This study addresses the longstanding ambiguity in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) research regarding the effectiveness of institutional pressures. Using two decades of empirical evidence, it benchmarks how coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures influenced environmental practices during the pre-2019 foundational period. We provide a baseline for theory and policy development, and for evaluating how sustainability drivers and actions evolve amid the post-2019 disruptions.
Using the Schmidt and Hunter (2015) meta-analysis approach, we synthesize findings from 47 empirical studies, yielding a cumulative sample of 9,622 firm-level observations and 30,840 firm-level pressure-practice pairings. We examine relationships at the aggregate practice-category level (e.g. internal and external practices) and the fully disaggregated pressure-practice pair level.
Normative pressures appear as the strongest and most consistent associations with environmental practice. Mimetic pressures, while weaker, meaningfully support selective adoption, highlighting the strategic role of competitive imitation. Coercive pressures show little to no effect on specific practices. Exploratory moderator analyses reveal substantial contextual heterogeneity, with economy type (developed vs. emerging) and temporal shifts (pre- vs. post-Paris Agreement) shaping observed relationships.
This study offers the first comprehensive meta-analytic benchmark of institutional pressures on environmental practices during the pre-disruption era. By systematically disaggregating and reconsolidating pressures and practices, we clarify longstanding inconsistencies, highlight context-specific dynamics and establish a critical baseline for evaluating how sustainability drivers may change under new global disruptions and rising regulatory and societal expectations.
