Les Sensacions

A basic definition of environmental performance is that it is ‘the measurable result of an organisation's management of its environmental aspects’ (ISO, 2004). More detailed definitions given by Reis (1995) and Tibor and Feldman (1996) generally explain environmental performance as being the intended results organisations expect to achieve from undertaking a period in which they attempt to gain an understanding of the aspects of their activities, products and services that may pose significant environmental risk and impacts.

In the past two decades, the concept of environmental performance has attracted interest from organisations worldwide including industry, multinational companies and governments, and resulted in the increased popularity of pro-environmental behaviours such as the implementation of externally audited EMSs and the adoption of external certification standards (Corbett & Kirsch, 2001; Massoud et al., 2010b; Sambasivan & Fei, 2008). As environmental performance is a complex issue, different organisations, by viewing environmental performance in different ways, may have varying ways by which performance improvement is brought about.

There are a number of ways in which an organisation may view environmental performance, and its perception appears to be largely driven by pro-environmental motivations. These motivations may be environmental or non-environmental in nature, making the perception of environmental performance inherently environmental or non- environmental. Furthermore, environmental improvement can refer to the internal (operational performance e.g. lower emissions, reduced material consumption) or external environment (improved state of the environment e.g. better air quality or resource conservation) of an organisation. Organisations that are driven towards pro-environmental

165

behaviour to achieve multiple benefits view environmental performance in light of the attainment of such benefits. However, the interpretation of environmental performance in the light of purely environmental factors may be hindered by the fact that it has been difficult to show causality between pro-environmental behaviour and environmental improvement. Some studies have found that pro-environmental behaviour brings about positive impacts, such as reducing environmental accidents (Montabon et al., 2007). However, the evidence of a consistently positive relationship between improved environmental performance and corporate performance (as evidenced by cost savings, market position etc.) has not been strong (Curkovic et al., 2005), and relationships between pro-environmental behaviours and tangible environmental improvement have been difficult to prove (Gomez and Rodriguez, 2011).

Environmental performance may also be viewed from a non-environmental standpoint. In a survey of Swiss firms by Hamschmidt (2000) seeking to identify EMS benefits considered to be the highest priority by respondents, only three of the benefits highlighted ('risk minimization', ‘certainty of legal compliance' and ‘support of ecological transformation of the line of business’) had a direct link with environmental management. Other benefits were non-environmental. Organisations, in practice, may not consider environmental performance as defined by purely environmental factors such as EMS implementation or management. They may instead consider performance against the background of other organisation-specific or performance elements related to their reasons for demonstrating pro-environmental behaviour in the first place. The demonstration of pro-environmental behaviours (especially behaviours that involve long-term resource investments) leads to the interpretation of results according to driving pressures (Nawrocka and Parker, 2008). This leads organisations to link the results of pro-environmental behaviour (performance) with the drivers that led them to display it.

For instance, organisations driven largely by efficiencies and profitability are likely to view environmental performance as an improvement in efficiencies. Studies have confirmed that high levels of pro-environmental behaviour are associated with enhanced productivity and business performance, quality improvement, cost reduction, product innovation new product development and industry growth (Quazi et al 2001; Link & Naveh 2006; Montalbon et al., 2007). Environmental performance improvement is therefore viewed directly in the light of the attainment of these results.

166

Organisations led to display pro-environmental behaviours primarily by specific drivers e.g. regulatory pressures will directly associate (and interpret) environmental performance with an improvement in regulatory compliance with regulations and better relationships with regulators. Such organisations view environmental performance as having a positive effect on regulatory compliance and the subsequent avoidance of legal sanctions, fines, permit losses and penalties (Hoffman, 1997), which impact on business performance. Organisations which face predominant market pressures or serve environmentally conscious customers are similarly likely to interpret their attempts at pro-environmental behaviour and expected environmental performance in the light of market performance (Darnall et al., 2008). Jiang and Bansal (2003) have reported that market pressures were the most influential factor driving organisations towards pro-environmental behaviour, with market demand placing strong and direct pressures on organisations. Such organisations are more likely to view environmental performance in the light of increased moral legitimacy within markets, improved customer acceptance and perception and greater market share. Organisations facing pressures from their social stakeholders – community groups, labor unions, employees, trade unions and shareholders – likewise view environmental performance in the light of social legitimacy. Social actors, now empowered by an increased availability of environmental information, can have substantial impact on the way an organisation is viewed by mobilizing public sentiment, altering established norms and changing perceptions (Hoffman, 2000).

In an attempt to avoid the consequences of negative societal publicity in the form of protests, boycotts and civil actions, and to address societal concern for employees and community members, organisations adopt pro-environmental behaviours. In turn, they expect environmental efforts to yield direct social gains such as improved corporate reputations. Such organisations are likely to view these social gains as direct measures of improved environmental performance.

A challenge in the interpretation of environmental performance and management is that it is dependent on organisation-specific elements such as size, location and nature of organisational processes, making it difficult to achieve uniformity in the assessment of performance, or to set uniformly recognized boundaries against which environmental performance may be considered within an organisation’s operations (Brouwer & van Koppen, 2008; Hertin et al., 2008). Due to differences and inconsistencies in its

167

interpretation, organisations are more likely to define environmental performance differently and its determination becomes subject to how it is defined by each individual organisation. There is no universally accepted approach to the task of weighing different environmental impacts against each other. Objective methods exist for the quantification and measurement of performance improvement through the use of indicators and benchmarking techniques, However, different organisations carry out their operations under varying economic, technological and regulatory conditions, making it difficult to eliminate subjectivity and adopt a universally accepted approach to the task of assessing and comparing different environmental impacts which determine environmental performance (Hertin et al., 2008).

Environmental performance is also particularly difficult to define because there has been a lack of agreement in studies attempting to identify relationships between pro- environmental behaviours like EMS implementation and environmental performance. These studies are few and relatively difficult to find, and they have failed to clarify the reasons and methods by which pro-environmental behaviours like EMSs improve environmental performance (Webb et al., 2006; Nawrocka & Parker, 2008; Gomez & Rodriguez, 2011).

6.3.2 Pro-environmental behaviour and environmental performance: ISO 14001 in