The purpose of this paper is to investigate how different actors influenced the implementation of an environmental management system (EMS) and a performance measurement system (PMS) in a case company when the systems are eventually integrated. Another purpose is to illustrate how the frameworks of Gibson and Earley and Lovaglia et al. can be utilized to investigate the implementation of different management systems in practice.
This paper is an interpretative case study, which utilizes qualitative methods such as semi‐structured interviews and internal documents.
The results indicate the importance of maintaining a separation between the power and status of an actor in EMS and PMS implementation processes, and the ways in which the power and status of actors in the EMS and PMS implementation differed. The status and role of an actor can change although the power may be static during the implementation of different management systems. Therefore, the paper confirms the classification of Lovaglia et al. and proposes that their classification should be added to the framework of Gibson and Earley.
Earlier accounting studies using the institutional theory framework of Burns and Scapens did not specifically investigate the role of actors, or their power and status in implementing two different management systems. The collective action frameworks of Gibson and Earley and Lovaglia et al. have not been practically utilized before in EMS and PMS studies. Furthermore, EMS and PMS integration studies have usually been normative without empirical case data.
