Legitimizing unsustainable practices: The institutional logics of pro‐pesticide organizations

Abstract

AbstractThe objective of this study is to analyze the institutional logics underlying pesticide use and the resistance displayed by organizations in this sector against social pressures to reduce the use of these substances. This in‐depth study of a public hearing on pesticides set up by the National Assembly of Quebec (Canada) in 2019 shows the often very strong positions held by the relevant stakeholders and how they legitimize their positions. The qualitative content analysis of 77 briefs and 30 testimonies highlights five main institutional logics that contribute to the institutionalization of pesticide use despite the strong opposition it generates: the economic and strategic logic, the regulatory and administrative logic, the tailored advice and support logic, the research and innovation logic, and the traditional, rural and pragmatic logic. These logics show how the objectives, belief systems, and practices shared by pro‐pesticide organizations can hold sway, including over public bodies that are a priori independent but tend to play a buffering and facilitating role in the use of these controversial products. This article contributes to the literature on institutional logics and corporate sustainability by showing how some of these logics can contribute to the continuation of unsustainable practices over time. The article also contributes to the often highly technical literature on the use and impacts of pesticides by proposing an institutional approach that provides an overall picture of the positions of several interdependent organizations and how their underlying belief systems influence practices. Practical implications and avenues for future research are also discussed.