Modelado de la cache de datos en anotación de código fuente

INTERNAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS EXTERNAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 16. Ofori et al. 2002

This study identifies the major problems for construction firms in Singapore in the application of the ISO 14000 EMS/FarE

 Lack of personnel

 Failure of ISO 14000 EMS benefits to balance organisation’s costs

 High costs in application

 Discrepancies due to the change of traditional applications

 Lack of information within the construction sector

 Lack of client support

Delmas, 2002

This study identifies a number of barriers that prevent organisations from considering ISO 14001 implementation/NAm

 ISO 14001 audit results which reveal weaknesses handling of environmental matters and may be used in legal proceedings against organisation

 Search and information costs

 Legal liability and transaction costs from information disclosure during the ISO 14001 certification process

 Potential discovery of previously unidentified/unresolved regulatory violations Shen & Tam 2002

This study identifies a number of obstacles in the application of EMS

 Increasing managerial costs

 Time-consuming nature of environmental performance development.

 Lack of client support  Lack of experts/qualified staff  Lack of subcontractor

cooperation 17. Zutshi & Sohal 2004

This study reveals key barriers to successful ISO 14001

implementation in surveyed organisations/Aus&NZ

 Implementation costs  Certification costs

 Other internal costs (training, auditors fees, auditing)

 Extent of involvement of employees, suppliers and other stakeholders

 Interpretation of terms present within the standard

 Lack of support and resources  Unclear guidelines for EMS

implementation Alemagi et al., 2006

This study reports on EMS implementation factors in Cameroon/Af&WAsia

 Financial constraints

 Lack of capable human resources  Time constraints

18. Turk, 2009

This study focuses on the greatest disadvantages of obtaining ISO 14000 for the firms/Eur

 High implementation costs  Long certification process  Increased paperwork  Lack of qualified personnel

 Company management not open to research and criticism

 Lack of sufficient information regarding ISO 14001 certificates 19. Heras & Arana, 2010

This study reports findings on problems with internal organisational adaption when implementing EMSs/Eur

 Difficulty in internally incorporating new EMS system to routine activities

 Internal adaption managing documentation problems

 Lack of awareness raising  Being up to date and complying with legal requirements

98

Table 4.9 (cont.) – Classification of EMS barriers using the FACES Model

RESEARCH STUDY (EMS BARRIERS)

INTERNAL EFFICIENT CHOICE FACTORS EXTERNAL EFFICIENT CHOICE FACTORS INTERNAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS EXTERNAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 20. Oliveira et al., 2010

This study compares EMS and costs based on ISO 9001 QMS/C&SAm

 Structural adjustments  Budget barriers

 New equipment investments  Physical adaptation of installations  Excess/duplicity of reports

 Systematic monitoring of air, water and environmental control

 Training/contracting personnel costs  Awareness program costs

 Contracting of external auditors, specialists

 Bureaucratic and lengthy environmental regulatory agency processes

21. Massoud et al., 2010b This study reveals the main challenges facing Lebanese manufacturing organisations in improving their environmental performance/Af&WAsia

 Certification costs  Time demand/costs

 Paucity of economic resources

 Lack of customer demand  ISO 14001 not a

requirement for export market entry

 Lack of top management commitment

 Low priority accorded to environmental issues as a result of severe social, political, and economic problems in developing countries  Lack of in-house knowledge  ISO 14001 benefits not clear to

organisations

 Lack of government cooperation/support

 Outdated in-country legislation  Lack of technical

expertise/experienced local consultants

 Lack of compliance policies for implementing relevant laws and regulations

22. Curkovic & Sroufe, 2011 This study focuses on the main criticisms of ISO 14001/NAm

 Man hour demands

 Manpower and internal auditing costs  Non-value adding costs

 ISO 14001 registered companies still producing large amounts of waste

 Registration fees/costs  Intensive paperwork

 Limited focus of ISO 14001 on continuous improvement

99

4.5.6 Comparison of categorisations using FACES model and other EMSIF models

EMSIFs from previous EMS studies (n=22) were categorised using other EMSIF categorisation models (models are listed in Tables 4.2 – 4.4 above). The results of these categorisations can be found in Appendix 4B of this thesis. Whereas all reported EMSIFs were able to fit into a FACES category, EMSIFs did not completely fit into other model categories. For each model, EMSIFs which did not fit into a model category were placed in an ‘unable to fit’ category. EMSIFs did not completely fit into other EMSIF models for the following reasons:

1. Some EMSIF models were restricted to categorising specific EMSIF-types e.g. EMS drivers only, and could therefore not be used to classify other types. EMSIF categorisation models for categorising barrier-type EMSIFs only such as Lin et al (2006), Bansal and Howard (1997) and Boiral (2011) could not categorise EMS drivers or benefits, resulting in a large number of EMSIFs (110, 110 and 113 EMSIFs respectively) in the ‘unable to fit into a category’ column.

2. Some EMSIF models did not have robust enough categories to categorise all EMSIFs. For instance, the model presented by Tomer (1992) does not address organisational financial costs or liabilities, the model presented by Bansal and Roth (2000) does not address regulatory issues, the model presented by Jiang and Bansal does not address social issues such as environmental concern or pressures from social entities, and the model presented by Edwards (2004) does not address internal organisational issues. 3. Some EMSIF models were limited by both (1) and (2) above i.e. they were limited to

categorising specific EMSIF-types and also had restrictions in the scope of their coverage. For instance, the model presented by Rao et al (2006) categorises only barrier-type EMSIFs and is also restricted in that it does not address internal or external social issues such as social influences from individuals or institutions.

4. Furthermore, several EMSIF models did not specifically address the grouping of EMSIFs from a geographic perspective i.e. internal and external influencing factors, making them unable to group some EMSIFs.

Table 4.10 shows a summary of categorisation results from the FACES model and other models.

100

Table 4.10 – Results of EMSIF categorisations using the FACES and other models – primary researcher

EMSIF CATEGORISATION