Objetivos de SCoPE

Much of the literature on the quantitative and qualitative effects of pro-environmental behaviour such as EMS implementation, points to a number of commonly accepted benefits which may be derived by organisations (Bansal & Bogner, 2002; Zutshi& Sohal, 2004; Gavronski et al., 2007; Heras et al., 2010; Franchetti, 2011). The major benefits of EMS implementation and other environmental initiatives are detailed below.

a) Impact on human resources

Employee involvement is usually practiced by organisations that demonstrate pro- environmental behaviour. Formal EMS standards place requirements on certifying organisations to involve employees in the EMS implementation process. For instance the EMS implementation standard ISO 14001:2004 requires organisations to ‘…ensure that persons performing tasks for it …. that have a potential to cause a significant environmental

71

impact … are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training or experience’ and also to ‘…establish, implement and maintain a procedure to make persons working for it…. aware of significant environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with their work …… and their roles and responsibilities in achieving conformity with the requirements of the EMS’ (ISO, 2004). Employee involvement is a fundamental aspect of the EMS process, making it difficult for organisations to exclude their employees from the decision to implement an EMS, and consequently easier for implementation to have a positive influence on employees. EMS implementation also gives employees ample opportunity to take responsibility for the choices that will lead to the attainment of environmental goals. In so doing, employees encounter genuine challenges which are likely to lead them to the development of innovative solutions. These interactions can result in the bolstering of team spirit and loyalty amongst employees. As employees become more aware of environmental issues within an organisation, attitudes and behaviour also change (Jiang & Bansal, 2003; Link & Naveh, 2006; Sambasivan & Fei, 2007). However, if EMS implementation is presented as merely a business strategy to be used to gain competitive advantage, there may be a consequent negative impact on employee morale (Chan & Hawkins, 2010), with employees viewing organisations as being solely concerned with profitability . However, the positioning of a company in its respective market may also have an impact on employee opinion. In companies with a favorable market position, EMS adoption is likely to positively affect employees when they genuinely believe that the organisation is making the decision to implement an EMS for what is considered to be the right i.e. ethical reasons. In organisations with a poor market position, employees may be convinced to consider EMS adoption in the light of its market related benefits including competitive advantage, reduced operational costs, improved corporate image and increased profitability.

b) Legal, regulatory and industry compliance

Much emphasis is placed by EMS implementation standards on compliance with legal, regulatory and industry requirements, to which certifying organisations must adhere. Organisations with EMSs are not only fully aware of their environmental legal and statutory requirements, they also have to, in order to maintain certification, put processes in place to ensure they operate within those requirements (Zorpas, 2010). This also applies to

72

organisations with uncertified EMSs and to those demonstrating less structured forms of pro- environmental behaviour. Pro-environmental behaviour through EMS implementation produces regulatory benefits by improving relationships between implementers and regulators and by the direct avoidance of compliance breaches. Organisations with good relationships with regulators may also benefit from any existing regulator-driven programs, such as reward schemes which adopt a ‘lighter touch’ approach towards organisations with good compliance records by subjecting them to fewer regulatory inspections and audits.

c) Economic impacts

There is a positive relationship between EMSs implementation and cost savings for organisations. This occurs as a result of economic benefits from reduction in material and resource consumption, less pollution, process intensification and improvement, improved waste management and productivity, all of which will typically result in cost reductions (Bansal & Bogner, 2002; Sambasivan & Fei, 2007; Curkovic & Sroufe, 2011; Jabbour et al., 2012). However, though EMS supporters argue that cost savings exceed implementation costs, thereby benefiting both the organisation and the environment (Bansal & Bogner, 2002), it is still unclear if EMS implementation savings actually bring about tangible improvement in environmental performance. A reason for this may be that economic benefits are not a reliable indicator of environmental efficiency, as cost savings can be achieved without reducing environmental pollution, and the amount of costs saved depends on several factors which may be independent of EMS implementation (Curkovic & Sroufe, 2011; Hertin et al., 2008). The economic impact of EMS implementation, however remains fundamental in organisations’ decision to adopt an EMS, as managers are not likely to patronize EMSs if they do not have an anticipated positive impact on financial bottom-line. Similarly, organisations are less likely to adopt any form of pro-environmental behaviour if the tangible benefits are not readily identifiable and obtainable.

d) Market access

One of the most compelling and convincing benefits of pro-environmental behaviours is their ability to provide organisations with access to new and existing markets. Pro-environmental behaviour in the form of EMS certification is the most recognizable and authentic ‘green’ passport any organisation can hold, regardless of its geographical location or industry, as EMS

73

certifications afford organisations the ability to sell to customers (Bansal & Bogner, 2002). This benefit can also be gained by organisations that simply make a more concerted effort at implementing EMS elements. It is obvious that the customer-driven requirement for external environmental validation is becoming an increasing trend as environmental management is now more relevant to conducting international business (Curkovic & Sroufe 2011; Jabbour et al 2012). Adopting an EMS also offers market access benefits to organisations due to their geographical locations. For instance, as a result of more active uptake of EMS standards in Europe, there are added advantages to organisations operating in or intending to penetrate European markets (Bellesi et al., 2005). In a second example, a study by Kehbila et al (2009) examining EMSs in South Africa’s automotive industry, claims that certified EMSs have contributed to the industry’s excellent image and made industry products (from South Africa) easily marketable to both national and international markets.

e) External relations and corporate image

Pro-environmental behaviour has a profound impact on the way an organisation is perceived by external stakeholders, as well as on the relationships between the two. Successful EMS implementation can be communicated to various external parties – customers, suppliers, regulatory bodies, investors and the general public (Curkovic & Sroufe, 2011). This, in effect, sends out an ‘economic signal’ and simultaneously declares a number of things about the organisation – that it recognizes and takes its environmental responsibility seriously, is committed to improved environmental performance, conforms to surrounding industry and regulatory pressures, and views environmental issues as a fundamental corporate activity. A fall-out of this economic signaling should be an organisational image of legitimacy, credibility and trustworthiness, which is further established when EMSs are externally certified, verified by auditors and supported by extensive documentary evidence. Implementing organisations thereby earn a favorable standing with their local and wider communities, making it easier for them to grow and develop within this important social environment (Bansal & Bogner, 2002; Melnyk, 2002; Sambasivan & Fei, 2007; Oliveira et al., 2011). However, the derivation of external benefits such as improved community relations does not actually imply the existence of genuine environmental performance improvement.

74

f) Environmental performance and efficiency

EMS implementation brings about improved environmental efficiency in a number of ways - first a supporting environment is created for the implementation of other environmental practices; secondly, the organisation’s ability to identify a greater number of environmental aspects is increased; thirdly the organisation can implement management practices for controlling and improving environmental performance and for reducing negative environmental impacts; and lastly technological innovations within operations that further enable the meeting of environmental demands are stimulated (Radonjic & Tominc, 2007; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Comoglio & Botta, 2011). These efficiency benefits typically should result in cost savings for EMS implementing organisations, but as they may also occur as result of other operational interventions, the direct impact of EMSs on cost savings remains unclear.

g) Non-environmental benefits

EMS benefits relating to ‘non-environmental’ issues (organisations’ public image and perception, and on relationships with external stakeholders) are more frequently elaborated by research studies and more keenly pursued by organisations than benefits related to core environmental performance or improvement. For instance, in a survey carried out among Swiss firms, only 3 out of 14 EMS benefits identified had a direct relationship with environmental impact – these were risk minimization, certainty of legal compliance and support of ecological transformation of the line of business (Hamschmidt, 2000). Furthermore, in a literature review conducted by Tan (2003), it was concluded that organisations in industrialized nations sought EMS benefits such as effective operations, market expansion, improved profitability and improvement in company image. These benefits have no direct emphasis on environmental improvement.

Tan (2003) also asserts that reviewed studies seemed to convey the message that there was much more to be gained from EMS implementation in addition to environmental preservation. In fact, the benefits of EMS implementation identified from studies are so varied and apparently situational that it appears that EMS benefits may be specific to an organisation. Moreover there are fundamental differences in the perceptions of the benefits of EMSs – with

75

some studies actively promoting EMSs and the benefits which have been realized for adopting organisations, while others report findings which cast doubt on the ability of EMSs to bring about objective, identifiable and repeated benefits. Apparent differences may exist for a number of reasons. Firstly, the EMS benefits may not be immediately apparent because they accrue over a long term. As such, though implementation costs are very real, benefits may be often more long-term, drawn-out and unseen (Bansal & Bogner, 2002).

Furthermore, few organisations may have a clear understanding of the actual benefits of implementing an EMS (Franchetti, 2011), thus affecting their perception of the benefits. Also, as Kollman and Prakash (2002), Potoski et al (2001) and Hertin et al (2008) argue, the differences in the adoption of EMSs in different national contexts relate to variations in the benefits accruing to organisations.