Title of Dissertation: national renewable energy policy

Issue fields for change 

---

52 
Since the concept of an organizational field has not been very clear, a recent study 
suggested a systematic classification of organizational fields.
79
They recommended using 
two different types of fields: 
exchange field
and 
issue field
. Exchange fields refer to the 
fields including a class of actors, which are alike in some respect, and their exchange 
partners. It is consistent with the traditional concept of an organizational field. Issue 
fields comprise of actors from multiple exchange fields, which participate in the fields to 
affect a specific issue. Zietsma and colleagues suggested the necessity of considering 
issue fields differently from exchange fields because the effects of issue fields on 
institutional process are different from those of exchange fields.
Hoffman suggested the initial idea of issue fields by arguing that organizational 
fields form around a central issue rather than a technology or market.
80
His study 
empirically showed that issue field is “the center of common channels of dialogue,” 
where organizations interpret and negotiate issue. O’Sullivan and O’Dwyer advanced 
Hoffman’s concept of issue field and suggested a theory of issue field structuration.
81
Through the case analysis of commercial banks’ environmental and social risk 
management guidelines, they suggested that issue fields evolve based on the 
infrastructure of matured exchange fields that the actors of issue fields are in. Their 
model consists of three phases. First, the central actors of existing field enlist the logic of 
the field relevant the issue and reconstruct it to serve the logic of challengers. Second, the 
79
Zietsma, Charlene, Peter Groenewegen, Danielle Logue, and Cr Hinings. "Field or 
fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields." 
Academy of Management Annals
(2016).
80
Hoffman, Andrew J. "Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the 
US chemical industry." 
Academy of Management Journal
42, no. 4 (1999): 351-371.
81
O’Sullivan, Niamh, and Brendan O’Dwyer. "The structuration of issue-based fields: 
Social accountability, social movements and the Equator Principles issue-based field." 
Accounting, Organizations and Society
43 (2015): 33-55. 

---

53 
central actors use their networks and channels to diffuse the reconstructed logic. Finally, 
issue field is shaped clearly with more participants and interactions between them. 
The model of O’Sullivan and O’Dwyer emphasized the role of central actors from 
existing exchange fields. On the other hand, Van Wijk and colleagues suggested that 
collaboration between incumbents and independent activists change organizational fields 
under challenge.
82
Through the case study of sustainable tourism, they contended that the 
multiple actors shape social structure that they can co-create, and this “confluence of 
cultural and relational structuration” generates a tipping point for change. The actors’ 
agency for field changes has showed inconsistent results even in the studies of exchange 
fields. Some studies suggested that changes are initiated by low status organizations, 
while other studies found that high-status organizations initiated institutional changes.
83
In an issue field, the other difficulty to find out who leads field change is that it is 
not clear who are central actors since actors are from multiple fields. Moreover, the 
competition in an issue field can influence the hierarchies of related exchange fields. In 
this case, the hierarchies of exchange fields become less clear. Thus, it is harder to find 
out the power relations in an issue field as well as exchange fields.
82
Van Wijk, Jakomijn, Wouter Stam, Tom Elfring, Charlene Zietsma, and Frank Den 
Hond. "Activists and incumbents structuring change: The interplay of agency, culture, 
and networks in field evolution."