This paper examines the evolution of the organizational field centered around corporate environmentalism in the US chemical industry from 1960 to 1993. It identifies four stages of development, each marked by a different field membership, interaction pattern, and set of dominant institutions. The paper argues that fields form around central issues, not markets or technologies, and that competing institutions may coexist within individual populations. It also highlights the interconnections between regulative, normative, and cognitive aspects of institutions and the role of disruptive events in shaping institutional change. The study uses legal case law data and content analysis of trade journals to measure changes in the field and the institutions that define corporate environmentalism. The findings show that the chemical industry's environmental practices evolved from a focus on technological solutions to a more comprehensive approach involving regulation, enforcement, and management. The paper concludes with future research challenges in understanding the dynamics of institutional change and the role of institutional entrepreneurs.This paper examines the evolution of the organizational field centered around corporate environmentalism in the US chemical industry from 1960 to 1993. It identifies four stages of development, each marked by a different field membership, interaction pattern, and set of dominant institutions. The paper argues that fields form around central issues, not markets or technologies, and that competing institutions may coexist within individual populations. It also highlights the interconnections between regulative, normative, and cognitive aspects of institutions and the role of disruptive events in shaping institutional change. The study uses legal case law data and content analysis of trade journals to measure changes in the field and the institutions that define corporate environmentalism. The findings show that the chemical industry's environmental practices evolved from a focus on technological solutions to a more comprehensive approach involving regulation, enforcement, and management. The paper concludes with future research challenges in understanding the dynamics of institutional change and the role of institutional entrepreneurs.