and one has little control
(Dutton & Jackson, 1987). In framing an issue as an
opportunity, a champion could emphasize the fi-
nancial, strategic, or competitive benefits that may
potentially accrue from action on the issue; in fram-
ing an issue as a threat, a champion could describe
a potential crisis situation that may result from
failure to act.
Research has revealed the importance of framing
environmental issues as opportunities. A longitu-
dinal study of the Canadian oil and gas industry
showed that proactive strategies of environmental
responsiveness were a reflection of managerial in-
terpretation of environmental issues as opportuni-
ties (Sharma, 1997). Embracing environmental is-
sues as opportunities enables managers to reap
benefits in terms of lower costs, higher process
efficiencies, reuse and recycling of resources, and a
positive reputation (Post & Altman, 1992; Sharma,
Additional framing dimensions of potential im-
portance are urgency and geographical impact.
Strong evidence exists that natural environmental
problems created by business organizations de-
mand urgent response (Shrivastava, 1995). To gen-
erate a sense of urgency in organization members,
the importance, visibility, time pressure, and sense
of organizational responsibility surrounding envi-
ronmental issues must be emphasized (Dutton,
Stumpf, & Wagner, 1990). Framing an environmen-
tal issue as urgent involves conveying to decision
makers that the issue warrants immediate attention
and, if not acted upon promptly, will likely attract
the negative attention of the media, competitors,
and/or regulators. Individuals and organizations
are potentially reluctant to modify their behaviors
if they feel that a problem is not visible and impor-
tant or will become acute only in the future (Swap,
1991). Thus, champions may be wise to convey the
urgency associated with an environmental issue.
Although the geographical impact of certain en-
vironmental issues (for instance, ozone depletion,
global warming) is global, many environmental is-
sues can be framed as having an acute impact on a
local community (Schmidheiny, 1992; Sjoberg,
1989). A large-scale study of corporate environ-
mental practices in the United States, Canada, and
Europe revealed that corporations devoted far more
time and resources to local issues, such as clean
water and local land use, than to global issues such
as ozone depletion and population growth (Morri-
son, 1991). It makes intuitive sense that an organi-
zation would focus on issues that directly affect its
local community, such as a local park cleanup or a
process change resulting in a cleaner local water
supply, as it is easier and more advantageous for an
organization to establish an environmental pro-
gram within its local domain.
To summarize the discussion on framing:
Hypothesis 2a. Framing an issue as an oppor-
tunity will increase the likelihood of a success-
ful environ
mental championing episode.
Hypothesis 2b. Framing an issue as urgent will
increase the likelihood of a successful environ-
mental championing episode.
Hypothesis 2c. Framing an issue as having
local impact will increase the likelihood of a
successful environmental championing epi-
sode.
Issue presentation. The manner in which an is-
sue is linguistically presented is helpful in deter-
mining whether issue sponsorship will be success-
ful (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Presenting an issue
1997).
2000 551
involves using certain types of language-for in-
Academy of Management Journal
stance, dramatic, jargon-filled, passionate, or suc-
cinct-to ensure that the issue is perceived in the
desired manner by organizational decision makers.
Two presentation styles are predicted to be useful
for championing natural environmental issues: a
dramatic and emotional style and a metaphorical
style.
The effects of a dramatic and emotional style of
presentation on capturing the attention and stimu-
lating the actions of organizational decision makers
has been documented (Dutton & Ashford, 1993).
Dramatic stories of potential environmental degra-
dation, narrated using passionate language and
vivid examples, are an important communicative
resource and a strong force in mobilizing people for
action (Rappaport & Dillon, 1991). To illustrate, a
champion presenting a habitat preservation pro-
gram to top management might inject forceful and
pessimistic images of species loss into his or her
narration to convey the potential harm to the eco-
system resulting from inaction on the part of the
organization. Language that conjures such a pow-
erful and dramatic image captures people’s atten-
tion, causing them to assign disproportionate
weight to the information even when hard statisti-
cal evidence to the contrary is presented concur-
rently (Nielson & Saranson, 1981).
Through a metaphorical style, a champion can
provide a common framework for understanding
an issue, making it easier to coordinate and inte-
grate organizational activities surrounding the is-
sue (Tsoukas, 1991). Metaphors can be used to
clarify or compare, creating emphasis and a fresh
perspective, particularly with regard to complex
or ambiguous issues or experiences (Sackmann,
1989). They link the strange with the familiar by
helping to build a reality, communicating mean-
ing when no literal language is available (Tsou-
kas, 1991). Thus, metaphors (for instance, Mother
Earth, greening, the tragedy of the commons) can
be a useful vehicle for explaining an unfamiliar
and technically complex environmental issue
(Meima, 1994).
Drawing from these arguments, we expected that
Hypothesis 3a. Presenting an issue using
drama and emotion will increase the likeli-
hood of a successful environmental champion-
ing episode.
Hypothesis 3b. Presenting an issue using pow-
erful, meaningful, and clear metaphors will
increase the likelihood of a successful environ-
Selling Environmental Issues
An environmental champion must somehow
persuade organizational decision makers to sup-
port his or her initiative. The liberal use of influ-
ence behaviors by champions as part of the inno-
vation and issue-selling processes is supported
by theory and empirical research (e.g., Dutton &
Ashford, 1993; Egri, 1995; Frost & Egri, 1991;
Howell & Higgins, 1990; Howell et al., 1998).
Successful champions are able to influence im-
portant players in their organizations to envision
the strategic importance of their idea (Frost &
Egri, 1991).
Yukl and his associates (e.g., Falbe & Yukl, 1992;
Yukl, Falbe, & Youn, 1993; Yukl & Tracey, 1992)
empirically demonstrated that nine influence tac-
tics are used in organizations. Further, their re-
search showed that rational persuasion, consulta-
tion, and inspirational appeal are the most effective
influence tactics managers and professionals use to
generate an influence target’s commitment (Falbe &
Yukl, 1992; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). However, the
degree of use and effectiveness of particular influ-
ence tactics differ depending on the direction of
influence.
Champions tend to direct their selling attempts
toward their superiors and, sometimes, their
peers, usually top management (Dutton & Ash-
ford, 1993; Frost & Egri, 1991). In light of this
evidence, research indicates that rational persua-
sion, consultation, coalition building, and inspi-
rational appeal may be the most appropriate tac-
tics for champions (e.g., Ashford et al., 1991;
Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Rational
persuasion-the use of logical, crafted arguments
and factual evidence-is a proven method of
gaining support from superiors (e.g., Yukl et al.,
1993; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) and is effective for
selling complex and technical issues (Frost &
Egri, 1991). Likewise, consultation, in which the
champion seeks the target’s participation in plan-
ning the desired program or innovation, and co-
alition building, in which the champion enlists
the support of others who are knowledgeable and
interested in environmental issues, are both
strong tactics for gaining commitment from supe-
riors, as evidenced in a number of environmental
management programs and innovations (Post &
Altman, 1992; Rappaport & Dillon, 1991; Winn,
1995). Finally, inspirational appeal-selling by
appealing to a target’s values and ideals-gener-
ates target commitment to a new project (Yukl &
Tracey, 1992), and it would appear intuitively to
be a strong means of selling a hot (divisive, emo-
tion-evoking, and value-revealing) issue like an
August 552
mental championing episode.
Andersson and Bateman
environmental issue (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit,
& Dutton, 1995). In sum, we predicted that
Hypothesis 4a. Selling an issue using rational
persuasion will increase the likelihood of a
successful environmental championing epi-
sode.
Hypothesis 4b. Selling an issue using consul-
tation will increase the likelihood of a success-
ful environmental championing episode.
Hypothesis 4c. Selling an issue using coalition
building will increase the likelihood of a suc-
cessful environmental championing episode.
Hypothesis 4d. Selling an issue using inspira-
tional appeal will increase the likelihood of a
successful environmental championing epi-
sode.
Corporate Environmental Paradigm
The collective values and beliefs of an organiza-
tion’s members about its distinctive attributes are
known as the organization’s paradigm. The content
of the paradigm affects how issues are interpreted
and acted upon within the organization (Dutton,
1993). This notion of an organizational paradigm
can be extended to the way that an organization’s
decision makers see it with respect to the natural
environment (Meima, 1994).
The dominant social paradigm that has been in
place in Western society for at least the past two
centuries, and that most leaders of business orga-
nizations have embraced, consists of belief in the
unfettered pursuit of economic growth, strong sup-
port for private property rights and laissez-faire
government, and faith in technology as the vehicle
for progress (e.g., Catton & Dunlap, 1980; Gladwin,
Kennelly, & Krause, 1995; McLaughlin, 1993). Un-
derlying these convictions is the assumption that
humans are exempt from the laws of nature and
dominant over the natural world (Catton & Dunlap,
1980). In business organizations, the effects of this
“technocentric” paradigm are evidenced in waste-
ful use of resources, inadequate consideration of
impact, and overdependence on technology for en-
vironmental solutions (Shrivastava, 1995). Busi-
ness organizations embracing this paradigm tend to
respond to natural environmental issues mainly for
compliance reasons, to have little in the way of
comprehensive environmental policy and pro-
grams, and to have left environmental goals un-
linked with other management components (Post &
Altman, 1992).
However, as Western society has become more
damage attributable to human activity, the strong
hold of the dominant social paradigm is potentially
loosening. A small but growing number of influen-
tial people are beginning to dismiss the false satia-
tion provided by consumerism and are finding de-
sirable the tenets of restricting growth, protecting
the integrity of ecosystems, and securing a more
harmonious relationship between humans and na-
ture (Catton & Dunlap, 1980; McLaughlin, 1993). In
this emerging paradigm, termed the new environ-
mental paradigm, humans are viewed as equal
members of the natural world rather than as exempt
from the laws of nature (Catton & Dunlap, 1980).
The emergence of the new environmental para-
digm is important to the changing relationship
between business and the natural environment.
Certain organizations, either willingly or under
pressure from external sources such as publicity,
regulation, or competition, have changed the way
in which they view and interact with the natural
environment. Concepts such as environmental
management, in which organizations’ leaders view
nature as a collection of resources to be effectively
controlled and managed, and ecocentric manage-
ment, in which they view nature as a central con-
sideration in operating practices, suggest that some
business organizations are placing greater value on
the natural environment than they have in the past
(Gladwin et al., 1995; Purser, Park, & Montuori,
1995; Shrivastava, 1995). Whereas environmental
management practices such as recycling and waste
management, incorporation of environmental crite-
ria into the balance sheet, and recognition of the
environment as a source of competitive advantage
convey a moderately strong environmental para-
digm, ecocentric management symbols and prac-
tices such as strong proenvironmental attitudes
among top management, rewards for environmen-
tal performance, support for sustainability-oriented
innovation, initiation of and involvement in envi-
ronmental partnerships, and an abundance of envi-
ronmentally oriented artifacts convey a strong en-
vironmental paradigm (Gladwin et al., 1995; Post &
Altman, 1992; Starik & Rands, 1995).
Thus, business organizations vary according to
how strongly they embrace values and beliefs in-
herent in the new environmental paradigm, and it
is likely that environmental champions will have
more success in organizations that hold a strong
rather than a weak environmental paradigm. There-
fore:
Hypothesis 5. Championing activities will be
more likely to result in a successful environ-
mental championing episode when an organi-
aware of the apparently irreversible environmental
553 2000
zation’s environmental paradigm is strong.
Academy of Management Journal
Indicators of a Successful Environmental
Championing Episode
What criteria might be used to determine the
success of a championing episode? The literature
on strategic issues management suggests that top
management attention to an issue and top manage-
ment action on it are important indicators of issue-
sponsorship success. Top management attention to
an issue can be displayed by a variety of behaviors,
such as naming the issue, collecting issue-relevant
information, and creating a task force devoted to it
(Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Top management action
on an issue can be demonstrated by allocating time
and money to it and placing it on an organization’s
strategic agenda (Dutton et al., 1990; Frost & Egri,
1991). Most importantly, research on champions
suggests that judgments of champions themselves
are highly accurate indicators of the success of a
championing episode (Howell & Higgins, 1990;
Howell et al., 1998).
Borrowing from the literatures on strategic issues
management and organizational innovation, we
selected five indicators of championing success for
use in this investigation: (1) naming/designating
the issue as a policy or program, (2) creating a task
force devoted to the issue, (3) top management
allocation of time to the issue, (4) top management
allocation of money to the issue, and (5) a champi-
on’s perception of success.
METHODS
To test the hypotheses, we conducted a field
study using survey and interview data, comparing
successful and unsuccessful environmental cham-
pioning episodes across a variety of organizations.
Such field comparative research is appropriate for
the investigation of issue championing, as field re-
search contrasting episodes of successful and un-
successful issue selling in various contexts has
been encouraged by scholars studying strategic is-
sues management (Ashford et al., 1991; Dutton &
Ashford, 1993). Rigorous empirical research vali-
dating general models is greatly needed in the
study of environmental issues in business organi-
zations (Starik, 1995).
Procedures
We conducted the study in five stages. First, we
identified potential environmental champions and
solicited their participation in the study. Second,
we asked a group of champions to participate in a
preliminary survey administration to refine the sur-
survey instrument, we asked the entire sample of
champions to complete the survey. Concurrently,
we asked champions to give a similar survey to a
coworker familiar with their environmental efforts.
Next, we asked those champions who indicated
that they would be willing to complete another
survey about a different championing episode to do
so. Finally, we solicited a subset of champions to
take part in semistructured interviews.
Identification and selection of environmental
champions. Drawing on publications such as Re-
new America’s Environmental Success Index and
Cutter Information Corporation’s Business and the
Environment, as well as meetings with the director
of the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction
and participation in the Global Environmental
Management Initiative’s GEMI ’95 conference, we
identified 496 potential environmental champions
in U.S. business organizations. We then sent the
496 potential champions a letter asking for their
participation in a study examining the ways that an
individual employee can help to turn an environ-
mental issue into a corporate program/innovation.
We included with the letter stamped postcards ask-
ing the potential champions if they would be will-
ing to (1) complete a confidential survey about their
environmental efforts and (2) give a second confi-
dential survey to a coworker in a position to com-
ment on their environmental efforts.
The identification of champions through peer
nomination and secondary sources was adequate
for this investigation, for several reasons. First, the
process of peer nomination of champions has been
shown to be a reliable and valid technique (Howell
& Higgins, 1990). Second, because of the strategic
emphasis placed on environmental issues in busi-
ness organizations at the time of this investigation
(Throop et al., 1993), individuals who championed
environmental issues were often recognized and
lauded for their efforts in the popular press (e.g.,
Johannson, 1992; Rice, 1993). The plethora of pub-
lished lists of award-winning corporate environ-
mental programs/innovations is evidence of this
surge of interest in corporate environmentalism. In
most of these lists, the one individual who led the
initiative was singled out and commended.
Of the 188 completed postcards received, 117
indicated willingness to complete a survey and to
give a survey to a coworker, 47 indicated willing-
ness to complete a survey but not to give one to a
coworker, and 24 indicated unwillingness to com-
plete a survey. Therefore, a total of 164 champions
self-selected for the study.
A random telephone survey of 20 nonrespon-
dents revealed that they had either changed orga-
vey instrument. After thorough pretesting of the
554 August
nizations (45 percent), did not have the time to
Andersson and Bateman
complete a survey (40 percent), or did not consider
themselves to be key players in the program/inno-
vation (15 percent). Further, a random telephone
survey of 10 champions willing to complete a sur-
vey but not willing to give one to a coworker re-
vealed that a majority (60 percent) did not want to
burden a coworker with the responsibility of com-
pleting a survey, and others (40 percent) felt that no
one coworker could accurately comment on their
environmental efforts.
Survey administration. We mailed each of the
164 environmental champions a package contain-
ing a survey, a cover letter, and a stamped return
envelope. Furthermore, we sent an additional pack-
age containing a cover letter, a coworker survey,
and a stamped return envelope to each of the 117
(of the 164) champions who had indicated that they
would be willing to give a survey to a knowledge-
able coworker.
The champion survey consisted of two parts and
contained both fixed-choice and open-ended items.
Part 1 of the survey asked a champion to think
about an episode in which she or he initiated action
on an environmental issue within his or her orga-
nization and to answer questions while thinking
about that episode. Half of the champions (82) were
instructed to complete this part of the survey while
considering a successful environmental champion-
ing episode, and the other half were instructed to
complete this part while considering an unsuccess-
ful episode. Randomization checks (t-tests) com-
paring champions’ demographic characteristics re-
vealed that the assignment of an experience
condition to each champion was completely ran-
dom. Part 2 of the survey asked champions for
background information about themselves and
their organizations and also about their willingness
to complete a second survey and engage in an in-
terview.
We received a total of 132 surveys from environ-
mental champions, for a response rate of 80 percent
(or 27 percent of the 496 potential champions ini-
tially contacted). Of the surveys returned, 72 (54
percent) described a successful championing epi-
sode, and 60 (46 percent) described an unsuccess-
ful championing episode. These numbers meet the
minimum of 60 per group required by statistical
power analysis for achieving the power level of .80,
with a significance level of .05 and a standardized
effect size of .50, that is typical of and recom-
mended for management research (Mazen, Graf,
Kellogg, & Hemmasi, 1987).
The 132 champions who completed the survey
were predominantly from organizations in the diver-
sified/manufacturing (64 percent) and electric utili-
champions widely distributed in the retail, financial
services, consumer services, health care, construc-
tion, transportation, defense, and oil and natural gas
industries. Most (88 percent) were employed by or-
ganizations with over 1,000 total employees. They
worked mainly in environmental/safety affairs (85
percent) and engineering (6 percent) departments, al-
though several worked in operations or legal depart-
ments. They averaged six years of tenure with their
organizations. A majority (76 percent) of the champi-
ons were men, and their average age was 45 years.
Like the champion survey, the coworker survey
consisted of two parts and contained both fixed-
choice and open-ended items. Each coworker was
asked to think about an episode in which the cham-
pion he or she worked with initiated action on an
environmental issue and to answer questions about
that episode. Champions were instructed to tell
their surveyed coworkers which environmental
championing episode to refer to when answering
the questions. This survey was used to gain an
additional assessment of the championing activi-
ties, the environmental paradigm of the organiza-
tion, and the indicators of championing success,
thereby adding validity to the study and helping to
reduce the potential for common method variance
(Spector, 1994).
We received a total of 52 coworker surveys, 32
(61 percent) on successful episodes, and 20 (39
percent) on unsuccessful episodes, for a response
rate of 44 percent. Like the environmental champi-
ons, the coworkers worked mainly in environmen-
tal/safety affairs (71 percent) and engineering (12
percent) departments, with the remainder working
in marketing, operations, legal, or research and de-
velopment departments. Most (79 percent) were
men, and their average age was 44 years. A large
majority of the coworkers (81 percent) indicated
that they had been targets of the environmental
champions’ issue-selling attempts. Further, a ma-
jority (77 percent) described themselves as superi-
ors of the champions, with fewer describing them-
selves as peers (17 percent) or subordinates (6
percent).
We performed paired t-tests comparing champi-
ons’ and their coworkers’ responses on each of the
survey measures, revealing significant differences
between the groups on only one of the measures
(use of consultation as an influence tactic). Thus,
judging by the concurrence of independent observ-
ers, champions were apparently able to report ac-
curately on their own behaviors in the environmen-
tal championing process, lending validity to the
use of self-report data in the examination of envi-
ties (17 percent) industries, with the remainder of the
2000 555
ronmental championing activities.
Academy of Management Journal
Contrasting survey administration. We sent a
second survey with a cover letter and a stamped
return envelope to each of the 53 champions who
indicated on the initial survey that he or she would
be willing to complete a second survey about a
different championing episode. The second survey
included only the items from part 1 of the first
survey; thus, we did not require champions to re-
iterate descriptive information about themselves
and their organizations. We asked champions who
completed their first survey while thinking about a
successful environmental championing episode to
complete a second survey while thinking about an
unsuccessful championing episode, and vice versa.
The purpose of this second survey was to provide
evidence that champions experience and distin-
guish successful and unsuccessful championing
episodes and that their behaviors in contrasting
episodes are different.
We received a total of 45 second surveys, 22 (49
percent) of which described a successful champi-
oning episode, and 23 (51 percent) of which de-
scribed an unsuccessful episode, for a response rate
of 85 percent. We performed paired t-tests to com-
pare the responses to the champions who com-
pleted two surveys. We found significant differ-
ences on all of the dependent measures, the
indicators of championing success. We also found
significant differences on all but two of the inde-
pendent survey measures (framing as an opportu-
nity/threat and use of rational persuasion as an
influence tactic), indicating that, for the most part,
individual champions reported different behaviors
in successful and unsuccessful championing epi-
sodes. These results exactly replicated what we
found when comparing the champions’ responses
to the first survey across successful and unsuccess-
ful championing episodes. Therefore, we assumed
that many champions had indeed experienced both
successful and unsuccessful championing episodes
and that their behaviors differed in the two epi-
sodes.
Semistructured interviews. A subset of 22 of the
environmental champions participated in 30- to
60-minute semistructured telephone interviews
concerning the details of their successful or unsuc-
cessful championing episodes. We based selection
of champions for interviews on their interest (as
indicated on the first survey) and on an attempt to
achieve a broad representation of environmental
issues. We interviewed 12 of the champions about
successful championing episodes and 10 about un-
successful episodes. We recorded and transcribed
all interviews verbatim.
We drew on studies of champions and issue
ford et al., 1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990) in the
creation of the interview questions. We asked the
champions to (1) describe their particular environ-
mental issues in detail, (2) describe some of the
things that they did to contribute to their success/
lack of success in championing the issues, (3) dis-
cuss any positive events and setbacks that occurred
while championing the issues, (4) explain any rea-
sons, beyond their efforts, as to why their compa-
nies took or wished to take action on the issues, (5)
describe any previous experience their companies
had with similar environmental issues, and (6)
comment on the overall supportiveness of their
companies in their championing efforts. We formu-
lated the interview questions and conducted the
interviews after reviewing the survey results; the
interview data were intended only to enhance un-
derstanding of the survey data and provide anec-
dotal evidence of the activities and organizational
factors involved in successful and unsuccessful en-
vironmental championing episodes.
Survey Measures
The survey measures consisted predominantly of
previously established and validated scales and
items.
Scanning behaviors. We measured scanning be-
havior frequency and number of scanning sources
using a scale based on the work of Culnan (1983).
We asked each champion to estimate the extent (1,
little or no extent, to 5, very great extent) to which
she or he used each of seven sources (such as li-
braries and environmental meetings or conven-
tions) to acquire external information about the
environmental issue championed. We computed
scanning frequency as the mean of the champion’s
responses on the seven items (a = .74) and the
number of scanning sources as the total number of
items in which the champion indicated a response
other than 1. Because we found the bivariate corre-
lation between scanning frequency and number of
scanning sources to be high (r = .90), we combined
the two variables into one composite measure by
multiplying the mean score for scanning frequency
by the number of scanning sources used.
Issue framing. We measured framing of environ-
mental issues using issue interpretation and assess-
ment scales developed by Dutton and colleagues
(1990) and Thomas and colleagues (1993), as well as
items developed specifically for this investigation.
First, we asked champions to indicate their relation-
ship with the person or people (superiors, peers, sub-
ordinates) targeted in their selling attempts. Next, we
asked them the extent (1, little or no extent, to 5, very
sponsors using similar methodologies (e.g., Ash-
556 August
great extent) to which they framed the environmental
Andersson and Bateman
issues in a particular manner. Each framing item be-
gan “In selling the environmental issue to key people
in your company, to what extent did you convey to
them that… ?”
We measured the framing dimension opportunity/
threat with 15 items (a = .88) developed by
Thomas and colleagues (1993). Examples include
“they would perceive that benefits would come
from the issue” and “the issue would have negative
implications for the future.” We reverse-scored 6 of
the items, with higher scores indicating framing the
issue as an opportunity.
We measured the dimension urgency using nine
items (a = .82) developed by Dutton and colleagues
(1990). Examples include “the issue was urgent”
and “they would feel responsible for bringing about
the issue.” We reverse-scored one of the items, with
higher scores indicating framing the issue as ur-
gent.
We measured the dimension local/global impact
with four items (a = .71) developed for this study.
Examples include “resolution of the issue would
have an impact on the local community” and “the
issue was an international problem.” We reverse-
scored two of the items, with higher scores indicat-
ing framing the issue as having local impact.
Issue presentation. We measured champions’
use of drama and emotion using two items (a =
.74). We asked champions to indicate, again on a
five-point Likert scale, the extent to which they
used (1) vivid, dramatic cases or stories and (2)
emotion-evoking language in presenting the issue
to key organization members. We gave brief exam-
ples with each item to illustrate the presentation
technique.
We measured champions’ use of metaphors us-
ing a single open-ended question. After we defined
the term “metaphor” and gave examples (for in-
stance, a company that repeatedly performs hostile
takeovers is known as a shark), we asked champi-
ons to provide any metaphors they used when pre-
senting the issue to others in the organization. We
coded use of metaphors either yes or no.
Influence behaviors. We measured influence be-
haviors using four subscales of the Influence Be-
havior Questionnaire (Yukl et al., 1993). Each of the
four subscales-rational persuasion (a = .81), con-
sultation (a = .86), coalition building (a = .80), and
inspirational appeal (a = .89)–consists of five, six,
or seven items. We asked champions to indicate
how often (1, never, to 5, very often) they used each
of the behaviors in selling the issue within their
companies. The following are sample items from
the agent (champion) version of the four subscales:
“provided evidence to show that your proposal or
“encouraged the person to express any concerns or
doubts about a plan or course of action you pro-
posed” (consultation), “brought somebody along to
support you when you met with the person to make
a request or proposal” (coalition building), and “ap-
pealed to the person’s values, ideals, and aspira-
tions when proposing an activity or project” (inspi-
rational appeal).
Open-ended questions. To gain additional in-
sight into the championing activities, we posed two
open-ended questions to the champions at the end
of part 1 of the survey. We asked them “Looking
back at your involvement in the issue, what were
the keys to your success (reasons for your lack of
success)?” and “What would you do differently?”
Corporate environmental paradigm. We gath-
ered information about the environmental para-
digm of champions’ organizations using a 2-item
measure (a = .85) of environmental reward system,
as well as the 14-item (a = .86) Business-Environ-
ment Scale (Shetzer, Stackman, & Moore, 1991), a
measure of attitudes concerning the role of busi-
ness organizations in the environmental move-
ment. We combined the two measures to represent
the corporate environmental paradigm (a = .88).
First, we asked champions the extent to which their
organizations (1) included environmental criteria
as part of the performance appraisal process and (2)
offered specific recognition or awards for environ-
mental efforts. Next, we asked champions to indi-
cate the extent to which top managers in their or-
ganizations would agree (1, strongly disagree, to 5,
strongly agree) with statements such as “Organiza-
tions need to spend more money on environmental
protection” and “Resources should not be devoted
to environmental protection because a firm’s prof-
itability will be threatened.” We reverse-scored 7 of
the Business-Environment Scale items, with higher
values indicating a stronger environmental para-
digm.
Indicators of championing success. As stated
earlier, we borrowed five indicators of champion
success from the literatures on strategic issues man-
agement and organizational innovation. These in-
dicators were all perceptual, reflecting the champi-
ons’ viewpoints on individual- and organization-
level activities.
We measured the two indicators of top manage-
ment attention-naming the issue and creation of a
task force devoted to the issue-using two items.
We asked each champion to indicate yes or no as to
whether (1) the environmental issue was given a
name or designated as a policy or program by key
organization members and (2) a task force or com-
mittee was established to tackle the issue (Dutton &
plan was likely to succeed” (rational persuasion),
2000 557
Ashford, 1993).
Academy of Management Journal
We assessed top management action on the envi-
ronmental issue using two indicators-the alloca-
tion of top management time and top management
money to the issue (Dutton et al., 1990). We asked
champions to indicate their agreement (1, strongly
disagree, to 5, strongly agree) with the following
statements: “I am convinced that top management
in my company contributed as much time as they
could to the environmental issue” and “I am con-
vinced that top management in my company con-
tributed as much money as they could to the envi-
ronmental issue.”
The final (and arguably the most important) in-
dicator of a successful environmental championing
episode-champion perception of success-was
apparent through champions’ responses to part 1 of
the survey, when we asked them to think about
episodes in which they were either successful or
unsuccessful in championing an environmental is-
sue. Each champion selected an episode perceived
to be successful or unsuccessful and answered the
questions accordingly.
To determine if perception of success could serve
as the primary and most representative dependent
variable, we ran a logistic regression analysis, re-
gressing the four secondary indicators of champi-
oning success on a champion’s perception of suc-
cess. The resulting model was significant (X2 =
62.86, p < .001, pseudo R2 = .39), revealing that
three of the secondary indicators-creation of a
task force (b = 1.10, p < .01), top management time
(b = 0.31, p < .05), and top management money
(b = 0.72, p < .001)-contributed significantly to
predicting champion perception of success. The
other secondary indicator, naming the issue (b =
0.68, p = .16), was not significant. Considering this
evidence, we considered champion perception of
success the primary dependent variable in the
study.
Hypothesis Testing
In our tests of the hypothesized relationships
between championing activities and the outcome of
a championing episode, the primary unit of analy-
sis was the championing episode. The aim of the
data analysis was to determine which championing
activities contributed to a successful championing
episode. Therefore, we performed multiple regres-
sion analyses, regressing the activities (indepen-
dent variables) on the indicators of a successful
episode (dependent variables). Because we pre-
dicted that the corporate environmental paradigm
would moderate the relationship between the ac-
tivities and success, we included interaction terms
For the three indicators of success consisting of
dichotomous categorical response choices (cham-
pion perception of success, naming the issue, and
creation of a task force), we employed logistic re-
gression analysis, rather than ordinary least squares
regression analysis (Stokes, Davis, & Koch, 1995).
We measured the other two indicators (top manage-
ment time and money) on five-point Likert-type
scales, thus treating them as continuous measures.
In those cases, we used least-squares estimation.
We used only the 132 initial champion surveys as
data in the statistical analyses.
Model specification and refinement. We speci-
fied and refined a number of regression models to
ensure the best possible representation of the data
(Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980; Berry & Feldman,
1985; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). First, we speci-
fied an omnibus regression model, regressing all
independent variables, interaction terms, and con-
trol variables on the primary dependent variable,
champion perception of success. This omnibus
model was used to test for the effects of the control
variables and to gain a preliminary understanding
of the effects of the championing activities on
championing success.
Next, we specified four separate multiple regres-
sion models, one for each of the conceptually dis-
tinct championing activities: identifying, packag-
ing (framing and presenting), and selling. Because
we were testing a new framework, the primary aim
of our research was to determine if each distinct
championing activity had any relationship to the
success of a championing episode. In developing
the framework and the associated hypotheses, we
made no predictions concerning the order of the
activities or relationships among them. Therefore,
we specified separate regression models for each of
the four championing activities on each of the five
indicators of success (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).
Finally, we performed multicollinearity diagnos-
tics to further hone the regression models by de-
tecting and eliminating unruly variables and inter-
action terms (Belsley et al., 1980; Berry & Feldman,
1985). The variables and interaction terms that met
multicollinearity criteria and were found to be non-
significant in previous regression runs (paradigm x
opportunity/threat, paradigm x metaphors, para-
digm x rational, paradigm x consultation, and par-
adigm x coalition) were removed from the models.
Interview and qualitative survey data. We con-
tent-analyzed the interview transcripts (n = 22)
and responses to the open-ended survey questions
(n = 132) using qualitative data analysis proce-
dures recommended by Strauss (1987). First, we
designated broad response categories to categorize
in the regression models.
558 August
champions’ responses to the open-ended survey
Andersson and Bateman
questions and interview questions. Next, two inde-
pendent coders (doctoral students) scanned the in-
terview transcripts and surveys, noting passages
relevant to each category by placing appropriate
codes in the margins. The coders achieved a 94
percent agreement rate. Using word-processing
software, we then sorted the passages by category
and arranged them from most to least concrete
within each category. Finally, we examined the
categorized data for the presence of patterns and
commonalities.
RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, and correlations
among the independent, contextual, and depen-
dent variables are shown in Table 1. As expected,
the correlations among the five dependent vari-
ables ranged from moderately high to high (r =
.55-.78). Furthermore, some of the correlations
among the various championing behaviors were
moderately high (r = .50-.63). However, none of
the correlations among the championing behaviors
exceeded the value of .70, obviating the need for
separate regression models (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1989). Because we employed rigorous methods of
model specification and multicollinearity detec-
tion, any potential problems posed by the correla-
tions were likely mitigated.
The results of the logistic and ordinary least
squares regression analyses used to test the hypoth-
eses are displayed in Tables 2 through 6 and de-
tailed below. The direct effects (Hypotheses 1-4d)
are discussed first and the interaction effects (Hy-
pothesis 5) are discussed last, with the qualitative
results integrated into the discussion where appro-
priate. Because our study is exploratory, and be-
cause we wish to prompt further research into po-
tentially important avenues, we discuss all effects
with a significance level at the .10 or better level.
As shown in the results of the omnibus regres-
sion analysis (Table 2), the only control variable
with even modest significance (p < .10) in predict-
ing champion success was a champion's tenure at a
company. However, tenure was not a significant
predictor of success when included in the separate
multiple regression models for each of the champi-
oning activities. Thus, none of the control variables
were included in the final separate regression anal-
yses (Tables 3-6).
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, use of scanning
behaviors increased the likelihood of a successful
championing episode. The results, shown in Table 3,
provide evidence that frequent scanning behaviors
and multiple sources increased the likelihood of
championing success as measured by all five indica-
tors of success. Champions indicated that industry
and environmental conferences (x = 3.59, s.d. = 1.05,
and x = 3.26, s.d. = 0.98) were the most frequently
used sources for identifying environmental issues,
with periodicals (k = 3.01, s.d. = 0.91) and consult-
ants (x = 2.97, s.d. = 0.98) used to a slightly lesser
extent.
In further support of Hypothesis 1, interviewed
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlationsa
Variableb Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Scanning behaviors 11.89 8.33 (.74)
2. Opportunity/threat 3.81 0.71 .05 (.88)
3. Urgency 3.00 0.85 .60 -.03 (.82)
4. Geographical impact 2.77 0.95 .44 .21 .55 (.71)
5. Drama and emotion 2.30 1.06 .52 .04 .55 .44 (.74)
6. Metaphors .25 .11 .33 .21 .30
7. Rational persuasion 3.73 0.72 .45 .13 .52 .43 .45 .24 (.81)
8. Inspirational appeal 3.30 1.00 .56 .20 .48 .50 .58 .26 .63 (.89)
9. Consultation 2.64 0.90 .29 -.23 .26 .21 .27 -.05 .36 .54 (.86)
10. Coalition building 3.09 0.84 .25 -.23 .40 .19 .31 -.02 .24 .40 .53 (.80)
11. Environment paradigm 3.21 0.99 .20 .08 .29 .20 .43 .12 .21 .31 .11 .19 (.88)
12. Naming of issue .35 .02 .35 .26 .22 .30 .15 .30 .16 .25 .24
13. Task force .39 .02 .38 .33 -.08 .25 .21 .34 .23 .30 .16 .55
14. Top management time 3.35 1.08 .46 -.04 .47 .21 -.15 .26 .17 .19 .21 .32 .31 .57 .64
15. Top management money 3.42 0.93 .41 -.08 .46 .25 .22 .14 .21 .21 .17 .31 .33 .60 .68 .78
16. Perception of success .39 -.06 .49 .32 -.13 .27 .18 .32 .11 .27 .24 .62 .65 .71 .73
a Coefficient alphas are reported, where appropriate, in the parentheses on the diagonals. n = 132. Correlations with an absolute value
greater than .17 are significant at p < .05. b The correlations involving dichotomous variables (variables 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16) are point biserial correlations or phi coefficients; all
others are Pearson product-moment statistics.
2000 559
Academy of Management Journal
TABLE 2
Results of Logistic Regression Analysis for All
Variables on Champion Perception of Successa
Variables and Parameters b s.e.
Control variables
Company size -0.38 0.39
Company industry 0.02 0.04
Champion department 0.55 0.68
Champion tenure at company 0.03* 0.02
Champion age -0.06 0.04
Champion gender 0.27 0.68
Championing behaviors
Scanning behaviors 2.54* 1.24
Opportunity/threat 0.14 0.53
Urgency 1.02* 0.46
Local/global impact 1.57′ 0.96
Drama and emotion -0.34 0.74
Metaphors 0.33 0.38
Rational persuasion 0.81 0.70
Consultation 0.13 0.20
Coalition building 0.33* 0.14
Inspirational appeal 0.82* 0.60
Organizational context
Environmental paradigm 0.01 0.66
Paradigm x scanning 0.61 0.75
Paradigm x urgency 0.03 0.10
Paradigm x local/global -0.16 0.12
Paradigm x drama 0.38* 0.18
Paradigm X inspirational 0.27* 0.13
Constant 5.06* 6.71
X2 73.91***
df 22
Pseudo R2 .45
Percentage correctly classified 89
a n = 131. Champion perception of success was coded 0 for
unsuccessful and 1 for successful.
t p < .10 * p < .05
** p < .001
champions reported such activities as “gathered
resources from national and state environmental
groups” and “carefully researched and reviewed
every option for dealing with the issue” as keys to
their success. One champion directly attributed his
success to the 11 months he spent researching the
intricacies of hazardous waste reduction by “talk-
ing with environmental engineers and environmen-
tal consultants all over the country” and “reading
everything [I] could dealing with hazardous
waste.” Likewise, when prodded for reasons for
their lack of success, champions stated that they
“failed to do background research on the problem”
and “did not adequately evaluate all the various
concerns in carrying out [the environmental pro-
gram].”
framing environmental issues (Hypotheses 2a-2c)
are shown in Table 4.
Hypothesis 2a predicts that framing an issue as
an opportunity rather than as a threat will increase
the likelihood of a successful environmental cham-
pioning episode. However, in none of the regres-
sion models was opportunity/threat a significant
(p < .05) predictor of the outcome of a champion-
ing episode. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was not sup-
ported.
Most champions, whether successful or unsuc-
cessful, tended to frame issues as opportunities (x
= 3.81, s.d. = 0.82). However, the qualitative re-
sults indicate strongly that, in successful episodes,
champions framed the environmental issues as fi-
nancial opportunities, conveying to others that act-
ing on the issues would help their companies to
meet financial objectives, such as profit, efficiency,
or cost savings. Furthermore, in discussing unsuc-
cessful episodes, champions repeatedly cited fail-
ure to emphasize the beneficial financial aspects of
the environmental issues as a reason for their lack
of success. Thus, although framing an issue as a
general opportunity did not empirically distin-
guish successful episodes from unsuccessful epi-
sodes, the qualitative results suggest that successful
champions were more likely than unsuccessful
champions to frame issues as financial opportuni-
ties:
I emphasized that buying the new equipment was a
win-win situation by focusing on the profits it
would bring to us as well as the good deed that we
were doing for the environment.
I showed upper-level management why the program
would be in their best interest, that it presented an
opportunity … rather than a problem. Most of all, I
emphasized that it made good business sense in that
it would bring us dollars.
As predicted in Hypothesis 2b, framing an issue
as urgent increased the likelihood of success, as
measured by all five indicators. Moreover, many
interviewed champions who were not successful
mentioned their inability or failure to spark feel-
ings of urgency as a prime cause of their lack of
success. One champion remarked that if she could
relive her championing experience, she “would
definitely do a better job of putting a fire under the
issue.”
Hypothesis 2c predicts that framing an issue as
having local impact will increase the likelihood of
a successful championing episode. Results reveal
that framing an issue as local increased the likeli-
hood of champion perception of success and cre-
ation of a task force. In the other three models, the The results of the regression analyses pertinent to
560 August
TABLE 3
Results of Logistic and OLS Regression Analyses for Identifying Environmental Issuesa
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Model 5:
Perception Naming Creation of a Top Management Top Management
Variables and Parametersb of Success the Issue Task Force Time Money
Scanning behaviors 0.28** 0.15* 0.39*** 0.04* 0.15*
Paradigm x scanning 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
Constant 1.77*** 1.56* 1.95*** 2.24*** 2.61***
x2 (F) 32.56*** 22.76*** 33.75*** 16.61*** 15.87***
df 2 2 2 2,128 2,128
Pseudo R2 (R2) .21 .12 .25 .23 .20
Percentage correctly classified (Adjusted R2) 77 71 80 .22 .19
a Analyses tested Hypothesis 1.
b Parameters in parentheses refer to OLS regression analysis (models 4 and 5).
* p < .05 ** p < .01
** p < .001
TABLE 4
Results of Logistic and OLS Regression Analyses for Framing Environmental Issuesa
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Model 5:
Perception Naming Creation of a Top Management Top Management
Variables and Parametersb of Success the Issue Task Force Time Money
Opportunity/threat 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.17 0.16
Urgency 2.66** 1.15′ 1.15* 0.56* 0.73*
Local/global impact 1.15* 0.53 0.45t 0.07 0.07
Paradigm x urgency 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.01
Paradigm x local/global -0.08 0.13 0.03 0.03 -0.00
Constant 6.34*** 6.08** 4.28** 1.53* 1.34*
x2 (F) 46.79*** 40.62*** 28.88*** 16.67*** 12.33***
df 5 5 5 5,125 5,125
Pseudo R2 (R2) .32 .27 .24 .40 .33
Percentage correctly classified (Adjusted R2) 82 81 75 .38 .30
a Analyses tested Hypothesis 2.
b Parameters in parentheses refer to OLS regression analysis (models 4 and 5).
+ p < .10 *p < .05
** p < .01 ** p < .001
beta coefficients for local/global impact were not
significant.
In addition to the three hypothesized framing di-
mensions, framing an issue as simple was mentioned
by several champions as a key to championing suc-
cess. One champion stated emphatically that, while
leading an initiative to develop an environmentally
safe process for cleaning high-tech products, “The
only way I could get top management to really listen
was reduce my sales pitch to the idiot level.” Another
complained that the environmental issue he was
championing “was so technical that it was impossible
to explain to upper-level management” and that he
“toned it down quite a bit, substituted the technical
jargon with understandable business terminology.”
Other framing dimensions mentioned by champions
as contributing to success included framing an issue
as relevant to company values, as cutting-edge, and as
good publicity.
The results concerning Hypotheses 3a-3b are
shown in Table 5. Hypothesis 3a speculates that
use of drama and emotion will increase the likeli-
hood of a successful championing episode. In none
of the regression models was use of drama and
emotion a significant (p < .10) predictor of the
outcome of a championing episode, and, in a ma-
Andersson and Bateman 2000 561
Academy of Management Journal
TABLE 5
Results of Logistic and OLS Regression Analyses for Presenting Environmental Issuesa
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Model 5:
Perception Naming Creation of a Top Management Top Management
Variables and Parametersb of Success the Issue Task Force Time Money
Drama and emotion -0.54 0.18 -0.52 -0.42 0.01
Metaphors 1.00* 1.30** 0.97* 0.32 0.10
Paradigm x drama 0.66* 0.04 0.41* 0.64** 0.03
Constant 2.38*** 0.65* 1.98** 1.98*** 2.76***
X2 (F) 29.34*** 20.54*** 19.33*** 20.88*** 13.22***
df 3 3 3 3,127 3,127
Pseudo R2 (R2) .19 .20 .17 .33 .17
Percentage correctly classified (Adjusted R2) 79 73 74 .32 .16
a Analyses tested Hypothesis 3.
b Parameters in parentheses refer to OLS regression analysis (models 4 and 5).
* p < .05 ** p < .01
*** p < .001
jority of the models, the nonsignificant effects were
not in the hypothesized direction.
In accordance with these findings, none of the
interviewed champions mentioned dramatic and
emotional testimony as contributing to their suc-
cess. In fact, several champions attributed their
success to use of formal and businesslike rather
than dramatic and emotional language. For exam-
ple, one champion mentioned that he “used the
right business jargon to get [my] point across,” and
another claimed that only through formally written
memos and correspondence would his superiors
pay attention to him.
In support of Hypothesis 3b, use of metaphor in
presenting an environmental issue increased the like-
lihood of a success as measured by three of the five
indicators. However, use of metaphor did not predict
success in the omnibus regression model. Some par-
ticularly powerful, meaningful, and clear metaphors
were used by successful champions in presenting
environmental issues. The champion of a program
called People Against Waste, for example, used the
acronym PAW and a logo showing a tiger attacking
waste with his oversized paw. Another champion,
when presenting his issue to top management, por-
trayed state legislators as Lilliputians, referring to the
way that the legislators “tie companies down” with
their many rules. One young champion even used a
metaphorical theme song-Talking Heads’ “Burning
Down the House”-to tout the virtues of building a
kiln incinerator to dispose of waste in-house rather
than at a county landfill.
The results of the analyses testing Hypotheses
4a-4d are shown in Table 6. The selling targets of
the champions were predominantly (98 percent)
their superiors.
Rational persuasion, although the most frequently
used influence tactic, did not significantly predict
championing success, so Hypothesis 4a was not sup-
ported. Champions who experienced successful epi-
sodes and those who experienced unsuccessful epi-
sodes were equally highly inclined (x = 3.77, s.d. =
0.85 and x = 3.69, s.d. = 0.95) to use rational persua-
sion to sell their environmental issues. Nonetheless,
the use of logical, crafted arguments and factual evi-
dence was mentioned frequently in the interviews by
successful champions. For example, a champion who
successfully launched a hazardous waste reduction
initiative commented that he “made a strong presen-
tation of my business plan, complete with snazzy
overheads charting monthly waste reduction and cost
savings, to every department in the company.” A
champion of alternative energy sources declared that
he was successful because he “presented a detailed
plan with realistic goals.” A number of champions
also related selling their issues by using “hard facts”
and pointing out successes in similar companies.
Hypothesis 4b was not supported. Use of consul-
tation as an influence tactic did not contribute sig-
nificantly to predicting the outcome of a champi-
oning episode in any of the regression models.
Furthermore, paired t-tests revealed that responses
on the consultation measure by champions and
coworkers differed significantly (x = 2.64, s.d. =
0.90 vs. x = 2.01, s.d. = 1.11, p < .01), thereby
indicating that champions and coworkers dis-
agreed on the amount of participation in formulat-
ing and planning the initiative that the champions
solicited from selling targets.
In support of Hypothesis 4c, use of coalition
building increased the likelihood of championing
success, as measured by four of the five indicators
August 562
Andersson and Bateman
TABLE 6
Results of Logistic and OLS Regression Analyses for Selling Environmental Issuesa
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4: Model 5:
Perception Naming Creation of a Top Management Top Management
Variables and Parametersb of Success the Issue Task Force Time Money
Rational persuasion 0.48 0.15 0.30 0.12 0.03
Consultation 0.25 0.48 0.06 0.07 0.02
Coalition building 0.02 0.81* 0.55* 0.33** 0.28*
Inspirational appeal 0.75* 1.57** 0.41* 0.10 0.39
Paradigm x inspirational 0.52* 0.09 0.01 0.04*** 0.02*
Constant 3.48** 2.60* 3.71** 0.75* 0.86′
X2 (F) 29.85*** 39.12*** 22.59** 18.04*** 10.06**
df 5 5 5 5,125 5,125
Pseudo R2 (R2) .25 .26 .23 .42 .29
Percentage correctly classified (Adjusted R2) 75 80 73 .40 .26
a Analyses tested Hypothesis 4.
b Parameters in parentheses refer to OLS regression analysis (models 4 and 5).
t p < .10 * p < .05
**p < .01 ** p < .001
and as demonstrated in the omnibus model as well.
Strong support for coalition building was also
shown by the qualitative results:
I brought together a strong task force consisting of
knowledgeable individuals such as developers and
environmentalists to help me with my presentation
of the initiative. Two of the developers and one of
the environmentalists actually came to the presen-
tation and answered the questions that [the CEO and
CFO] had that I couldn’t answer. With them there, I
had more credibility . . . more legitimacy.
The best thing I did was find a championing partner.
Just having two people instead of one made people
pay attention. [The championing partner] was able
to play the straight man to my jokes … he not only
helped me out, but he made the whole project a hell
of a lot more fun.
Consistent with Hypothesis 4d, inspirational ap-
peal increased the likelihood of championing suc-
cess, as measured by three of the indicators. In the
interviews, only a few successful champions com-
mented on their ability to inspire others when sell-
ing the environmental issue. Unsuccessful champi-
ons, however, repeatedly cited failure to inspire
others as a reason for their lack of success and as an
activity they would incorporate into future cham-
pioning attempts. One unsuccessful champion
complained that, if given the chance to do it differ-
ently, he would “spend more time inspiring the
conservative, antienvironmental types in the com-
pany to believe that the natural environment is not
just a liberal ‘Al Gore’ issue.”
In the interviews, champions also mentioned using
two other influence behaviors, exchange and pres-
sure. Several successful and unsuccessful champions
described scenarios in which they bargained with
their selling targets, offering to assist them on other
company projects or provide positive publicity
for them if the environmental effort proved to be a
success. Furthermore, two unsuccessful champions
described situations in which they pressured their
selling targets by frequently “bothering them” and
threatening to leave their jobs.
One aspect of issue selling not associated with
influence behaviors was considered to be critically
important by champions-the timing of selling ac-
tivities. Of all the reasons champions mentioned as
contributing to their success or lack of success,
timing of their action on the issues was mentioned
most frequently. Unsuccessful champions, in par-
ticular, cited poor timing as the main reason for
their lack of success: “I timed things very poorly,”
“I didn’t act within the one- to two-year time win-
dow in which we could have obtained the permits
and purchased the unit at a reasonable cost,” and “I
tried to push the program too soon.” Moreover, if
given the opportunity to champion their issues
again, unsuccessful champions would “get in-
volved in promoting the issue earlier” and “follow
up sooner and set more rigid time lines.” Success-
ful champions lauded themselves on their ability to
time their selling activities, noting that they “acted
quickly and decisively,” “timed things perfectly,”
and “knew when to ask for help and money and
when not to ask.”
Hypothesis 5 predicts that an organization’s en-
2000 563
Academy of Management Journal
vironmental paradigm will moderate the relation-
ship between the championing activities and the
outcome of a championing episode. The results of
the tests of this hypothesis are revealed by exam-
ining the beta coefficients of the interaction terms
in the models presented in Tables 2 through 6.
Use of drama and emotion was significantly as-
sociated with an increased likelihood of champion-
ing success only when the environmental paradigm
of an organization was strong, as shown in Tables 2
and 5. Similarly, inspirational appeal was a signif-
icant (p < .05) predictor of several indicators of
championing success when the paradigm was
strong, as shown in Tables 2 and 6. Corporate en-
vironmental paradigm did not affect any of the
other championing behaviors in predicting cham-
pioning success.
The qualitative data suggest that other features of
the organizational context not measured on the sur-
vey may have affected the championing activities
and thus altered the likelihood of championing
success. For example, the presence of external pres-
sures such as impending regulation and industry
competition was said to enhance a champion’s abil-
ity to frame an issue as urgent. Of the 22 champions
interviewed, 8 stated that their companies acted on
issues not only because of their efforts, but because
of external pressures such as regulation or compet-
itive advantage, and 7 of those 8 made remarks
such as “I conveyed pressure to meet the legislative
deadline” or “I told [top management] that we had
to act quickly to beat the competition to the mar-
ket.”
In addition, champions cited resistant colleagues
as impediments to their efforts. Successful and un-
successful champions mentioned the presence of
antagonists in their companies, and some described
altering their championing behaviors to woo and
ultimately win them over. One champion blamed
his inability to sell his issue on “a bunch of stub-
born Texans” in the top management ranks of his
company; another stated that “one of the key play-
ers had a different agenda, and I basically had to
‘suck up’ to get him to buy in.”
DISCUSSION
This research provides evidence that each of
the proposed championing activities-identify-
ing, packaging (framing and presenting), and sell-
ing-contributes to the success of an environ-
mental championing episode. Champions of
environmental issues who were successful in
their endeavors exhibited specific behaviors as-
sociated with each of the activities, and they
degree than did champions who were not unsuc-
cessful. A revised framework for championing
natural environmental issues, shown in Figure 2,
is offered to depict the quantitative and qualita-
tive findings.
The qualitative results revealed factors in addi-
tion to those in Figure 1 contributing to successful
environmental championing episodes. For exam-
ple, selling environmental issues may not simply
be a matter of performing certain influence behav-
iors, but may also require accurately timing those
behaviors. These findings support those of Ashford
and colleagues (1991) and Egri (1995), who found
that the appropriate timing of issue selling was
associated with success in sponsoring controversial
organizational issues. Some successful environ-
mental champions apparently created their own
“good timing”: by framing an issue as urgent, suc-
cessful champions pronounced that it was time for
the targets to act on the issue.
The qualitative results concerning issue framing
provided insights that went beyond the statistical
findings on urgency and local/global impact.
Champions cited framing environmental issues in
other ways-as simple, cutting-edge, relevant to
corporate values, and good publicity-as reasons
for their championing success. Moreover, although
the quantitative results suggested that most cham-
pions, whether successful or unsuccessful, framed
their issues as opportunities, the qualitative results
revealed that framing an environmental issue as a
financial opportunity may be one of the keys to a
successful championing episode. Not surprisingly,
previous theory and research on issue sponsorship
acknowledges this specificity regarding conveying
an opportunity: framing an issue as having a high
financial payoff has been associated with issue-
selling success (Ashford et al., 1991; Dutton & Ash-
ford, 1993). Thus, one universal blueprint for fram-
ing environmental issues cannot be drawn. Each
champion must create a unique frame for his or her
issue by first emphasizing the financial opportuni-
ties it offers and then creating a mosaic of framing
dimensions tailored to the distinctive features of
the issue and the context of the organization.
Championing an Environmental Issue Like Any
Other Business Issue
Is championing environmental issues any differ-
ent from championing other “hot” organizational
issues? This research did not make such a compar-
ison, and thus it is not possible here to answer the
question conclusively. The results do imply, how-
ever, that champions of environmental issues are
exhibited many of these behaviors to a greater
564 August
more successful in their efforts when they cham-
Andersson and Bateman
FIGURE 2
Revised Framework for Championing Natural Environmental Issues
Potential Envinnmimenvtal
Issues Facing Business
Championing Activities Indicators of a Successful
Championing Episode
Idettifyiug Envi onl ental Issues
* Scanning behaviors -I
Packsaging EnviazmnIAntal Issues
* Issue framing
Financial opportunity, urgent, local
impact, simple, relevant to company
values, cutting-edge, good publicity
* Issue presentation
Drama and emotion, formal and
businesslike, metaphors
Selling Environmental Issues
* Influence behaviors
Rational persuasion, coalition,
inspirational appeal, exchange,
pressure
* Timing of selling
pion their issues like “any other business issue.” In
other words, successful environmental champions
usually-except when the environmental para-
digms of their organizations are strong-tend to
downplay the “hotness” of their issues, instead re-
lying on formal business language and familiar pro-
tocol. This finding parallels previous research sug-
gesting that the issues that attract support in
business organizations are those that are concrete,
formally presented, and congruent with strategic
direction (e.g., Ashford et al., 1991; Dutton & Ash-
ford, 1993).
For example, presenting an environmental issue
using formal and businesslike language rather than
impassioned environmental rhetoric was more of-
ten associated with championing success. This
finding contradicts theory from the literatures on
social problems and environmental psychology,
which suggests that controversial issues (including
environmental issues) should be presented with
dramatic and emotional language and images (e.g.,
Rappaport & Dillon, 1991; Stem, 1992). These lit-
eratures, however, focus on selling issues to the
general public rather than to executives in business
organizations (Stern, 1992). In a business setting,
where emotional restraint is expected (Rafaeli &
Sutton, 1991), using dramatic stories and emotional
language may be considered inappropriate and in-
effective.
I
/A
Top Manatgment Attention
* Naming issue as program/policy
* Creation of task force devoted to issue
Top ManageAmAnt Action
* Allocation of time to issue
* Allocation of money to issue
Champion Perception
* Successful vs. unsuccessful initiative
Internal and External Context
* Corporate environmental paradigm (+)
* Regulatory requirements (+)
* Competitive pressures (+)
* Presence of antagonists (-)
Other findings from this research reflect champi-
ons’ success with a businesslike approach. Suc-
cessful champions scanned the business environ-
ment, collecting information on their issues from
sources such as industry and environmental con-
ferences, environmental consultants, and competi-
tors. They framed their environmental issues as
financial opportunities and described them in jar-
gon and metaphors widely used and accepted in
the business world (for instance, win-win solution,
cutting-edge, team player). Further, most champi-
ons, successful and unsuccessful alike, used ratio-
nal persuasion in attempts to convince higher-ups
of the merits of their issues. Broadly considered,
these findings suggest the possibility that champi-
oning environmental issues is not fundamentally
different from championing other types of organi-
zational issues, at least in business organizations
without strong environmental paradigms.
Rationality versus the Soft Touch
For the most part, the rational and soft influence
tactics demonstrated in previous research (e.g.,
Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl &
Tracey, 1992) to be most effective for upward in-
fluence attempts and gaining top management sup-
port for new initiatives were the tactics used most
often by environmental champions. Most environ-
. -1
I
.
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1!
2000 565
1
Academy of Management Journal
mental champions, whether successful or unsuc-
cessful, used rational persuasion in selling their
issues to key superiors. As described earlier, this
finding corresponds with the general tendency of
champions in this study to adhere to business lan-
guage and protocol in their championing efforts.
Interestingly, the results did not support the
premise that frequent use of rational persuasion is
critical to success in championing a complex and
technical issue such as an environmental issue
(Howell & Higgins, 1990). Rather, the manner in
which rational persuasion was practiced seemed to
be critical (Frost & Egri, 1991).
Successful environmental championing episodes
were characterized by the use of two of the softer
influence tactics: coalition building and inspira-
tional appeal. Successful champions strongly
voiced their perception that enlisting the aid or
endorsement of others gave them added credibility
and legitimacy during selling attempts. On the
other hand, successful champions were hesitant to
credit inspirational appeal as a key to their success.
Ironically, the champions who were not successful
were the most vocal concerning the use of inspira-
tional appeal; unsuccessful champions repeatedly
mentioned failure to inspire others as a major rea-
son for their demise. Possibly, successful champi-
ons took their inspirational behaviors for granted or
were too modest to commend themselves on this
more visionary and visceral aspect of championing.
Another soft tactic, consultation, was used less
often by champions and did not predict champion-
ing success. Perhaps champions were unsure of
how to get top management involved in their ini-
tiative, or perhaps they felt that these managers
lacked the environmental knowledge to play a con-
sultative role (Newman & Breeden, 1992). Future
research should more closely examine champion
use of consultation, as well as the use of harder
influence tactics such as pressure, exchange, and
sanctions.
The Importance of Context
Although the contextual variables influencing
the environmental championing process were not
the primary focus of this investigation, the impor-
tance of context was highlighted in several in-
stances. Use of drama and emotion in presenting an
issue, for example, contributed to success only
when an organization had a strong environmental
paradigm. Likewise, the effectiveness of inspira-
tional appeal in selling an issue was enhanced
when the paradigm was strong. These more overt
championing behaviors may betray a passion for
or even extremist in organizations that do not rec-
ognize environmental issues as important. Conse-
quently, champions employing these behaviors
were successful only when the paradigms were
supportive of environmental concerns (Shrivas-
tava, 1995). It is also possible that champions as-
sessed their organizations’ environmental para-
digms and decided whether or not to use these
behaviors (Ashford et al., 1995).
The qualitative results concerning the effects of
antagonists and external pressures such as regula-
tion and competition on the environmental cham-
pioning process provide promising avenues for
future research. Although this study did not for-
mally test for these effects, some champions cited
impending environmental regulation, competitive
advantage, and resistant colleagues as stimuli or
impediments to their efforts. Regulation and com-
petition seemed to help foster a sense of urgency,
aiding champions in their efforts to gain recogni-
tion and acceptance for issues. Antagonists pro-
vided an added impetus for action, challenging
champions to use more aggressive selling behav-
iors. These findings complement research on the
role of competitive and regulatory pressures (e.g.,
Post & Altman, 1992; Winn, 1995) and antagonists
(Markham et al., 1991) in environmental issue sell-
ing and championing.
IMPLICATIONS
Contributions
This research provides a first examination of the
process of championing environmental issues. We
have offered a new operational definition of the gen-
eral championing process and built a framework for
championing environmental issues, thereby contrib-
uting to the fields of organizational innovation, issues
management, corporate environmental management,
psychology of global environmental change, and so-
cial influence.
Complementing champion research focusing on
the personality traits and leadership behaviors of
champions (e.g., Howell & Higgins, 1990; Maidique,
1980; Schon, 1963), this research helps to fill a void
in the organizational innovation literature by de-
veloping and empirically testing an integrative def-
inition of the championing process. Moreover, the
methodology used in this research, comparing suc-
cessful and unsuccessful championing episodes,
offers a useful means of researching championing
and provides evidence that champions experience
and are willing to describe both success and failure
in their endeavors.
This research extends the work of Dutton and her
566 August
the environment that could be viewed as eccentric
Andersson and Bateman
colleagues (e.g., Ashford et al., 1995; Dutton, 1993;
Dutton & Ashford, 1993), advancing the understand-
ing of how sponsors bring issues to a strategic agenda.
Specifically, this research provides strong empirical
evidence for much of the conceptual work on pack-
aging and selling hot organizational issues, testing
part of the Dutton and Ashford (1993) issue-selling
framework and revealing complexities that parallel
those found in other research by those authors (e.g.,
Ashford et al., 1991). Furthermore, this research syn-
thesizes previous research on innovation champions
and issue sponsors, offering a new perspective on the
issue-sponsoring process.
For the emerging field of corporate environmental
management, this research explains a micro-level
process that organizations can use to achieve environ-
mental change (Johannson, 1992; Post & Altman,
1992; Stern, 1992). In particular, the research helps
explain how individuals can be the instruments for
change as organizations incorporate environmental
issues into their overall corporate strategies. Further,
this research reinforces the notion that organizations
have environmental paradigms that affect the way
that environmental issues are interpreted and acted
upon (Purser et al., 1995; Shrivastava, 1995). More-
over, this research suggests that, depending on an
organization’s environmental paradigm, environmen-
tal issues might best be brought to the table much like
any other business issue, and not presented with dra-
matic and impassioned pleas.
The diverse fields of work on the psychology of
global environmental change and social influence
in organizations also gain from this research. We
help to explain how individual actions can affect
global environmental change by showing how in-
dividuals help business organizations to under-
stand and act on environmental issues (Stern,
1992). Further, this research touches upon the im-
portant questions “What makes an environmental
issue sellable?” and “How can personal values and
behaviors be changed to prevent further environ-
mental destruction?” Finally, the present research
enriches the body of work on social influence in
organizations by validating and elaborating prior
findings concerning tactics used in influencing su-
periors (Yukl et al., 1993; Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
The primary benefit of this research for managers
in business organizations is the information it pro-
vides on how individuals can help decision makers
to recognize and take action on issues in the in-
creasingly important domain of the natural envi-
ronment. Any employee can become an environ-
mental champion, and thus it is important for
managers to encourage those employees who have
tal issues to channel this passion or interest in a
way that benefits the organization.
Potential and actual environmental champions
may also benefit from this research. Broadly con-
strued, these findings offer guidance on how to
identify, package, and sell environmental issues in
business organizations. Champions may be well
advised to recognize, however, that there is no sin-
gle formula for successfully championing environ-
mental issues. It is important that champions read
the signals concerning organizational context and
determine which championing behaviors are best
suited for their own issues and organizations.
With regard to specific behavioral recommenda-
tions, it is critical that environmental champions
find the right time to champion. Alternatively,
champions can create their own right time by mak-
ing others aware that their issues are urgent. Cham-
pions can also do their homework by collecting
background research on their issues, attending con-
ferences related to them, and discussing the issues
with colleagues inside and outside of their organi-
zations. In packaging issues for other employees, a
champion should possibly forgo theatrics (unless
the relevant organization’s environmental para-
digm is strong) and present the environmental is-
sue like any other business issue, emphasizing its
financial impact and using formal and businesslike
language and protocol. Furthermore, in trying to
influence superiors to take action on the issue, a
champion may appeal to their aspirations and ideals
by creating a vision of what the environmental pro-
gram or innovation could bring. In doing so, the
champion should build coalitions of respected em-
ployees to assist the effort. Above all, it is vital that
the champion recognize that championing environ-
mental issues is a challenging pursuit, one that can as
easily result in failure as in success.
Limitations and Future Research
Our use of retrospective, cross-sectional data
rather than longitudinal data precluded examining
the temporal order and relationships among the
championing activities as well as the causal rela-
tionships between each of the activities and cham-
pioning success. Moderately high correlations were
found among some of the championing behaviors,
signaling potential relationships that were not ex-
amined. Further, the use of self-report data in ex-
amining the championing process and outcomes
created the potential for common method variance
and social desirability problems. In addition, the
nonrandom identification and selection of champi-
ons based on peer recommendation and publicized
2000 567
a passion for or a technical interest in environmen-
Academy of Management Journal
successful environmental programs or innovations
could inhibit generalizability.
Study results, however, provide evidence that
lessen some of the methodological concerns. Cowork-
ers of champions completed a survey assessing cham-
pions’ behaviors, and the results indicated that
champions provided valid assessments of their cham-
pioning episodes. Additionally, a number of champi-
ons completed a second survey describing a contrast-
ing championing episode. Thus, through design,
measurement, and statistical techniques, the impact
of social desirability and common method variance
were somewhat alleviated. Moreover, the results sur-
rounding champions’ success in championing envi-
ronmental issues as they would other business issues
suggest that the championing framework tested in
this investigation may be generalizable to other types
of champions and issues.
Future research is necessary to remedy the short-
comings and build on the findings of the present
research. Longitudinal studies, in particular, are
needed to clarify the chronological order, the order
of importance, and the relationships among the
three primary championing activities. It is possible
that certain championing behaviors are performed
only in conjunction with others and that some be-
haviors are more important than others in deter-
mining championing success. Studies using alter-
native means of measuring championing behaviors,
organizational contextual features, and champion-
ing success, such as content analysis of corporate
documents, field observation, and in-depth inter-
views, would also be beneficial.
Future research should also focus on organiza-
tional contextual influences on championing envi-
ronmental issues, as they are likely to be numerous
and varied. One recommended research idea is to
examine the championing of a single type of environ-
mental issue in a variety of contexts (varying regula-
tory conditions, for instance) to determine how the
context affects the selection of championing behav-
iors and the likelihood of championing success.
Does a successful environmental championing
episode necessarily translate into a successful en-
vironmental program or innovation? This research
examined championing success, not program or in-
novation success, as the dependent variable; the
success of an environmental championing episode
may also be examined as an independent variable
influencing the success of an environmental pro-
gram or innovation. Subsequently, the success of
an environmental program or innovation may in-
fluence future environmental championing epi-
sodes involving related and other environmental
issues. These are important areas for future re-
Additionally, studies examining and comparing
environmental champions themselves are recom-
mended. Do environmental champions of differing
organizational statuses use different championing
behaviors? Studies exploring episodes involving
multiple champions and how their behaviors may
detract from and complement one another would
also be important. Furthermore, studies investigat-
ing the point at which the champion role ends and
the project/program leader role begins would be
particularly helpful in understanding not only the
championing, but also the implementation, of an
environmental program or innovation.
Finally, future research should be performed not
only on the championing of environmental issues,
but also on the factors besides championing that lead
to a successful environmental program or innovation.
No doubt many factors beyond individual initiative
coalesce to create successful environmental programs
and innovations in business organizations.
REFERENCES
Ashford, S. J., Dutton, J., & O’Neill, R. 1991. Moves from
the middle: Profiles of middle managers’ success-
ful and unsuccessful issue selling to top manage-
ment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Miami.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton,
J. E. 1995. Out on a limb: The role of context and
impression management in issue selling. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Vancouver.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. 1980. Regression
diagnostics. New York: Wiley.
Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. 1985. Multiple regression in
practice (Sage University Paper Series on Quantita-
tive Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-50). Lon-
don and Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bowman, J. S., & Davis, C. 1989. Industry and the envi-
ronment: Chief executive officer attitudes, 1976 and
1986. Environmental Management, 13: 243-249.
Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E. 1980. A new ecological
paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American
Behavioral Scientist, 24: 15-47.
Culnan, M. J. 1983. Environmental scanning: The effects
of task complexity and source accessibility on infor-
mation gathering behavior. Decision Sciences, 14:
194-206.
Dutton, J. E. 1993. The making of organizational oppor-
tunities: An interpretive pathway to organizational
change. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 15: 195-
226. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
search.
568 August
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top
Andersson and Bateman
management. Academy of Management Review,
18: 397-428.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic
issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of
Management Review, 12: 76-90.
Dutton, J. E., Stumpf, S., & Wagner, D. 1990. Diagnosing
strategic issues and managerial investment of reve-
nues. In P. Shrivastava & R. Lamb (Eds.), Advances
in strategic management, vol. 6: 143-167. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press.
Dutton, J. E., Walton, E., & Abrahamson, E. 1989. Impor-
tant dimensions of strategic issues: Separating the
wheat from the chaff. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 26: 379-396.
Egri, C. P. 1995. The politics of an innovation in public
policy: The development of organic food regula-
tions in British Columbia. Working paper, Simon
Fraser University.
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. 1992. Consequences for managers
of using single influence tactics and combinations of
tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 638-
652.
Frost, P. J., & Egri, C. P. 1991. The political process of
innovation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13: 229-
295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ginsberg, A., & Abrahamson, E. 1991. Champions of
change and strategic shifts: The role of internal and
external change advocates. Journal of Management
Studies, 28: 173-190.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. 1995. Shifting
paradigms for sustainable development: Implica-
tions for management theory and research. Academy
of Management Review, 20: 874-907.
Goitein, B. 1989. Organizational decision-making and
energy conservation investments. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 12: 143-151.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. 1995. The determinants of
firms that formulate environmental plans. In D. Col-
lins & M. Starik (Eds.), Research in corporate social
performance and policy, supplement 1: 67-97.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of tech-
nological innovation. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 35: 317-341.
Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1998. Champi-
ons of product innovations: Defining, developing, and
validating a measure of champion strength. Academy
of Management Best Paper Proceedings: Technology
and Information Management (TIM): B1-B6.
Hume, S. 1991. The green revolution: McDonald’s. Ad-
vertising Age, 62(5): 32.
Johannson, L. 1992. Environmental leadership: Who are
the TQEM champions? Total Quality Environmen-
Kessler, E. H., & Chakrabarti, A. K. 1996. Innovation
speed: A conceptual model of context, antecedents
and outcomes. Academy of Management Review,
21: 1143-1191.
Maidique, M. A. 1980. Entrepreneurs, champions, and
technological innovation. Sloan Management Re-
view, 21(2): 59-76.
Markham, S. K., Green, S. G., & Basu, R. 1991. Champi-
ons and antagonists: Relationships with R&D project
characteristics and management. Journal of Engi-
neering and Technology Management, 8: 217-242.
Mazen, A. M., Graf, L. A., Kellogg, C. E., & Hemmasi, M.
1987. Statistical power in contemporary manage-
ment research. Academy of Management Journal,
30: 369-380.
McLaughlin, A. 1993. Regarding nature. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Meima, R. 1994. What do you mean, “paradigm?” Ex-
ploring the fragmented world of environmental
meaning and practice through the analysis of lin-
guistic artifacts. Paper presented at the Third Inter-
national Research Conference of the Greening of In-
dustry Network, Copenhagen.
Morrison, C. 1991. Managing environmental affairs:
Corporate practices in the U.S., Canada and Eu-
rope. New York: Conference Board.
Newman, J. C., & Breeden, K. M. 1992. Managing in the
environmental era: Lessons from environmental
leaders. Columbia Journal of World Business, 27(3
& 4): 210-221.
Nielson, S. L., & Saranson, I. G. 1981. Emotion, person-
ality, and selective attention. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 41: 945-960.
Pinchot, G., III. 1985. Intrapreneuring. New York:
Harper & Row.
Post, J. E., & Altman, B. W. 1992. Models of corporate
greening: How corporate social policy and organiza-
tional learning inform leading-edge environmental
management. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corpo-
rate social performance and policy, vol. 13: 3-30.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. 1995. Limits to
anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organiza-
tion paradigm? Academy of Management Review,
20: 1053-1089.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1991. Emotional contrast strat-
egies as means of social influence: Lessons from
criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy
of Management Journal, 34: 749-775.
Rappaport, A., & Dillon, P. 1991. Private-sector environ-
mental decision making. In R. A. Chechile & S. Car-
lisle (Eds.), Environmental decision making: A
multidisciplinary perspective: 238-268. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Rice, F. 1993. Who scores best on the environment? For-
tal Management, Autumn: 119-123.
2000 569
tune, July 26: 114-122.
Academy of Management Journal
Roberts, E. B., & Fusfeld, A. C. 1981. Critical function:
Needed roles in the innovation process. In R. Katz
(Ed.), Career issues in human resource manage-
ment: 182-207. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sackmann, S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization
transformation. Human Relations, 42: 463-485.
Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing course: A global busi-
ness perspective on development and the environ-
ment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schon, D. A. 1963. Champions for radical new inven-
tions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2): 77-86.
Sharma, S. 1997. A longitudinal investigation of corpo-
rate environmental responsiveness: Antecedents and
outcomes. Academy of Management Best Paper
Proceedings: 460-464.
Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. 1991. Busi-
ness-environment attitudes and the new environ-
mental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Educa-
tion, 22(4): 14-21.
Shrivastava, P. 1995. Ecocentric management for a risk
society. Academy of Management Review, 20:
118-137.
Sjoberg, L. 1989. Global change and human action: Psy-
chological perspectives. International Social Sci-
ence Journal, 41: 413-432.
Spector, P. E. 1994. Using self-report questionnaires in
OB research: A comment on the use of a controver-
sial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15: 385-392.
Starik, M. 1995. Research on organizations and the nat-
ural environment: Some paths we have traveled, the
“field” ahead. In D. Collins & M. Starik (Eds.), Re-
search in corporate social performance and policy,
supplement 1: 1-41. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. 1995. Weaving an integrated
web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of
ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20: 908-935.
Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. 1992. Management for a
small planet: Strategic decision making and the
environment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Stern, P. 1992. Psychological dimensions of global envi-
ronmental change. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W.
Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 43:
269-302. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. G. 1995. Categor-
ical data analysis using the SAS system. Cary, NC:
SAS Institute.
Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social sci-
entists. London: Cambridge University Press.
Swap, W. C. 1991. Psychological factors in environmen-
tal decision making: Social dilemmas. In R. A.
Chechile & S. Carlisle (Eds.), Environmental deci-
sion making: A multidisciplinary perspective: 14-
37. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1989. Using multivar-
iate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.
Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Strategic
sensemaking and organizational performance: Link-
ages among scanning, interpretation, action, and out-
comes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 239-
270.
Throop, G. M., Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. 1993. Sustain-
able strategy in a greening world: Integrating the
natural environment into strategic management. In
P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances
in strategic management, vol. 9: 63-92. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Tsoukas, H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational
view of metaphors in organizational science. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 16: 566-585.
Winn, M. 1995. Corporate leadership and policies for the
natural environment. In D. Collins & M. Starik (Eds.),
Research in corporate social performance and pol-
icy, supplement 1: 127-161. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Winsemius, P., & Guntram, U. 1992. Responding to the
environmental challenge. Business Horizons, 35(2):
12-20.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. 1993. Patterns of
influence behavior for managers. Group and Orga-
nization Management, 18: 5-28.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. 1992. Consequences of influence
tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 525-535.
Lynne M. Andersson is an assistant professor of human
resource management at Temple University’s Fox School
of Business. She received her Ph.D. from the Kenan-
Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Her research interests focus on individual
attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, particularly
those of a deviant nature and those related to pressing
business-society issues.
Thomas S. Bateman is a chaired professor at the McIntire
School of Commerce, University of Virginia. He earned
his doctorate in organizational behavior from Indiana
University. His current research interests include mana-
gerial goal hierarchies, proactive employee behavior, and
intrinsic motivation.
570 August
- Article Contents
- Issue Table of Contents
p. 548
p. 549
p. 550
p. 551
p. 552
p. 553
p. 554
p. 555
p. 556
p. 557
p. 558
p. 559
p. 560
p. 561
p. 562
p. 563
p. 564
p. 565
p. 566
p. 567
p. 568
p. 569
p. 570
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Aug., 2000), pp. 529-789
Front Matter [pp. 529 – 737]
Special Research Forum on the Management of Organizations in the Natural Environment
From the Editors [pp. 535 – 537]
Introduction to the Special Research forum on the Management of Organizations in the Natural Environment: A Field Emerging from Multiple Paths, with Many Challenges Ahead [pp. 539 – 546]
Individual Environmental Initiative: Championing Natural Environmental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations [pp. 548 – 570]
Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their Organizations [pp. 571 – 604]
The Roles of Supervisory Support Behaviors and Environmental Policy in Employee “Ecoinitiatives” at Leading-Edge European Companies [pp. 605 – 626]
Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S. Environmental Managers: Applying Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior [pp. 627 – 641]
Environmental Ethical Decision Making in the U.S. Metal-Finishing Industry [pp. 642 – 662]
Effects of “Best Practices” of Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of Complementary Assets [pp. 663 – 680]
Managerial Interpretations and Organizational Context as Predictors of Corporate Choice of Environmental Strategy [pp. 681 – 697]
Industry Self-Regulation without Sanctions: The Chemical Industry’s Responsible Care Program [pp. 698 – 716]
Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness [pp. 717 – 736]
Research Notes
Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships [pp. 738 – 748]
Human Resource Strategy and Career Mobility in Professional Service Firms: A Test of an Options-Based Model [pp. 749 – 760]
The Roles of Departmental and Position Power in Job Evaluation [pp. 761 – 771]
Performance and Satisfaction in Conflicted Interdependent Groups: When and How Does Self-Esteem Make a Difference? [pp. 772 – 782]
Errata [p. 783]
Back Matter [pp. 784 – 789]