Inkoom, E and Leiringer, R (2016) Governance units as interstitial organizations: The role of governance organizations in the development and establishment of building environmental assessment methods (beam). In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Green Building has been touted as the future of building construction. However its emergence, due to the fluidity of the green building concept, is sometimes fraught with power struggles in the debate over which standards and practices to be adopted. With the emergence of BEAMs, much hope has been put on their associated third-party certification organizations to help forge a common ground for green building adoption. These organizations are boundary spanning, involving both public and private entities, and traversing multiple professional jurisdictions and organizational fields. Despite wielding much influence in the development, establishment and promotion of BEAMs, the authority and legitimacy of governance organizations are being questioned as to whose interest they serve, and whether they promote realistic green building practices. We argue that the establishment of governance organizations, whether they are the collective creation of industry actors or are imposed and controlled by powerful actors, influence their authority and acceptance as legitimate custodians for BEAMs. Drawing on the field theory proposed by Fligstein and McAdam (2012) and the concept of interstitial emergence, we explore the emergence and establishment of governance organizations for BEAMS in the building industry. We conceptualize governance organizations as emerging in interstices between various organizational fields, and explain how various resources are mobilized to carve a legitimate social space for their operations. Situated in an interstitial space, battle for control of interstitial organizations is inevitable as actors constantly jostle for position and engage in various strategic actions aimed at promoting practices that advance their interest. The argument put forward is illustrated by providing a narrative discourse of the nexus of events leading to the establishment of the HK-Green Building Council and the HK-BEAM Society. The paper concludes by highlighting the difference in legitimacy between governance organizations which are imposed and those created through collective action.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | field theory; interstitial emergence; green building; building environmental assessment methods |
| Index terms: | emergence, legitimacy, green building, beam, building industry, collective action, narrative, jurisdiction, boundary spanning, drawing, building environmental assessment, building construction, society, certification, promotion, governance |
| Subjects: | business, legal systems, technical documentation, qualitative and interpretive research, structural engineering, sustainability assessment, management, design practice, industry analysis, administrative processes, communities and social development, systems engineering, sociology, building construction |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Sustainability, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here