| Abstract: | The environmental management and policy literature presents competing arguments for and against different styles of environmental regulations – command‐and‐control versus flexible regulations that enable voluntary actions. On the one hand, it is argued that firms will not adopt minimum environmental standards without command‐and‐control regulations and that such regulations may actually result in competitive benefits for first movers. On the other hand, the literature argues that command‐and‐control regulations stifle innovation and that flexible regulations encourage proactive environmental strategies that lead to competitive benefits for organizations. This study compared the environmental strategies and competitiveness of oil and gas firms in two different regulatory contexts – the command‐and‐control based US environmental regulations and the flexible collaborative Canadian context. The study found no significant differences in the degree to which firms within the two contexts were more or less proactive in their environmental strategies or in the extent of competitiveness associated with corporate environmental strategies. Follow‐up interviews with 12 Canadian and US companies indicated that regulations appeared to be more important drivers of corporate environmental practices at initial stages and eventually other external and internal drivers became more important influences on corporate environmental strategies. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment |
