The connection between environmental protection policy and practice may be seen in the concept of “network organizations,” which describes the structures that monitor the involvement of businesses in long-term initiatives like environmental preservation. Furthermore, “network organizations” describes the broader setting where individuals form groups and make plans to accomplish shared goals (Derr, 2021). Their functions, procedures, and structures characterize them. Network organizations have a common control structure that includes intangible and specialized assets. They also stress shared ownership to provide efficient, effective, scalable integrated communication and support. Network organizations combine features of both as intermediaries between the two extremes of market disaggregation and vertical integration (Derr, 2021). Many network architectures exist today, each with distinguishing features, such as being relatively stable, relatively fluid, and having internally labeled nodes.
In contrast to the more common contingent and transaction cost analysts, ecologists and institutionalists question the idea that organizations’ fundamental structures are easily modifiable (Scott & Davis, 2016). These ecologists and institutionalists argue that organizations are static, unmovable structures. Organizational changes are seen as challenging, rare, and possibly detrimental to a company’s viability. There is some disagreement among ecologists on how much emphasis should be placed on “external” factors when analyzing the origin, development, and death of organizations (Scott & Davis, 2016). While evolutionary models may be used at any scale, the vast majority of research has focused on the population level. Businesses that are similar in the structure are grouped together into populations. The ability to explain organizational variety is a basic tenet of evolutionary theories. One component of diversity is the capacity of individual entities to change throughout time. Networks have developed through a process called differential environmental selection, wherein groups are favored for survival based on how well they match the features of the environment in which they operate (Scott & Davis, 2016). The evolutionary analysis emphasizes three distinct processes: the generation of uniqueness, the favoring of certain forms over others, and the maintenance and spread of the favored ones (Scott & Davis, 2016). First, the organizations are established through diversity, which arises from some mechanism, whether deliberate or accidental. They progressed to the next level of formation as a result of differential survival rates. As an organization reaches its third stage of formation, it is replicated so that it may continue to exist. The ecological viewpoint is grounded on a natural systems approach that prioritizes continued existence and an open model that places a premium on the significance of ecological context (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Environmental Areas and Impacts
Ecological Processes
The ecological process that requires knowledge and information resources is beneficial to firms or organizations operating within a network. In this instance, networks are critical vectors for disseminating both the old and the new data. In other words, companies that are part of a network have recourse to tools and data that they would not have otherwise. Because necessary information is easily accessible, businesses are better able to adapt to environmental changes, such as those brought on by fluctuating client needs (Migrator, 2020). Two distinct organizational survival strategies are outlined by ecologists. The specialized approach can only handle so much variance in its context. To take a generalist stance, one must be able to reproduce and survive in a wide range of settings. In spite of unfavorable environmental shifts, businesses may continue to function. These two factors work together to create an environment where businesses may thrive.
Being well connected may have both positive and negative consequences for businesses. While organizational networks have several advantages, they also pose potential constraints for those who participate in them. For instance, partners may be stuck in inefficient networks despite the fact that they may benefit from entering other ones. Organizational effectiveness in the network, as well as output and contribution to the industry, will be impacted. It is possible that the organization’s allies will also betray it by telling the enemy crucial information. Because of this, they are unable to gain a long-term edge in the market (Migrator, 2020). It is also possible that the company will begin to use substandard procedures. Inculcating such beliefs and norms may have a negative effect on organizational performance because they undermine the foundation upon which the organization is built.
Institutions as regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive
Stability and purpose in social life are provided by the cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative features of institutions and the accompanying activities and resources they entail (Scott & Davis, 2016). There is an emphasis on the normative qualities of institutions as regulatory systems. The regulatory perspective on institutions holds that coercion is a primary strategy for achieving compliance (Burdon & Sorour, 2019). Normative systems, such as institutions, give a moral compass for how members of a society should behave (Scott & Davis, 2016). Participants in normative systems act in accordance with their own internalized conceptions of what is right and what is expected of them in terms of their social obligations to others. This perspective of institutions as a cultural-cognitive system links with “the new institutionalism in organizational analysis” (Scott & Davis, 2016). The hyphenated term highlights the fact that they are referring to a combination of their own mental constructions and universally understood concepts. At the intermediate level, where the influences of general social norms and field-specific norms and beliefs are being studied, institutional notions are having the greatest impact on the study of organizations (Scott & Davis, 2016). According to intellectuals, businesses compete as technological tools built in accordance with the rules of economics. People tend to see corporations as embodiments of logical rather than cultural beliefs. The study of “organizational fields” has recently been a popular method for delving deeper into the dynamics of organizations. Institutionalized meanings provide a framework for the collaborative activity of a field’s broad population of organizations and the partners that help and limit them (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Organizational Populations
The term “organizational populations” refers to groups of organizations that are similar in some way. Newspapers and higher education institutions are two examples of organizational populations (Scott & Davis, 2016). When defining organizations, organizational ecologists argue that the “blueprint for organizational action, for transforming inputs into outputs,” is the most relevant concept. Early forms of organizations were characterized based on their genetic architecture (Hsu & Hannan, 2019). The presence of a shared organizational form, in which individuals are located at a certain time and place, is the primary identifier of a population. The issue of how to define populations inside organizations is one that has been studied extensively, and several strategies have been proposed. The first strategy involves making use of a “native” common-sense category, such as medical facilities or educational institutions. Organizational formations are also seen as dynamic and evolving throughout time (Hsu & Hannan, 2019). Several empirical studies of organizational populations have simply used everyday usages of the term “population” to define the entities under study. The inertial aspects of an organization’s shape make it probable that it will continue to exhibit characteristics that were there when it first emerged. Structure-wise, there are commonalities across the kinds of organizations that flourish throughout a particular epoch. Inertia, or reluctance to change, is seen by some ecologists as a natural condition for institutions. By the turn of the century, businesses were structured with specialized divisions for different tasks, such as sales and marketing, manufacturing, R&D, and finance. The diversification strategy, used by more and more businesses in the 1920s and 1930s, is often regarded as the most important organizational innovation of the twentieth century (Lopes et al., 2018).
Technological Change
Companies often undergo change in a slow, steady way, following an incremental model of development. At times of fast and discontinuous change, often known as “punctuated equilibrium,” some theorists think that new institutions and populations emerge (Scott & Davis, 2016). The emergence of new technologies was a primary factor in the emergence of novel business structures and economic sectors. Subsequent researchers expanded their understanding to differentiate between technological advances that increase the competence of current participants and those that decrease it. Destructive innovations are more often linked to the emergence of new forms of organization (Schoultz, 2019).
Creating open organizations
While discussing the many definitions of entrepreneurship, the act of creating a new business is often highlighted. Several elements, like “need for achievement” and “risk-taking propensity,” were studied in the past to better understand how entrepreneurs think and feel while creating new organizations. Recent research by economists and sociologists has emphasized the significance of founders’ social networks and environments (Bryant, 2019). Researchers in economics and sociology came to the conclusion that there is no one equal playground when it comes to launching a new corporation. They discovered significant differences in both the structure of opportunities and their ability to use them.da Silva identified three components of context: relationships, information, and material support (Lopes et al., 2019). While people’s social networks might seem quite different from one another, having a diverse set of connections is essential for gaining access to information (Scott & Davis, 2016). Possessing both strong and weak bonds is beneficial. One’s IQ, years of experience in the workforce, and level of formal education all have a role in shaping one’s level of knowledge, which is both an individual and a societal variable. Decision-making, communication, coordination, specialization, information exchange, and management are all influenced by the structure of an organization, which in turn affects the organization’s health and performance (Greenwald, 2019). Several proponents of evolutionary and learning theories stress the fact that many novel ideas prove to be unsuccessful. While establishing a new business, you may encounter several barriers and setbacks. Businesses often use the pioneering efforts of others to their own advantage (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Biblical and personal perspectives
Relationships with nature are commended in the Bible. God tells Adam and Eve to “till and keep” the Garden of Eden, meaning that they should be good stewards of the earth even while they use its resources (Genesis 2:25). The Bible encourages teamwork, which is important to modern network companies. Proverbs 15:22 says that without input from others, plans are doomed to fail, but with numerous advisors, the opposite is true. When we combine our knowledge, resources, and efforts, we get a deeper understanding of the environmental process and are better equipped to effect positive change. Network organizations, in the real world, may aid in lowering our environmental footprint by encouraging collaboration between various groups. Organizations may improve their ability to combat climate change and lower their overall carbon footprints by working together. Network groups may also collaborate with governments and communities to build environmentally and economically sound strategies for sustainable development. In general, network groups are a wonderful tool to unite individuals and aid the cause of environmental protection. By pooling resources and knowledge, we can come up with novel approaches to environmental preservation and sustainable growth.
Conclusion
It has been established in this paper that several network structures exist. Some businesses may benefit from these networks, while others might suffer. Moreover, the networks have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of a business. The rising consequences of industrialization on people’s health highlight the need for organizations and businesses to prioritize social and environmental preservation. The rules and regulations enacted to safeguard the environment should be followed by all organizations. Cultures of environmental conservation should be encouraged and supported by institutions. The internal regulations put in place to protect the natural world may help with this. These measures, notwithstanding their potential negative effects on environmental protection, are necessary to ensure human safety in the face of potential threats to the environment.
References
Bryant. (2019). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences | ScienceDirect. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from http://www.sciencedirect.com:5070/referencework/9780080970875/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences
Burdon, W. M., & Sorour, M. K. (2019). Institutional Theory and Evolution of “A Legitimate” Compliance Culture: The Case of the UK Financial Service Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3981-4
Carroll, & Hannan. (2019). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences | ScienceDirect. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from http://www.sciencedirect.com:5070/referencework/9780080970875/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences
da Silva Lopes, T., Casson, M., & Jones, G. (2018, June 11). Organizational innovation in the multinational enterprise: Internalization theory and business history. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(8), 1338–1358. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0156-6
Derr, A. (2021, January 20). Types of Organizational Networks: 6 Ways to Organize a Network. Visible Network Labs. https://visiblenetworklabs.com/2021/01/20/types-of-organizational-networks/
Greenwald. (2019). Communication and Decision Making (Vol. 21). Sage Books. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329635
Hsu, & Hannan. (2019). Identities, Genres, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science , 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0151
KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV). (2018). Kingjamesbibleonline.org. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
Migrator. (2020, January 1). How changing market conditions can affect your business. Nibusinessinfo.co.uk. https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/how-changing-market-conditions-can-affect-your-business
Schoultz, B. (2019). Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY PERSPECTIVES TOWARD SUCCESS IN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/ORGANIZATIONAL_THEORY_PERSPECTIVES_TOWARD_SUCCESS_IN_DYNAMIC_ENVIRONMENTS_%28IA_organizationalth1094561264%29.pdf
W Richard Scott, & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open System Perspectives. Routledge.
write