'It's the community, stupid!', write Tal Simons, Patrick Vermeulen and Joris Knobe

Knoben, Joris

Simons, Tal

Vermeulen, Patrick

LSE Research Online

6/21/2016How small bars resist smoking bans in the Netherlandsblogs.lse.ac.uk /businessreview/2016/06/21/how-small-bars-resist-smoking-bans-in-the-netherlands/We all know that smoking is bad for you. Yet, smoking regulation remains contentious on the basis of endangeringindividual rights, their discriminatory potential, and, notably, due to economic considerations. Smoking bans are partof a larger agenda of tobacco control focusing on health issues and involving, on one side, various activist groupswhose interests are often aligned with those of the state as a powerful ally, and on the opposing side the tobaccofirms as well as various organizations such as bars. This ongoing contention results in smoking bans being difficultto implement. In our study we focus on the resistance to smoking bans by small bars in the Netherlands. Weinvestigate how small bars engaged the state in a David-versus-Goliath scenario, in order to overturn the smokingban and avert the economic hardship they expected to incur resulting from it.As mentioned, fiercely opposing the new smoking regulations were small bar owners who joined the lead resistanceassociation: the ‘Save the Small Bars’ (SSB) Foundation. However, the campaign against the smoking ban was notonly framed in economic terms focusing on the economic hardships, but significantly it also centred on the bansconceivably undermining the bars’ ‘community function’: “A small bar in Holland has a social function and what youare doing is that you rip that out of the society through this stupid law” (co-founder of SSB). The bars’ social functionin their communities is further illustrated by a patron stating that “I come here for the gezelligheid (literally, sociabilityand conviviality). If all smokers go outside I will be here all by myself. I have asked the bar owner if my friends couldplease smoke again.”Clearly, bars play an important role in defining the identities of groups, communities and societies, and in definingthe relationship between individuals and the wider social context. And as such, bars perform an important socialfunction in local communities.  However, it can be expected that communities differ and, resulting from that, in someregions in the Netherlands resistance was much fiercer compared to other regions (see Figure 1).Figure 1. Save the Small Bars Foundation’s membership by region1/5Taking into account the characteristics of communities, specifically their social cohesion, we focused on the strugglebetween the state and small businesses. We found strong support for the prediction that the communities’ socialcohesion (as expressed in their residential stability and in the sense of identification of residents with the collective)matter and influence local organizations’ actions above and beyond a multitude of other factors. It can thus beconcluded that the level of resistance from small powerless organizations is determined by that, i.e., thecommunity’s overall social endowment as well as its specific local economic features, which we control for.In our case, local communities could facilitate, support and even stimulate the resistance of small bar ownersagainst a powerful actor. We showed that community cohesion is a multidimensional construct that consists of theresidential stability fostering a latent relational infrastructure in the community, and kinship, which generates a senseof belonging and care for the community. Further, a highly cohesive community has boundaries that are less open orreceptive to external information, ideas, and values, and we show that in such cases the effect of resistance inneighbouring communities is weaker. It is important to note that we distinguished between the ‘physical permeability’of a community boundary, which means that the likelihood of ideas to be ‘physically carried in’ is reduced due tolesser movement of residents across shared boundaries, and the ‘cognitive permeability’ of a community boundary,which refers to the strong sense of belonging to a particular community and the accompanying normative frameworkthat limits the utilization of ideas, norms and values from beyond the community’s boundary.2/5The bars’ successful action reveals a case in which the state was unsuccessful in imposing regulations on smallbusiness organizations due to strong community forces. Our case is especially noteworthy given that theorganizations in question are not giant businesses with very deep pockets and throngs of lobbyists. Theorganizations considered are small bars, owner-run establishments. As described above, they were able tochallenge the regulations and prevailed (see also Table 1). It is indeed the interrelation among the bars and theircohesive, supportive community that provides the foundation for these powerless organizations to resist stateregulations.With the enforcement of strong governmental pressures that are seen as harmful to members of a community (thesmall bars), the social cohesion of a community might be even further increased and offers relatively powerlessactors strong arms to oppose a regulatory force. This outcome provides additional support to the idea that the socialcontext matters and when an organization, however small, serves an important social function in its community andjoins forces with other, similar, organizations in its immediate environment, it may have the ability to exert power andinfluence above and beyond its net economic contribution and/or value even in the face of strong institutionalpressures.Table 1. Bar owners’ responsesResponse Motivation/actions Representative quotesResistance Economic reasons I was able to comply for a month or three. My turnover wentdown 25 per cent. If my customers ask me, they are allowedto smoke. You have to do something, otherwise they will stayaway.Atmosphere in thebarI personally think that a smoking ban for a restaurant is good,that it will benefit the flavour of the food. But the atmospherehas really changed. You are having a nice conversation andwhen someone wants to smoke he or she has to go outside.Sometimes you will be alone just waiting for your partner.Principal issue If it is not allowed to smoke in my joint, I quit. If you killsomeone in the Netherlands, you get less punishment than abar owner leaving ashtrays in his bar. I risk 18.000 Euros offines. Why? To protect people from smoke. But I refuse tocomply. I prefer to close the doors.Compliance Mimetic behavior It does not really affect me. It would be different if the bars inmy direct environment would have ashtrays back on the table.Then your customers are gone. It is as simple as that. But wehave an agreement: no ashtrays.Fear of fines Yes, I am one of the few bars in [municipality] where theashtray is not back on the table. Some of my customers arelaughing at me. They say that I am an idiot because otherbars do allow smoking. But within a day or ten I expect thefirst serious fines. The pressure from politics to enforce thelaw will be high. So that will happen.3/5CommunitysolidarityI am optimistic about the future of the village bar. Manyregular patrons have said: I will be coming. This village is verysolidary; people will not miss out on their beer. And anotheradvantage: I do not have to clean dirty ashtrays again.ResistanceTacticsSymbolic actions We got a lot of nice reactions on the tipi. Friday a lot of policeofficers were in it, and people who went to church were alsoenthusiastic. But it is obviously ridiculous that you ask yourguests to smoke in a tipi. We would have liked to smoke thepeace pipe with the Minister though.Monetary actions We ask smokers for a voluntary contribution for paying thefines.We have a smoking pot, where regular customers donatemoney to pay for the first fine of 300 Euro.Actions againstinspectionsWe agreed that we would call each other when the inspectorvisits us.The action committee is about to publish pictures ofinspectors on the internet. “It is not our intention to publiclydisgrace these people, but we should know who is coming inour bars”.Response Motivation/actions Representative quotes♣♣♣Notes:This article is based on the authors’ paper There’s No Beer Without a Smoke: Community Cohesion andNeighboring Communities’ Effects on Organizational Resistance to Antismoking Regulations in the DutchHospitality Industry, in Academy of Management Journal (2016), Vol. 59, No. 2, 545–578The post gives the views of its authors, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School ofEconomics.Featured image credit: John Benson CC-BY-2.0Before commenting, please read our Comment PolicyTal Simons (t.simons@tilburguniversity.edu) is currently a professor at the department ofManagement (Organization & Strategy group), Tilburg School of Economics and Business. Shereceived her Ph.D. from Cornell University. Her research interests mainly concern dynamics ofpersistence and change of organizations, organizational forms, populations and categories. Thoseare examined in a variety of contexts, such as contested industries and the creative sector amongothers, using varied methodologies, frequently combining quantitative and qualitative methods andlongitudinal designs. Tal’s research has been published in the Academy of Management Journal,Administrative Science Quarterly, Management Science and Industrial and Corporate Changeamong others.4/5Patrick Vermeulen (p.vermeulen@fm.ru.nl) is a full professor of strategy and internationalmanagement at the Institute for Management Research of Radboud University in the Netherlands.He also received his PhD from Radboud University. His research interests include institutionalchange and institutional complexity, innovation in developing countries and organization design. Inhis work he uses varied methodologies, but with an emphasis on qualitative research. Patrick’sresearch has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Studies, LongRange Planning, and the International Journal of Research in Marketing.Joris Knoben (j.knoben@fm.ru.nl) is a full professor of business economics at the Institute forManagement Research, Radboud University. He received his PhD from Tilburg University. Hisresearch focuses on the two-way interaction between the external environment of organizationsand their behavior and performance. He primarily examines this interaction in the form of inter-firmrelations and networks and using a variety of quantitative research methods. Joris’s research hasbeen published in, among others, the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science,Journal of Management, and the Journal of Economic Geography.Copyright © 2015 London School of Economics5/5

How small bars resist smoking bans in the Netherlands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online

EUR Research Repository

EUR Research Repository