Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies Lucila M.S. Campos a, *, Daiane Aparecida de Melo Heizen b, Miguel Angel Verdinelli c, Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel a a b c

Federal University of Santa Catarina, Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Campus Trindade, 88.040-900, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil do Sul, SC, Brazil Federal Institute of Santa Catarina, Getúlio Vargas Avenue, 830, Centro, 89.251-000, Jaragua Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Uruguay Street, 458, Centro, 88.302-202, Itajaí, SC, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 3 July 2014 Received in revised form 12 December 2014 Accepted 5 March 2015 Available online xxx

Environmental management system has become one of the main tools used by companies to handle the environmental aspects and the impacts that their activities have on the environment. In this context, this work aims to demonstrate the results of a survey that identifies a set of indicators of environmental performance to continuously manage and improve the environmental and performance management of ISO 14001 certified companies in the Southern region of Brazil. This research is descriptive as well as quantitative and adopted two methods for factor analysis, the analysis of multiple correspondences and the principal components analysis as well as a method of classification, the cluster analysis. Several companies monitor the environmental and performance management of the industrial pulp and paper/ furniture/wood and textile sectors using indicators of environmental performance. As expected, organizations from the services sector do not use such indicators. The results from cluster analysis also showed that legal and other requirements and environmental aspects are the both more representative requirements. Finally, there is a great concern for companies to meet the legal requirements as well as the conservation of environmental resources. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental performance indicators Environmental management system EMS ISO 14001 Survey research

1. Introduction Since the beginning of the 1980s, environmental concerns have been incorporated into the strategic and operational decisions taken by companies. Pollution caused by operation activities is viewed as an undesirable consequence that is no longer endorsed by many organizations. While many businesses have traditionally resisted changes brought about by government legislation and pressure from the public, many firms, through reluctant adoption or willing change, have found that a pro-environment stance can enhance a number of goals (Inman, 2002). As a consequence, the importance of managing environmental activities to prevent negative aspects and impacts on the environment has been highlighted. Among the diverse environmental management practices that firms have implemented in recent years

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.M.S. Campos), [email protected] (D.A. de Melo Heizen), [email protected] (M.A. Verdinelli), [email protected] (P.A. Cauchick Miguel).

in this direction (e.g. cleaner production, eco-efficiency and life cycle assessment), the environmental management systems (EMS) have been the focus of much attention (Campos, 2012). In the past two decades there have been a number of studies devoted to EMS and its diffusion. Some research has focused on motivations for the standard's implementation (Morrow and lez-Benito and Rondinelli, 2002; Bansal and Hunter, 2003; Gonza lez-Benito, 2005; Chan and Wong, 2006; Boiral, 2007; Gonza Gavronski et al., 2008; Prajogo et al., 2012), while others have concentrated on the effects that these systems have on firms' environmental, operational and financial performance (Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996; Melnyk et al., 2003). Studies have also emphasized that improvements in the organization's environmental performance are beneficial (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Bonifant and Ratcliff, 1994; Link and Naveh, 2006; Lopez-Gamero et al., 2010). These benefits are not only for the environment but also for the company's overall performance. One particular research area that has drawn a lot of attention is the diffusion of ISO 14001 (To and Lee, 2014). A significant body of literature on this research area has been available, offering insights

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.019 0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Campos, L.M.S., et al., Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.019

2

L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11

into ‘how’ ISO 14001 diffuses at the country level (Casadesus et al., 2008; Delmas, 2002; Lagodimos et al., 2007; Qi et al., 2011; Trierweiller et al., 2013), regional level (Delmas, 2002), and global level (Albuquerque et al., 2007; Corbett and Kirsch, 2001; Nishitani, 2010; Viadiu et al., 2006). A second phase focused in studies devoted to the development of frameworks and methods to support EMS decision-making, namely the evaluation and selection of different EMS alternatives. To this end, different approaches have been proposed, such as multicriteria techniques (Hui et al., 2001; Petroni, 2001; Sambasivan and Fei, 2008), hybrid models combining mathematical programming, and other methods (Tsai and Chou, 2009; Celik, 2009). All of them are based on different sets of technical and economic criteria in order to support decision-making (GuerreroBaena et al., 2014). Even though research on EMS has an extensive literature, there is still lack of in-depth investigation of internal dynamics in maintaining ISO 14001 environmental management system (Balzarova and Castka, 2008). The deployment of an EMS does not assure the effectiveness of environmental management (Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000; Melnyk et al., 2003; Campos, 2012). The continuous monitoring of critical points of the system is also necessary, and these points are generally particular to each type of organization. Some studies (e.g. Poksinska et al., 2003; Balzarova and Castka, 2008) advocate that indicators of environmental performance are not directly linked to the maintenance of EMS. However, companies that do not use a set of EMS performance indicators may not be managing their own environmental system (Henri and Journeault, 2008; Nawrocka and Parker, 2009). Thus, they must continuously assess the environmental performance to assure success either in developed or developing nations. The academic community has witnessed a strong interest in the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa context. This justifies Brazil as focused of the present study. The country is considered one of the most promising developing nations, responsible for approximately 30% of Latin America's gross domestic product (GDP). BRICS0 countries in general have been improving the number of companies certified by ISO 14001 from 1999 until 2010 (ISO, 2010) an, Brazil is the country with the most companies under the environmental management system ISO 14001 (2004) in Latin America. According to the same database (ISO, 2010), the number of certifications has grown year by year in the country (from 1999 to 2010). Likewise, the interested in research related to ISO 14001 diffusion in Brazil has also been disseminated (Silva and Medeiros, 2004; Oliveira et al., 2010; Jabbour, 2010, 2013b; Trierweiller et al., 2013; Ferenhof et al., 2014). By examining the Brazilian scenario, a study conducted by Silva and Medeiros (2004) also shows that the number of companies adopting environmental practices has increased each year. Nevertheless, most of these companies have insufficient knowledge about environmental management systems and do not evaluate their environmental performance. In this context, this work aims to demonstrate a set of EMS indicators of performance used by companies certified by ISO 14001 in the Southern region of Brazil. This region was choose because is one of the most important and industrialized region of this country. A question is this sense is then proposed: what are the key environmental performance indicators used by companies to manage their EMS certification according to ISO 14001? To address this question, this work is organized as follows. Firstly, it provides a short literature review of environmental management systems and performance indicators. Secondly, research methods are described. Thirdly, survey results are presented and discussed and, finally, some conclusions are drawn and recommendations for future studies are offered.

2. Theoretical framework Certified EMS have been highlighted in the literature among the various practices of environmental management adopted by major companies over the last years, such as (Link and Naveh, 2006; Viadiu et al., 2006; Albuquerque et al., 2007): cleaner production, eco-efficiency, and the evaluation of the life cycle of products, among others. An EMS is part of the management system of an organization that aims to manage the environmental aspects related to its activities, products and services (Perotto et al., 2008; Campos and Melo, 2008). From the normative point of view, ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004) defines an EMS as a set of inter-related elements, a part of an organization's management system, used to develop and implement its environmental policy and manage its environmental aspects. Standards and procedures can be used by the organization to put an EMS into operation. The three best-known standards are the EMAS, the BS 7750 and the ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004). The BS 7750 was developed in the United Kingdom and published in 1994. It is a certification of British Standard Institute that presents specifications for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an EMS to ensure and demonstrate conformity with the statements of the company with regards to its environmental policy, objectives and goals. The BS 7750 served as a basis for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to launch the ISO 14001 in 1996. According to British Standard Institute website, since 2004 the BS 7750 was replaced by BS EN ISO 14001: 2004. The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme System (EMAS) was adopted by the European Union Council (EC) in June, 1993. It has been opened to volunteer participation by companies since April 1995. A new version of this standard was published in November, 2009 (EC e N 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and Council). The primary objective of EMAS is to promote the continuous improvement of the environmental performance of industrial activities. It also aims to: (i) establish and implement environmental policies, management programs and organizational systems; (ii) conduct a periodical evaluation of performance of the elements that are part of the regulations; and (iii) to inform the community about the organization's environmental performance. It allows European Union companies that develop industrial activities to obtain registrations of their units with an EC commission. An official European Union document containing a list of all registered units is published annually. A registration is considered a “certificate” of good environmental performance for those companies that obtain it. The ISO 14001 is an international environmental standard that specifies requirements related to an EMS to allow the organization to devise its policy and objectives while considering the legal requirements and information concerning significant environmental impacts. A first version was launched in 1996, and a second one was launched in 2004 after some changes. Since the launch of the first version of the ISO 14001, the number of certified companies in the world has continuously grown (Bansal and Hunter, 2003; Balzarova and Castka, 2008). Despite the EMAS have arisen before, undoubtedly the ISO 14001 gained more notoriety and has become the EMS standard most worldwide applied. Regarding environmental performance and different standards (EMAS or ISO 14001), Testa et al. (2014), for instance, investigated the impacts of EMAS and ISO 14001 on the reduction of carbonic anhydride emissions on 229 energy intensive plants in Italy. The results suggested that the implementation of an environmental management system in energy intensive industries has a clear influence on environmental performance both in the short and in the long term, but a different effect of ISO 14001 and EMAS on environmental performance occurs.



Until 2012, 285,844 companies were certified in 165 countries (ISO, 2012). The number of studies that investigated the global spread of the standard (e.g. Corbett and Kirsch, 2001; Gavronski et al., 2008; To and Lee, 2014) and the adoption of environmental management systems in various countries also increased during this time. These countries included the USA (Babakri et al., 2003), Slovenia (Selih, 2007), Spain (Rodríguez et al., 2007, 2011), China (Hui et al., 2001; Zeng et al., 2005; Qi et al., 2011), Germany (Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002), Australia (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004), Turkey (Turk, 2009), Brazil (Avila and Paiva, 2006; Pombo and Magrini, 2008; Gavronski et al., 2008; Campos, 2012; Trierweiller et al., 2013), Japan (Nakamura et al., 2001), among others. Particularly in Brazil, the evolution and interest in EMS subject have been growing in the past two decades. In a first phase, the first papers were related to a general overview of the system (Silva and Medeiros, 2004; Pombo and Magrini, 2008), performance results (Avila and Paiva, 2006; Oliveira et al., 2010), or motivations and benefits (Gavronski et al., 2008) of the EMS implementation in the country. Then in a second phase some concern on the adoption of environmental practices in ISO 14001 certified companies can be observe (Oliveira and Pinheiro, 2009; Gavronski et al., 2013; Teles et al., 2014), the evolution and disclosure of EMS (Jabbour, 2010; Trierweiller et al., 2013), the use and integration with other management systems (Oliveira, 2013; Jabbour et al., 2014), and link with tools like lean manufacturing (Jabbour et al., 2013a). Moreover, some research regarding the relation between EMS and environmental performance can be identified (Campos and Melo, 2008; Jabbour et al., 2013a, 2014), the EMSs and profitability (Ferron et al., 2012), and if environmental practices is a competitive priority for Brazilian companies (Jabbour et al., 2012). A strong line of research in Brazil has been the one that deals with the relationship between environmental management in ISO 14001 certified companies and human resources environmental training (Jabbour et al., 2008; Jabbour and Santos, 2008a, 2008b; Teixeira et al., 2012; Jabbour, 2013a, 2013b; Jabbour et al., 2013b). There has also been a line of studies on the application of EMS in the context of small and medium-sized companies (Campos, 2012; Ferenhof et al., 2014). The reasons for implementing an EMS vary (Campos, 2012). Most motivations are related to external factors, such as the organization's image, market-related advantages, the demands of the market and/or customer, or seeking improved stakeholder communication (Hillary, 2004; Potoski and Prakash, 2004). However, internal factors also are reasons, such as the emergence of response, improved information flows (Potoski and Prakash, 2004; Gavronski et al., 2008), employee motivation, waste reduction, increased operational efficiency (Boudouropoulos and Arvanitoyannis, 1999) as well as financial and organizational benefits (Hillary, 2004). Other publications demonstrate the main benefits introduced by the adoption of an EMS: gaining new markets and customers (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004; Delmas, 2002), improvement in the quality of organizational management (Lawrence et al., 2002), and intangible benefits, such as (Delmas, 2002; Zutshi and Sohal, 2004): improved internal and external process communication, employee motivation, and organizational image. The certification is a voluntarily process of structured communication that informs a company's stakeholders about its environmental management (Melnyk et al., 2003). In summary, an organization seeks certification when a company: feels compelled to meet the economic demands or when the change is market-driven;

3

possesses a high capacity and the necessary competencies to obtain the certificate (in other words, the effort would not be excessive); holds adequate knowledge about the standard, the impacts of their activities (internal and external), and identifies certification as a strategic action for the organization. A number of works have focused their research on the definition, importance, characteristics, objectives or benefits of performance measurement indicators (e.g. Adriaanse, 1993; Hronec, 1994; Tunstall, 1994; Hammond et al., 1995; Kaplan and Norton, 2000). Environmental indicators are considered instrumental concepts that must be added to the objectives of society. Collaborations between academics and practitioners become indispensable in addition to government and institutions in order to analyze the environmental data and it to propose timely environmental policies (Díaz-Moreno, 1999). Each indicator should be related to a particular environmental problem (Manteiga, 2000). Thus, the indicator of an environmental system responds to a generic and entirely social interest e the sustainability of development. The indicators of environmental performance are directly or indirectly measured from environmental quality, and they express the performance of the surrounding companies (Tocchetto and Tocchetto, 2004). The authors add that these indicators are used to evaluate and present the trends of conditions for a given environment. They also allow for checking the effectiveness of deployed actions and to compare them with those obtained by competing companies. The ISO 14031 standard is a conceptual reference to the selection of environmental performance indicators e “Environmental Management e environmental performance evaluation guidelines” e that has been used in Europe since 1999. This standard specifically addresses the guidelines for environmental performance evaluation and the adoption of indicators; it lists more than 100 of these guidelines. ISO 14031 (ISO, 2013) describes two general categories of indicators to be considered when evaluating the environmental performance: Environmental condition indicators provide data and information about the local, regional, national or global conditions of environmental quality. The measurements carried out according to environmental standards and rules established by the legal standards and devices. Environmental performance indicators provide data and information about the organization's environmental performance and are classified in two types: (i) managerial, which provide information about the management efforts that positively influence the environmental performance of the organization as a whole, and (ii) operational, which provide information related to the environmental performance on the operation of the production process. In this context, the present work was guided by the theoretical studies of the management and evaluation of environmental performance as well as the types of performance indicators, leading to the following research questions: what are the key environmental performance indicators used by companies to manage their EMS certification according to ISO 14001? In addition, are there similarities between the indicators used by companies in the same industry? To address those questions, next section describes the research procedures employed in this study. 3. Research methods The present research can be characterized as descriptive based on Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993). It was carried out via


4


survey-based research by following guidelines in the literature (Forza, 2002). The study is considered as an exploratory because it addresses a subject that is relatively unexplored in the international literature (environmental performance indicators within the context of ISO 14001 companies). The data were gathered using a questionnaire sent to a set of companies with an ISO 14001 certification in Southern Brazil (State of Santa Catarina). The Southern region is the second most industrialized in the country. The companies are from the State of Santa Catarina, which is one of the fastest growing industrial territories in the nation. Another relevant aspect in the investigated context is the changes of environmental legislation in emerging countries (such as China and Brazil part of the so-called BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, and China), that will affect organizational managers (Gunasekarana et al., 2014). The study sample contained 73 organizations, which were included in the Brazilian National Institute of Standards, Metrology and Quality (INMETRO), where secondary data were accessed to retrieve contact data from the organizations. The companies belonged to different industrial sectors. After contacting the companies, some of them no longer complied with ISO 14001 certification. So, the sample size was reduced to 62 companies. The survey instrument was a 9-page questionnaire with opened and closed questions that could be completed in about 20 min. After constructing the questionnaire considering the literature, the instrument was pilot-tested. Data were collected by answering it in online. To gather data, all companies were contacted by telephone before e-mailing the website link. The response rate was 63% (39 companies), which is an adequate response rate according to Forza (2002). For data analysis, a multivariate analysis was applied to analyze the data with a two-factorial model. The first used a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) because the scale was semantic in nature, which inhibited the application of other methods that require quantitative variables (Hair Jr. et al., 2010). The MCA was used in all types or categories indicated by the respondents. For each question, the following options were available: “never use”, “rarely use”, “frequently use”, and “always use”. In the second analysis, some questions related to the requirements of ISO 14001 were selected for further cluster analysis. A number of environmental indicators adopted by companies to monitor their EMS was used to analyze the data. Principal components analysis (PCA) was applied to evaluate the relationship between the variables and the likeness or similarity among companies, as established by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). For the cluster analysis, the PCA extracts a number of factors. Five factors were chosen because they represented 93.94% of the variance. The clusters were obtained using Ward's joining method (Hair Jr. et al., 2010), and the Euclidian distance was chosen as measure of resemblance or similarity allowing for the creation of a dendrogram.

4. Results and discussion The results of this study are presented as follows. Firstly, the profile of the companies is outlined, followed by the performance indicators checked by the ISO 14001 requirement using the results of the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). Because of the type of requirements, the indicators may be operational or managerial. Principal Components Analysis and Cluster are secondly presented. Finally, a correlation among the main groups of companies, predominant industrial sectors, and standard requirements with key indicators are highlighted.

4.1. Demographics of companies Twenty industrial sectors registered in a database (RMAI, 2005) were used to define the economic sectors. Ten companies from 20 economic sectors answered the questionnaire, as summarized in Table 1. The individual who answered the questionnaire was usually the Management System Coordinator, with the larger number of answers (22). Others included: production managers (06), environmental analysts (05), internal consulting people (03), industrial engineers (02), and technical assistants (01). Based on the answers, most respondents (72%) were directly related to the environmental management department. Moreover, an expressive number of respondents participated in the critical analysis of the environmental management system (EMS) of the company. It is worth mentioning that green teams are frequently considered in the state-of-the-art literature as an essential factor for companies aiming to implement and improve environmental management approaches and practices (Jabbour et al., 2013b). Therefore, the involvement of the respondents in the critical analysis and their knowledge of the environmental management system can be considered as key points for maintaining the EMS. Concerning the number of employees, the data collection instrument considered three groups for classification purposes, as shown in Table 2: small size companies, medium size, and large size companies. As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of respondents are medium-sized companies. The results showed in Table 2 corroborated findings from other similar study (Oliveira et al., 2010). Oliveira et al. (2010) verified the benefits and difficulties of Environmental Management Systems ~o Paulo, Brazil. based on ISO 14001 at companies in the state of Sa Similarly, the major respondents were also medium-sized companies (43,5%). The origin of most respondents were national (56%), followed by multinational companies (33%). Companies with mixed capital (8%) and government companies (3%) were also represented in the sample. Concerning the ISO 14001 certification, the major part of the companies was certified between 2001 and 2002, as showed in Table 3. Oliveira et al. (2010) found a similar result. Their sample ~o Paulo shows a concentration of certification of companies in Sa around 2001 and 2003. The BVQI (Bureau Veritas) stands out as the preferred certifying body (48%), followed by DNV e Det Norske Veritas (12%). The BRTÜV and the ABS Quality Evaluations are the third most popular certifying body (with 8% of companies). 4.2. Main environmental performance indicators according to standard requirements Data analyses have shown that seven requirements stand out for most companies that “always” and/or “frequently” monitor Table 1 Economic sectors surveyed. Economic sector

Respondents

Paper and cellulose/furniture/wood Services Food Electric and electronic home appliances Metallurgy Tobacco Textile Petrochemical Civil construction Transport

19% 13% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 8% 5% 5%


L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11 Table 2 Number of employees in companies. N of employees

Respondents

Fewer than 100 From 100 to 1000 More than 1000

18% 59% 23%

Table 3 ISO 14001 certification per year (n ¼ 62 companies). Year

Percentage

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

5% 10% 13% 20% 18% 15% 10% 3% 5%

environmental performance. These requirements were: 4.3.2. Legal and other requirements; 4.4.2. Competence, training and awareness; 4.4.7. Emergence, preparedness and response; 4.5.2. Evaluation of compliance; 4.5.3. Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action; 4.3.1. Environmental aspects; and 4.5.1. Monitoring and measurement. Companies most often use indicators of the performance requirements that are more directly associated with legal requirements (emergency preparedness and response, assessment of legal and other requirements and environmental aspects). This finding is corroborated by Donaire (1994), who argues that the internalization of environmental variables by companies is the result of external influences from the environmental legislation, and from the pressures demanded by the national and international community, which results in internal repercussions for organizations (Balzarova and Castka, 2008). Considering the large amount of indicator requirements for ISO 14001 (total of 188), this work emphasizes the key performance

indicators for seven requirements, i.e. those most commonly used by certified companies and that contribute to effectiveness of the EMS. Thus, those were further verified. The five performance indicators for each requirement that had the highest frequency of “always” and “frequently” were then selected. For example, the ten most commonly used indicators were selected for the “4.3.1. Environmental Aspects” requirement. The following tables show the main indicators and how to measure them: Table 4 (4.3.2 Legal and other requirements), Table 5 (4.4.2 Competence, training and awareness), Table 6 (4.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response), Table 7 (4.5.2 Evaluation of legal and other requirements), Table 8 (4.5.3 Nonconformity, Corrective Action and Preventive Action), Table 9 (4.5.1 Monitoring and Measurement), and Table 10 (4.3.1 Environmental Aspects). These results are discussed in sequence by considering the size of companies as well as the economic industrial sectors that stood out for their use of indicators. The performance indicators showed in the previous tables is relevant to be highlighted. Boog and Bizzo (2003) argue that the use of performance indicators as management tools demonstrates the effectiveness of the organization to ensure clear operational and environmental conditions. The demonstration of these conditions directs the efforts of companies towards preventive environmental actions and/or corrective ones. Nevertheless, a performance indicator system should be deployed based on the organization's mission and related to strategies via the identification of critical success factors of its business. This requirement may be a barrier for the use of indicators in small businesses (Campos, 2012) because they are the more systematically used by medium and large companies. Finally, the results obtained via the correspondence technique show that companies in the pulp and paper/furniture/wood, textile, electrical/electronics and tobacco industries “always” used the performance indicators. However, the services sector, petrochemical industry, construction industry and transportation industry do not use and/or rarely use most of the performance indicators. These last findings differ from the previous one if the environmental impact of companies activities from those sectors were considered. An unexpected result were from petrochemical companies since these organizations do not adopt performance indicators. As well-

Table 4 Main performance indicators of requirement 4.3.2. Environmental-managerial performance indicators

How to assess

Compliance with the legislation

Total of items required by legislation/total number of times that legislation has not been followed 100 Number of complaints reported regarding the environment Total of complaints reported to the company regarding the environment Number of legal non-conformities registered Total of legal non-conformities registered per year (includes fines, filings, contaminations) Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation Total of legal parameters (includes DBO, DQO, phosphorus, fecal coliforms, total coliforms, etc.) Number of accidents occurred throughout company history Total of employee accidents throughout company history Industrial sectors: Civil construction; Tobacco; Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Food; Metallurgy and Electric/Electric-Electronic.

Table 5 Main performance indicators of requirement 4.4.2. Managerial environmental performance indicators

How to assess

Investment in activities for environmental awareness Occupational safety percentage Employee satisfaction percentage Employee's educational index

Total of investments destined to activities of environmental awareness (Number of accidents at work/total employees) 100 General result of the employee satisfaction research {(5 total of doctors) þ (3 total of masters) þ (2 total of specialists) þ (1 total of graduate employees)/total of employees} Total of resources applied in training and development/n of employee

Investment in training and development per employee Industrial sectors: Metallurgy; Electric/Electric-Electronic; Petrochemical and Textile.

5


6

L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11 Table 6 Main performance indicators of requirement 4.4.7. Managerial environmental performance indicators

How to assess

Number of emergency simulations carried out (ISO 14031)i Emergency action plans Response to emergencies Communication of risks Number of emergencies attended Sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic and Textile.

Total Total Total Total Total

of of of of of

emergency simulations carried out during the year implanted emergency action plans fast responses to environmental accidents communications about the environmental risks of the company emergencies attended per year


How to assess

Time to answer or correct environmental accidents (ISO 14031)

Total time to answer or correct environmental accidents in the year/number of environmental incidents in the year (Number of complied regulations/Total number of regulations) 100 (Total of compliance with company requirements and expectancies in contracts/Total of services carried out) 100 Sum of the printed reports (positive þ negative)

Level of compliance with regulations (ISO 14031) Level of compliance by service companies with company requirements and expectancies in contracts (ISO 14031) Number of positive and negative reports regarding the company's environmental activities Number of external environment initiatives reported to support the company Sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Metallurgy and Textile.

Sum of the external environment initiatives


How to assess

Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those that have not yet ended (ISO 14031) Number and type of non-compliance incidences with national or international standards in force Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits Number of corrective and preventive actions started Percentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and preventive actions started Industrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic; Petrochemical and Tobacco.

Total of corrective actions identified in the year Total of non-compliance incidences with national or international standards in force during the year (per type) Total of non-conformities received in SGA internal audits Total of corrective and preventive action reports started (Total of effective actions/total of actions started) 100

Table 9 Main performance indicators of requirement 4.5.1. Operational environmental performance Indicators

How to assess

Number of defective products (ISO 14031) (Total of defective products/total of products produced) 100 Number of energy units consumed during product use (ISO 14031) Total of energy units consumed during product use Amount of fuel consumed (ISO 14031) Total of fuel consumed in the year Total of electric energy Total of monthly electric energy consumed in Mwh per ton of produced profiles Volume of water consumed Total of the monthly volume of water consumed in m3 per ton of produced profiles Industrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic and Tobacco.

Table 10 Main performance indicators of requirement 4.3.1. Operational environmental performance Indicators Amount of energy used per year or per product unit (ISO 14031) Amount of waste for disposal (ISO 14031) Amount of waste stored on-site (ISO 14031) Noise measured at a location (ISO 14031) Recycling of waste Consumption of raw materials Production of solid waste Physical and chemical qualities of effluents Amount of acquired electricity Total energy consumption Industrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic; Petrochemical and

How to assess Total energy used per year or per product unit Total of waste for monthly disposal Total of waste stored on-site monthly Total of noise measured per location Total waste recycled monthly Total of raw materials used monthly Total of solid waste produced monthly Verify compliance with legislation (administrative rule SSMA 05/89) Total amount of electricity acquired monthly Total of monthly energy Textile.



know, this is a highly impactful sector due to the nature of its operations, as the pulp and paper/furniture/wood, textile, electrical/ electronics and tobacco industries. 4.3. Analysis of principal components (ACP) and groups of companies The analysis verified that the first two factors regained 78.81% of the inertia of the system, which was sufficient to be included in the study. When predicting the variables shown in Fig. 1, the main plan (performance indicators by requirement of the standard) indicated positive correlations between the majorities of indicators, as demonstrated by the acute angles between the vectors that represent the variable. An angle of approximately 90 between the indicators “Non-conformances, Corrective Action and Preventive Action” (NCACP), “Emergency Preparedness and Response” (PRAE) and “Legal and other requirements” (RLEO) denotes a lack of association among these indicators. In other words, the fluctuations in the number of indicators that a company uses for NCACP, for example, does not depend on the number of indicators used for PRAE and RLEO, which are interrelated. The indicators “Non-conformances, Corrective Action and Preventive Action” (NCACP) were also verified to have higher correlation with the indicator “Monitoring and Measurement” (MOME), followed by “Operational Control” (COPE). A cluster analysis was then conducted from factorial scores of companies, including the first five factors that accounted for 93.43% of the variance. The group constitution was obtained by the combined Ward method, and the Euclidian distance measure of similarity or likeness was chosen to generate the dendrogram showed in Fig. 2. Using the distance of combination 8 as the cutting line for the interpretation, the grouping of six companies was verified (highlighted with colors (in the web version) in Fig. 2). This result shows that the first group consisted of twelve companies (E24 to E6) and, thus, it was the most homogeneous compared to the remaining.

Fig. 1. Projection of the variables. Environmental Policy (PAMB); Legal and other requirements (RLEO); Objectives, Targets and Programs (OMEP); Resources, Functions, Responsibility and Authority (RFRA); Competence, training and awareness (CTEC); Communication (COMU); Emergence, preparedness and response (PRAE); Evaluation of compliance (ARLO); Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action (NCACP); Environmental aspects (AAMB); Operational Control (COPE); Monitoring and measurement (MOME). Source: Research data.

7

This group primarily consisted of the industrial paper and cellulose/ furniture/wood sector (E11, E12, E25, E37, and E38), which was represented by only 2 companies, number 22 and 30 in another group. This group highlights companies that “always” or “frequently” use most of the performance indicators required by the standard. The third group formed exclusively by two companies (E8 and E9) in the transport industry that uses a minimum amount of environmental performance indicators required by the standard was also emphasized. The remaining groups are represented by the tobacco, electricity/electro-electronics/electronic, petrochemical and provision of services industry, which use a small number of performance indicators required by the standard compared to the first group, as discussed earlier. The group analysis (dendogram in Fig. 2) considered six groups of companies (G1 a G6) and industrial prioritized sectors related to standard requirements and main environmental indicators. The criterions to select the indicators were the top three most frequently adopted by the groups of companies. However, in some groups the indicators had the same frequency. Therefore, those were described as having the same value. Table 11 shows the industry sectors, the standard requirements, and a list of the key performance indicators most frequently used by companies, as grouped by cluster analysis. In the first group of companies (G1) five sectors are represented. The last two, which belong to the food industry and tobacco, has the same number of companies. Therefore, they share the same position. It is noteworthy that this group most frequently used three performance indicators of a single standard requirement: Legal and other requirements (RLEO). This means that such companies are concerned primarily with monitoring indicators basically related to the legal demands. The second group (G2) primarily consists of the tobacco industry, followed by service sectors and food industry. Those sector have the same number of companies and monitor 15 performance indicators more frequently. It was not possible to select only the three main indicators because there is no predominance of any of them since all have the same percentage of frequency of use. These indicators belong to four standard requirements: RLEO (Legal and other requirements), CTEC (Competence, training and awareness), NCACP (Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action) and AAMB (Environmental aspects). The third (G3) and fifth (G5) group, stand out because they are formed by only one industrial sector, namely: transportation and petrochemicals respectively. The transport sector more frequently uses two main performance indicators from the requirements RLEO (Legal and other requirements) and CTEC (Competence, training and awareness). Once again, this result show the concern for compliance with legislation and environmental awareness. For this group (G3) the third most frequent was not selected because of having many indicators with the same percentage of use. The petrochemical sector pointed out four most used indicators (of which the last two have the same percentage of use) related to RLEO (Legal and other requirements), ARLO (Evaluation of compliance) and AAMB (Environmental aspects). When analyzing the fourth group of companies (G4) the three main performance indicators concern the requirements: AAMB (Environmental aspects) and MOME (Monitoring and measurement). They are frequently used for six industry sectors, with the same number of companies in some sectors. From the data shown in Table 11, it is possible to conclude that this group is concerned about the environment, primarily by controlling energy resources and water. Finally, the sixth group of companies (G6) is formed mainly by the service sector, followed by the metallurgical industries, food


8


Fig. 2. Dendrogram of companies from factorial scores of ACP. The numbers after the letter E represent the companies' respondents (from 1 to 39) and sector (from 1 to 10). The following industries were included: 1 ¼ paper and cellulose/furniture/wood; 2 ¼ food; 3 ¼ civil construction; 4 ¼ Electricity/electric-electronic/electronic; 5 ¼ metallurgy; 6 ¼ provision of services; 7 ¼ textile; 8 ¼ transport; 9 ¼ tobacco; 10 ¼ petrochemical. Source: Research data.

and textile, which have the same number of companies. These organizations employ a large number of performance indicators, but there is no predominance of any one. Therefore, it was not possible to select the top three considering the frequency of use. Indicators listed in Table 11 are from the following requirements: CTEC (Competence, training and awareness), PRAE (Emergence, preparedness and response), NCACP (Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action) and AAMB (Environmental aspects). Finally, one can clain that the overall picture in Table 11 suggests that the requirements RLEO (Legal and other requirements) and AAMB (Environmental aspects) were most commonly used. This demonstrated that the company concern is centered in complying to the legal requirements in addition to the conservation of environmental resources, which may be considered as basic.

5. Conclusions This work presented the results of a survey that sought to determine the set of environmental performance indicators that have been used by companies certified by ISO 14001 in Southern of Brazil. This work intended to contribute to the environment community that addresses this subject and companies that want to manage and continually improve their EMS. The data analysis indicated three different sets of requirements for the standard. The first group is characterized by a higher number of companies and/or sectors that “always” or “often” use most of the indicators (standard requirements: 4.3.2 Legal and other requirements; 4.3.3 Objectives, goals and programs; 4.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response; 4.5.3 Nonconformity, corrective action and preventive action, and 4.3.1.environmental aspects). Companies most frequently use performance indicators that are directly associated with legal requirements, possibly because companies are forced to meet the environmental regulations.

The second group is characterized by a higher number of companies that “do not” or “rarely” use most of the performance indicators (standard requirements: 4.4.3 Communication, and 4.4.6 Control operational). Apparently, these requirements are more qualitatively monitored while considering that the standard does not require the company to systematically monitor or measure all of the requisites of the standard. Nevertheless, this requires more in-depth studies. The third group was formed exclusively by the requirement “4.5.1 Monitoring and Measurement”. This group was characterized by an apparent uncertainty regarding the use of operational indicators. Four of the 10 industrial sectors claimed they “always” or “often” use most of the indicators listed. Likewise, four of the 10 industrial sectors stated they “rarely” or “never” use the same indicators. Nevertheless, the analysis of the sectors themselves has not shown a discrepancy. The set of sectors that checked “always” or “often used” consists of paper and pulp companies as well as the furniture/wood, textile, electrical/electronic and tobacco industries, which have greater control of their activities because they are under more pressure from society. The transport, services and construction sectors suffer less pressure. The data also indicate that the pulp and paper/furniture/wood and textiles sectors of the Southern of Brazil generally consist of companies that encompass some sort of monitoring of their EMS using environmental performance indicators. This trend can be attributed to the fact that these two sectors were pioneers in seeking to certify their EMS. The companies in the services sectors are the least likely to use indicators, probably because its features are less polluting. From cluster analysis, groups of companies related to the industrial sectors, the standard requirements and a summary of the key performance indicators used more frequently were also identified. Legal and other requirements (RLEO) and Environmental Aspects (AAMB) are the requirements most representative. In addition, there should be a concern for companies to meet the legal



9

Table 11 Main groups of companies by sectors, standard requirements, and performance indicators most frequently used. Groups of companies

Priority sectors

Requirements of the standard

Name of the main indicators used

G1

1 Paper and cellulose/furniture/wood 2 Metallurgy 3 Textile 4 Food 4 Tobacco 1 Tobacco 2 Provision of services 2 Food

RLEO

1 Compliance with the legislation 2 Number of legal non-conformities registered 3 Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation

G3

1 Transport

RLEO/CTEC

G4

1 Electricity/electric-electronic/ electronic 2 Paper and cellulose/furniture/ wood 2 Provision of services 2 Civil construction 3 Textile 3 Food 1 Petrochemical

AAMB/MOME

G2

G5

G6

1 2 2 2

Provision of services Metallurgy; Food Textile

RLEO/CTEC/NCACP/AAMB

RLEO/ARLO/AAMB

CTEC/PRAE/NCACP/AAMB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compliance with the legislation Number of complaints reported regarding the environment Number of legal non-conformities registered Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation Occupational safety percentage Investment in training and development per employee Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those that have not yet ended 8 Number and type of non-compliance incidences with national or international standards in force 9 Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits 10 Number of corrective and preventive actions started 11 Percentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and preventive actions started 12 Amount of waste for disposal 13 Recycling of waste 14 Production of solid waste 15 Physical and chemical qualities of effluents 1 Compliance with the legislation 2 Investment in activities for environmental awareness 1 Total energy consumption 2 Total of electric energy 3 Volume of water consumed

1 2 3 4

Number of legal non-conformities registered Number of accidents occurred throughout company history Time to answer or correct environmental accidents Total energy consumption 1 Occupational safety percentage 2 Number of emergency simulations carried out 3 Number of emergencies attended 4 Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those that have not yet ended 5 Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits 6 Number of corrective and preventive actions started 7 Percentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and preventive actions started 8 Amount of energy used per year or per product unit 9 Amount of waste for disposal 10 Amount of waste stored on-site 11 Noise measured at a location 12 Recycling of waste 13 Consumption of raw materials 14 Production of solid waste 15 Amount of acquired electricity 16 Total energy consumption

Requirements of the standard: Legal and other requirements (RLEO); Competence, training and awareness (CTEC); Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action (NCACP); Environmental aspects (AAMB); Monitoring and measurement (MOME); Evaluation of compliance (ARLO); Emergence, preparedness and response (PRAE).

requirements as well as the conservation of environmental resources, which is, in fact, a confirmatory result. Finally, this work does suffer from limitations when conducting this research. A limited number of companies answered the questionnaire, primarily because it was long to some extent. Moreover, the application includes one state (Santa Catarina) in a developing country, although it is relevant in the in the Southern of Brazil. This limitation does not invalidate the present study, since the results can be added to previous studies on ISO 14000. Future studies

should consider increase the external validity by expand the survey to other parts of the nation. References Adriaanse, A., 1993. Environmental Policy Performance Indicators. General of Environment of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, VROM, The Hague. Albuquerque, P., Bronnenberg, B.J., Corbett, C.J., 2007. A Spatiotemporal analysis of the global diffusion of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification. Manag. Sci. 53 (3), 451e468.


10


Avila, G.J., Paiva, E.L., 2006. Processos operacionais e resultados de empresas bra s a certificaç~ sileiras apo ao ambiental ISO14001. Gest~ ao Produç~ ao 13 (3), 475e487. Babakri, K.A., Bennet, R.A., Franchetti, M., 2003. Critical factors for implementing ISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 11, 749e752. Balzarova, M.A., Castka, P., 2008. Underlying mechanisms in the maintenance of ISO 14001 environmental management system. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1949e1957. Bansal, P., Hunter, T., 2003. Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO 14001. J. Bus. Ethics 46, 289e299. Boiral, O., 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? Organ. Sci. 18 (1), 127e146. Bonifant, B., Ratcliff, I., 1994. Competitive Implications of Environmental Regulations in the Pulp and Paper Industry. Management Institute for the Environment and Business, Washington DC. ~o de indicadores ambientais como instruBoog, E.G., Bizzo, W.A., 2003. Utilizaça ~o de desempenho ambiental em empresas certificadas com a mento para gesta ISO 14001 (Paper presented at the annual meeting for the SIMPEP, Bauru/SP/ Brazil, November). Boudouropoulos, I., Arvanitoyannis, I., 1999. Current state and advances in the implementation of ISO 14000 by the food industries: comparison of ISO 14000 to ISO 9000 to other environmental programs. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 9, 395e408. Campos, L.M.S., 2012. Environmental management systems (EMS) for small companies: a study in Southern Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 141e147. Campos, L.M.S., Melo, D.A., 2008. Indicadores de desempenho dos Sistemas de ~o Ambiental (SGA): uma pesquisa teo rica. Produça ~o 18 (3), 540e555. Gesta Casadesus, M., Marimon, F., Heras, I., 2008. ISO 14001 diffusion after the success of the ISO 9001 model. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (16), 1741e1754. Celik, M., 2009. A hybrid design methodology for structuring an Integrated Environmental Management System (IEMS) for shipping business. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1469e1475. Chan, E.S.W., Wong, S.C.K., 2006. Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry. Tour. Manag. 27 (3), 481e492. Corbett, C.J., Kirsch, D.A., 2001. International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 327e338. Delmas, M.A., 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: an institutional perspective. Policy Sci. 35, 91e119. gicas de aplicacio n de indicadores Díaz-Moreno, A.B., 1999. Possibilidades metodolo ambientales a nível municipal. Rev. Estud. Ambient. 1 (1), 77e95. ~o sobre a vari Donaire, D., 1994. Consideraça avel ambiental na empresa. Rev. Adm. Empres. 34 (2), 68e77. Ferenhof, H.A., Vignochi, L., Selig, P.M., Lezana, A.G.R., Campos, L.M.S., 2014. Environmental management systems in small and medium-sized enterprises: an analysis and systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 77, 44e53. Ferron, R.T., Funchal, B., Nossa, V., Teixeira, A.J.C., 2012. Braz. Adm. Rev. 9, 78e94. Forza, C., 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 152e194. Gavronski, I., Ferrer, G., Paiva, E.L., 2008. ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: motivations and benefits. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 87e94. Gavronski, I., Paiva, E.L., Teixeira, R., Andrade, M.C.F., 2013. ISO 14001 certified plants in Brazil e taxonomy and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 32e41. 2005. A study of the motivations for the lez-Benito, J., Gonz Gonza alez-Benito, O., environmental transformation of companies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 34 (5), 462e475. mez-Limo n, J.A., Fruet, J.D., 2014. A multicriteria Guerrero-Baena, M.D., Go method for environmental management system selection: an intellectual capital approach. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.079. Gunasekarana, A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., 2014. Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: an introduction. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.915439. lise Multivariada de Hair Jr, F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., Black, W.C., 2010. Ana Dados. Bookman. Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., Woodward, R., 1995. Environmental Indicators: a Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute Publications, Baltimore. Henri, J.-F., Journeault, M., 2008. Environmental performance indicators: an empirical study of Canadian manufacturing firms. J. Environ. Manag. 87, 165e176. Hillary, R., 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 12, 561e569. ~o Paulo. Hronec, S.M., 1994. Sinais Vitais. MakronBooks, Sa Hui, I.K., Chan, A., Pun, K.F., 2001. A study of the environmental management system practices. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 241e256. Inman, R.A., 2002. Implications of environmental management for operations management. Prod. Plan. Control: Manag. Oper. 13 (1), 47e55. ISO 14001, 2004. Environmental Management Systems e Requirements with Guidance for Use. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14031, 2013. Environmental Management e Environmental Performance Evaluation e Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/Survey, 2010. The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 Certificates. International Organization for Standardization.

ISO/Survey, 2012. The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 Certificates. International Organization for Standardization. Jabbour, C.J.C., 2010. Non-linear pathways of corporate environmental management: a survey of ISO 14001-certified companies in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1222e1225. Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013a. Environmental training in organisations: from a literature review to a framework for future research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 144e155. Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013b. Environmental training and environmental management maturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: empirical evidence. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.039. Jabbour, C.J.C., da Silva, E.M., Paiva, E.L., Santos, F.C.A., 2012. Environmental management in Brazil: is it a completely competitive priority? J. Clean. Prod. 21, 11e22. Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., 2008a. Relationships between human resource dimensions and environmental management in companies: proposal of a model. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 51e58. Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., 2008b. The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 19, 2133e2154. Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Nagano, M.S., 2008. Environmental management system and human resource practices: is there a link between them in four Brazilian companies? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1922e1925. Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., Freitas, W.R.S., 2013a. Environmental management and operational performance in automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129e140. Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Fonseca, S.A., Nagano, M.S., 2013b. Green teams: understanding their roles in the environmental management of companies located in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 46, 58e66. Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Latan, H., Teixeira, A.A., Oliveira, J.H.C., 2014. Quality management, environmental management maturity, green supply chain practices and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certification: direct and indirect effects. Transp. Res. Part E 67, 39e51. gia. Campus, Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2000. Organizaç~ ao Orientada para a Estrate Rio de Janeiro. Klassen, R.D., McLaughlin, C.P., 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Manag. Sci. 42 (8), 1199e1214. Lagodimos, A.G., Chountalas, P.T., Chatzi, K., 2007. The state of ISO 14001 certification in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1743e1754. Lawrence, L., Andrews, D., Ralph, B., France, C., 2002. Identifying and assessing environmental impacts: Investigating ISO 14001 approaches. TQM Mag. 14, 43e51. Link, S., Naveh, E., 2006. Standardization and discretion: does the environmental standard ISO 14001 Lead to performance benefits? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 53 (4), 508e519. Lopez-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorin, J.F., Claver-Cortes, E., 2010. The potential of environmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmental management, competitiveness and financial performance. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 963e974. Manteiga, L., 2000. Los indicadores ambientales como instrumiento para el desarn en otras políticas. In: Estadísticas rollo de la política ambiental y su integracio Y Medio Ambiente. Instituto de Estadística de Andalucia, Junta de Andalucia. Sivilla. Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R.J., 2003. A model of site-specific antecedents of ISO 14001 Certification. Prod. Oper. Manag. 12 (3), 369e385. Morrow, D., Rondinelli, D., 2002. Adopting corporate environmental management systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. Eur. Manag. J. 20, 159e171. Nakamura, M., Takahashi, T., Vertinsky, H., 2001. Why Japanese Firms choose to certify: a study of managerial responses to environmental issues. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 42, 23e52. Nawrocka, D., Parker, T., 2009. Finding the connection: environmental management systems and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 601e607. Nishitani, K., 2010. Demand for ISO 14001 adoption in the global supply chain: an empirical analysis focusing on environmentally conscious markets. Resour. Energy Econ. 32 (3), 395e407. Oliveira, O.J., 2013. Guidelines for the integration of certifiable management systems in industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 57, 124e133. Oliveira, O.J., Pinheiro, C.R.M.S., 2009. Best practices for the implantation of ISO 14001 norms: a study of change management in two industrial companies in the Midwest region of the state of S~ ao Paulo e Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (9), 883e885. Oliveira, O.J., Serra, J.R., Salgado, M.H., 2010. Does ISO 14001 work in Brazil? J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1797e1806. Perotto, E., Canziani, R., Marchesi, R., Butelli, P., 2008. Environmental performance, indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 517e530. Petroni, A., 2001. Developing a methodology for analysis of benefits and shortcomings of ISO 14001 registration: lessons from experience of a large machinery manufacturer. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 351e364. Pinsonneault, A., Kraemer, K.L., 1993. Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 10 (2), 75e106.


L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11 Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J., Eklund, J.A.E., 2003. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 20 (5), 585e606. Pombo, F.R., Magrini, A., 2008. Panorama de aplicaç~ ao da norma ISO 14001 no ~o 15 (1), 1e10. Brasil. Gest~ ao Produça Porter, M.E., Van Der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the statement. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73 (5), 120e134. Potoski, M., Prakash, A., 2004. Regulatory convergence in nongovernmental regimes? Cross-national adoption of ISO 14001 certifications. J. Polit. 66, 885e905. Prajogo, D., Tang, A.K.Y., Lai, K.H., 2012. Do firms get what they want from ISO 14001 adoption?: an Australian perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 117e126. Qi, G.Y., Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Yin, H.T., Wu, J.F., Dai, Z.H., 2011. Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in China: rethinking on stakeholders' roles. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1250e1256. marca histo rica das RMAI e Revista Meio Ambiente Industrial, 2005. Homenagem a ~es em conformidade com a ISO 14001. Year X, 55th ed. 2000 certificaço Rodríguez, G., Alegre, F.J., Martínez, G., 2007. The contribution of environmental management systems to the management of construction and demolition waste: the case of the Autonomous Community of Madrid (Spain). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 50, 334e349. Rodríguez, G., Alegre, F.J., Martínez, G., 2011. Evaluation of environmental management resources (ISO 14001) at civil engineering construction worksites: a case study of the community of Madrid. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 1858e1866. Rondinelli, D., Vastag, G., 2000. Panacea, common sense, or just a Label? The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems. Eur. Manag. J. 18 (5), 499e510. Sambasivan, M., Fei, N.Y., 2008. Evaluation of critical success factors of implementation of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1424e1433. Selih, J., 2007. Environmental management systems and construction SMEs: a case study for Slovenia. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (3), 217e226. Silva, G.C.S., Medeiros, D.D., 2004. Environmental management in Brazilian companies. Manag. Environ. Qual. 15 (4), 380e388.

11

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics, fourth ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., 2012. Relationship between green management and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: a theoretical framework and cases studies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 318e329. Teles, C.D., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Tinoco, M.A.C., ten Caten, C.S., 2014. Characterization of the adoption of environmental management practices in large Brazilian companies. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.048. Testa, F., Rizzi, F., Daddi, T., Gusmerotti, N.M., Frey, M., Iraldo, F., 2014. EMAS and ISO 14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 165e173. To, W.M., Lee, P.K.C., 2014. Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental management system: global, regional and country-level analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 489e498. Tocchetto, M.R.L., Tocchetto, A.L., 2004. Indicadores de desempenho ambiental para ^nica. In: Congresso Acade ^mico sobre o Meio empresas com atividade galva Ambiente e Desenvolvimento. CADMA, Rio de Janeiro. Trierweiller, A.C., Peixe, B.C.S., Tezza, R., Bornia, A.C., Campos, L.M.S., 2013. Measuring environmental management disclosure in industries in Brazil with Item Response Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 298e305. Tsai, W.-H., Chou, W.-C., 2009. Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 1444e1458. Tunstall, D., 1994. Developing and using indicators of sustainable development in Africa: an overview. In: Thematic Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development, Banjul, Gambia, May 16e18. Turk, A.M., 2009. The benefits associated with ISO 14001 certification for construction firms: turkish case. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 559e569. Viadiu, F.M., Fa, M.C., Saizarbitoria, I.H., 2006. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards: an international diffusion model. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (2), 141e165. Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Deng, Z.M., 2005. Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 645e656. Zutshi, A., Sohal, A., 2004. Adoption and maintenance of environmental management systems: critical success factors. Manag. Environ. Qual. 15 (4), 399e419.


Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies

Recommend Documents