Title:
Business innovation and regulatory enforcement:
case studies of the big box retail industry and enforcement of RCRA
Business innovation and regulatory enforcement:
case studies of the big box retail industry and enforcement of RCRA
| dc.contributor.advisor | Kingsley, Gordon | |
| dc.contributor.author | Guard, Misty Ann | en_US |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Barke, Richard | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Breznitz, Shiri | |
| dc.contributor.department | Public Policy | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-10T16:59:07Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2010-06-10T16:59:07Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-04-15 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this research is to examine the following research question: how has enforcement of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) adapted to the Big Box business system innovation? Additionally, the study explored the possible nature of regulatory choke points that may emerge from the enforcement of RCRA in the Big Box retail system. This study used contingency theory to establish a foundation for analysis of the Big Box business system innovation through identification of structural elements, external influences, and their subsequent interactions associated with the Big Box retail system in terms of environmental compliance with the RCRA enforced by the United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This research employed an embedded comparative case study design using the comparison of two Big Box firms, Walmart Stores, Inc. and Target Corporation, nationally and for the following states with opposing enforcement strategies: Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas. The data used was obtained from third-party federal or firm-maintained sources. Findings indicate Walmart adheres to the structural models developed using contingency theory principles and incurs more impacts from regulatory agencies due to the enforcement of RCRA. Furthermore, it was observed that inspections of the firms are not distributed throughout the organizational structural elements by all states. Additionally, the use of different enforcement strategies resulted in the emergence of regulatory choke points by Arizona, Kentucky, and Texas; however, Missouri appears to balance enforcement without causing a regulatory choke point. This research has identified that the enforcement of RCRA has not universally adapted to the demands of the Big Box business system innovation. Agency implications, firm implications, directions for further research, and continued development of a regulatory choke point theory are discussed. | en_US |
| dc.description.degree | M.S. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1853/33940 | |
| dc.publisher | Georgia Institute of Technology | en_US |
| dc.subject | Walmart | en_US |
| dc.subject | Wal-mart | en_US |
| dc.subject | Target | en_US |
| dc.subject | Regulations | en_US |
| dc.subject | RCRA | en_US |
| dc.subject | Hazardous waste | en_US |
| dc.subject | Big box | en_US |
| dc.subject | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | en_US |
| dc.subject | Enforcement | en_US |
| dc.subject | Universal waste | en_US |
| dc.subject | EPA | en_US |
| dc.subject | Contingency theory | en_US |
| dc.subject | Business innovation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Regulatory | en_US |
| dc.subject | US | en_US |
| dc.subject | Environmental Protection Agency | en_US |
| dc.subject | Inspections | en_US |
| dc.subject | Monitoring | en_US |
| dc.subject | Organizational | en_US |
| dc.subject | Retail industry | en_US |
| dc.subject | Choke points | en_US |
| dc.subject | Regulatory choke points | en_US |
| dc.subject | Low enforcement | en_US |
| dc.subject | High enforcement | en_US |
| dc.subject | Organizations | en_US |
| dc.subject | Environment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Texas | en_US |
| dc.subject | Arizona | en_US |
| dc.subject | Missouri | en_US |
| dc.subject | Kentucky | en_US |
| dc.subject | Environmental | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Discount houses (Retail trade) | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | United States. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Conservation of natural resources United States | |
| dc.title | Business innovation and regulatory enforcement: case studies of the big box retail industry and enforcement of RCRA | en_US |
| dc.type | Text | |
| dc.type.genre | Thesis | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| local.contributor.advisor | Kingsley, Gordon | |
| local.contributor.corporatename | School of Public Policy | |
| local.contributor.corporatename | Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts | |
| relation.isAdvisorOfPublication | 9101fe59-5aaa-4d7c-8c0b-fc97c0083af3 | |
| relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication | a3789037-aec2-41bb-9888-1a95104b7f8c | |
| relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication | b1049ff1-5166-442c-9e14-ad804b064e38 |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
- Name:
- guard_misty_a_201005_mast.pdf
- Size:
- 1.14 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description: