See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269394647

Outcomes of Environmental Management

Systems: the Role of Motivations and Firms
Characteristics
ARTICLE in BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 2014
Impact Factor: 2.88 DOI: 10.1002/bse.1884

3 AUTHORS:
Iaki Heras-Saizarbitoria

Germn Arana

The University of the Basque Country UPV/

Universidad del Pas Vasco / Euskal Herriko

107 PUBLICATIONS 1,122 CITATIONS

28 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Olivier Boiral
Laval University
112 PUBLICATIONS 916 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Iaki Heras-Saizarbitoria

Retrieved on: 01 September 2015

Outcomes of Environmental Management Systems: the Role of Motivations and

Firms Characteristics*
Iaki Heras-Saizarbitoria
Department of Management
University of the Basque Country UPV-EHU
iheras@ehu.es

German Arana
Department of Management
University of the Basque Country UPV-EHU
g.arana@ehu.es

Olivier Boiral
Department of Management
Universit Laval
Olivier.Boiral@mng.ulaval.ca

Abstract
This article analyzes the influence of the sources of motivation that lead companies to
adopt Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) on the outcomes of those systems. A
set of hypotheses derived from an extensive review of the literature is analyzed using
cluster analysis in order to identify groups of companies as well as correlation and
regression analyses, with data obtained from a survey of 361 Spanish organizations that
have environmental certification. The results reveal that for the groups identified,
companies from the Holistic cluster (with high levels of both internal and external
drivers) and from the Internal focus cluster (with more intensive internal sources of
motivation) secure greater benefits from the process of adopting an EMS. This article
also sheds light on the influence on the outcomes of some variables that have been
under-researched, such as the economic resources invested in an EMS and whether or
not the certified companies belong to a sector with high environmental pressure. The
findings help to characterize the firms with environmental certification and may also
help managers, policy makers and other stakeholders to anticipate the potential benefits
of EMSs.
Key words: Environmental Management, Environmental Management Systems,
EMAS, ISO 14001, Spain
(*) This is a prereview, precopyedit author version of an article in press in the
Business Strategy and the Environment, not for redistribution. [Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.,
Arana, G., & Boiral, O. (2014). Outcomes of Environmental Management Systems: the
Role of Motivations and Firms Characteristics, In Press. Published online in Wiley
Online Library. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1884]

1. Introduction
An increasing number of organizations are adopting third party certifiable
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) based on international standards
(Lagodimos et al., 2007; Neugebauer, 2012). EMSs represent infrastructural investment
in environmental policies and procedures in a plant (Gavronski et al., 2012). The
international reference standards for EMSs, also referred to as meta-standards, are
voluntary codes or guidelines that have a third party verification architecture. These
standards do not fix environmental goals or environmental targets to be achieved (e.g.
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, recycling or energy consumption) as a result of
the adoption and possible certification. Rather, they define the procedural requirements
concerning the type of policy, plans, organizational practices and control mechanisms to
be adopted by companies so that they can manage the activities which have a significant
environmental impact better. Interest in EMSs extends beyond the organizations that
adopt them, as regulators are interested in their potential to achieve greater
environmental protection (Darnall et al., 2008).
At the international level there are two main frameworks for this purpose: ISO 14001
and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). The latter was launched in 1993
and came into force in 1995, and has since been adopted by nearly 4,200 European
organizations, especially in Germany, Spain and Italy (European Commission, 2013).
The EMAS standard was originally restricted to companies in industrial sectors, but
since 2001 it has been open to all economic sectors, including public and private
services. From the practitioner perspective, although it is quite similar to ISO 14001 and
fully compatible with the latest version of that standard (Neugebauer, 2012; Morrow
and Rondinelli, 2002), the EMAS system is generally considered more demanding
(Testa et al., 2014) in terms of managerial requirements (e.g. objectives, performance
indicators and regulatory compliance).
Among other relevant research avenues related to the study of the adoption of EMSs
(for a recent review, see Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral, 2013), a series of works have
attempted to analyze the motivations that organizations have for adopting EMSs based
on the international standard, and the results or benefits of such adoption. These issues
have been analyzed from very diverse theoretical and scholarly perspectives, ranging
from complex theoretical perspectives (e.g. signalling theory, green clubs, selfregulation) to more technical or pragmatic perspectives. Some exploratory contributions
that follow the latter line have tried to establish taxonomies (e.g. Boiral, 2001, 2007;
Hera-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Gravonski et al., 2013) that shed light on similarities
between firms in a particular group and differences between groups (Gravonski et al.,
2013). This is an approach that can be directly linked to the increasing body of research
that provides typologies of corporate motivation for environmental strategies
(Papagiannakis et al., 2013). Paulraj (2009) notes that, in contrast to the widely adopted
typological approaches that classify environmental strategies into distinct types based
on an underlying conceptual or theoretical framework, inductively based taxonomic
approaches can be used effectively to find distinct groups or clusters adopting
environmental management practices, such as EMSs. Such clusters are grounded in
empirical reality. Nevertheless, as far as we know, the analysis of the relationships
among those clusters and the benefits obtained by the adopting companies have not yet
been studied in a survey.
Similarly, the main characteristics of companies adopting EMSs have been analyzed
(e.g. Melnyk et al., 2003). However, these questions have not been studied together
with the motivations of those companies. Indeed, the characteristics of the companies
that have adopted EMSs (e.g. size, sector of activity, resources in use, age of EMS,
previous experience with other standards) have tended to be analyzed merely as
2

statistical control variables with no attention or previous analysis, despite the

methodological problem that arise from doing so (Spector and Brannick, 2011). As
recently underlined by CarballoPenela and CastromnDiz (2014), some specific
characteristics of the companies, such as differences in size and sector of activity, could
play a relevant role for both drivers and the benefits of environmental strategies.
Taking into account this gap in the literature, the aim of the present study is to shed
light on the impact of the sources of motivation that lead companies to adopt an EMS
and the characteristics of those firms on the benefits they perceive from the process of
adoption. The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Following this
introduction, a review of the literature that deals with the motivations for the adoption
of EMSs and the benefits is presented, together with a review of the taxonomies and the
characteristics of the adopting companies as described in earlier research. From this
review, the working hypotheses are derived, which are then used to structure the
analysis. The results of a survey of Spanish companies are then described. Lastly, the
conclusions are presented, and the original contributions of this research are identified.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
As recently stressed by Ervin et al. (2013), scholars from many disciplines have
contributed to an extensive literature on the motivations for environmental management,
frequently based on neo-institutional theory. Similarly, there is a great body of
empirical literature on the analysis of the motivations leading companies to adopt EMSs
based on ISO 14001 or EMAS (HerasSaizarbitoria and Boiral, 2013; Gravonski, 2013).
From an empirical perspective Bansal and Roth (2000) propose three types of motive
that lead companies to implement an EMS based on an international standard of
reference: ethical, competitive and relational. Ethical motives are a response to feelings
related to environmental responsibility. Competitive motives arise from the search for
competitive advantage. Relational motives emerge from the desire on the part of a
company to become legitimized and to improve the relationships between the different
interest groups in the company (stakeholders). Similarly, Neumayer and Perkins (2005)
identify two main sources of motivation that lead companies to implement this type of
standard, namely internal motives related to efficiency (efficiency motives) that is, an
improvement in performance, productivity and profitability and external or
institutional motives related to the social pressure exerted by different agents to
persuade company managers to adopt certain practices. Boiral (2007) has also stressed
that the adoption of ISO 14001 can be driven by institutional pressures and the search
for organizational legitimacy in the eyes of various stakeholders (e.g. clients, public
authorities, environmental groups), or by internal motivations to improve environmental
practices. Gonzlez-Benito and Gonzlez-Benito (2005) differentiate the following four
drivers for the adoption of EMSs: operational competitive motivations (costs,
productivity), commercial competitive motivations (market, image, customers), ethical
motivations, and relational motivations (regulators, local organizations).
Although, the adoption of EMSs can be driven by various internal and external
motivations (Gonzlez-Benito and Gonzlez-Benito, 2005; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al.,
2011; Gavronski et al., 2008; Fryxell et al., 2004), the literature emphasizes the
influence of customer pressure and demands as well as requirements of other interest
groups, together with matters relating to the external image of the company, the
motivation to send out a message to potential consumers by stressing the companys
environmental concern (King et al., 2005), and the influence of pressure exerted by
public administration (for a review, see Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011). Similarly,
Gavronski, et al. (2008) identified societal, market, financial, and productivity benefits
for the adoption of an EMS. Most empirical studies in this area have shown that
external motivation (e.g. improvement of corporate image, marketing, market demand,
3

relationships with public authorities, competitive position) plays a more important role
than internal motivation (e.g. improvement of environmental performance, employee
involvement, innovation, cost saving) in the adoption of an EMS (Boiral, 2007; Yeung
and Mok, 2005; Jiang and Bansal, 2003).
As stated in the introductory section, some works in the specialized literature try to
establish taxonomies of the factors that drive companies to adopt EMSs. This can be
linked to the profuse literature describing how companies can be classified in terms of
their drivers for decisions on corporate environmental strategy (e.g. Paulraj, 2009;
Wahba, 2010; Papagiannakis et al., 2013). In relation to EMS adoption, in order to
examine the relationships between internal and external motivational factors, Boiral
(2001, 2007) provided evidence of four clusters depending on the rationale for adoption:
Mobilizing integration, with both high internal and external sources of motivation;
Proactive integration, with high internal motivation and low external motivation; Ritual
integration, with high external motivation and low internal motivation; and finally,
Reactive integration, with low internal and external motivation. This typology was
applied in a quantitative empirical survey for ISO 9001certified firms (Boiral and Roy,
2007), a standard with a very similar structure with ISO 14001, and for the later global
green standard for EMSs by Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2011). More recently, Garvosnki
et al. (2013), who focused on the adoption of ISO 14001 by Brazilian companies,
obtained a taxonomy of three clusters: Holistic, which included the companies with
more intensive internal and external drivers, companies that sought the certification
motivated simultaneously by the expectations of their markets, concerns with their
responsibility for the environment and improvements in management (efficiency);
External focus, with high external motivation and low internal motivation, which show
only concern for expectations of the market; and finally Internal focus, the internally
oriented companies which seek certification looking for improvements in the internal
aspects of management.
Just like the motivations for adopting an EMS, the outcomes, results or benefits have
been widely studied in the empirical academic literature. Generally speaking, although
various studies have highlighted the positive impact of EMSs on environmental
performance (e.g. Zeng et al., 2005; Sambasivan and Fei, 2008; Russo, 2009;
Schylander and Martinuzzi, 2007; Curkovic and Sroufe, 2011), others studies are more
nuanced on this issue and tend to question the benefits of EMSs or to stress the absence
of measurable effects (e.g. Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Barla, 2007; Boiral, 2007, 2011).
Most studies on these issues have found that the greater degree of motivation whether
of an internal nature (e.g. an improvement in the internal efficiency of the company) or
external (e.g. customer demand) the greater the benefits perceived by companies that
implement and become certified in accordance with ISO 14001. In a survey of 63
Brazilian companies from the chemical, mechanical and electronic industries,
Gavronski et al. (2008) concluded that the perceived internal motivations had a strong
relationship with the perceived internal benefits, and external motivation correlated with
external outcomes. Similarly, in a survey of 214 Basque companies carried out in 2007,
Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2011) found evidence that both internal and external sources
of motivation were correlated to the benefits of ISO 14001. Although these relationships
have not been studied for the specific taxonomies identified, based on the previous
literature on the drivers and benefits of EMSs and in the analyzed works on taxonomies
of the adoption of EMSs and notably the work by Gavronski et al. (2013) the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Companies belonging to the group or cluster with more intensive sources of
motivation (i.e, belonging to the Holistic cluster) experience higher outcomes
from the adoption of EMSs.
4

Although the internal and external motivations are assumed to influence the benefits of
EMS adoption positively, the impact of these two types of motivation may be different.
This issue has been analyzed in the empirical literature on the adoption of EMSs based
on qualitative (e.g. Boiral, 2007; Brouwer and Van Koppen, 2008) and quantitative
studies (e.g. Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Gavronski et al.; 2008; Fryxell et al.,
2004; Lannelongue et al., 2013). Most of these studies have concluded that internal
motivations have a stronger influence on performance than external motivations. First,
higher internal motivation to implement the standard generally means that organizations
perceive the relevance of EMS adoption to improve environmental practices and
performance. As a result, the perceived benefits are higher because, from the outset, the
EMS is designed to meet internal needs, which encourages the internalization of the
standard (Qi et al., 2012; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009; Boiral, 2007, 2011). Conversely,
external motivations to adopt EMSs, such as market demand, are not necessarily in line
with the internal needs related to environmental management practices (Christmann and
Taylor, 2006; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Boiral, 2007, 2011). Second, external
pressures can lead to a superficial adoption of an EMS mostly intended to improve
organizational image rather than environmental performance (Christmann and Taylor,
2006; Boiral, 2007; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009; Boiral, 2007, 2011, 2013). As far as we
know this research avenue has not been analyzed from the perspective of the
taxonomies. Therefore, taking into account the literature on the adoption and
taxonomies of EMSs and notably in the work by Gavronski et al. (2013) we posit
the following hypothesis:
H2: Companies belonging to the group with higher internal sources of
motivation (Internal focus) experience better outcomes from their EMS than
companies with a lower source of internal motivation (External focus) or
companies that also have external motivations (Holistic).
As underlined in the introductory section, in addition to the motivational factors, other
characteristics or determinants of the companies may have a relevant impact on the
benefits obtained from the adoption of an EMS. Nevertheless, this issue has been underresearched in the literature. As pointed out by Melnyk et al. (2003) years ago, the role
of the adoption of EMS has been studied in isolation and it has ignored the possible
confounding impact of the main characteristics and determinants of the firms, and these
factors can potentially affect the outcomes for the companies. But these factors have
only been studied very tangentially by the scholarly literature notably in the rather
atheoretical and empirical works that were published in the early stage of dissemination
of EMSs (e.g. Chin et al., 1998; del Brio et al., 2001). In contrast with that, these factors
have been studied more deeply by the practitioner literature that provides advice about
the process of adoption of EMSs (e.g. Cascio, 1996; Block and Marash, 2000), but
without an empirical or theoretical basis. Theoretically, the study of these characteristics
should be connected to the scholarly works that analyze the adoption of EMSs from the
perspective of the resource-based view approach (RBV) (Delmas, 2001; Melnyk et al.,
2003; Aravind and Christmann, 2008; Aravind, 2008; Gravonski, 2011). This
perspective focuses on a firms main resources, capabilities and other characteristics or
factors that determine the differences in the outcomes for companies that adopt EMSs
(Aravind and Christmann, 2008).
In the limited literature that has tangentially analyzed the various potential
characteristics or factors affecting to the adoption of EMSs, the following have been
emphasized:
- Size of the firms: As noted by Melnyk et al. (2003) corporate size should play
an important role in the nature of the EMS for several reasons, notably, because
5

a formal EMS may require that the firm have access to sufficient resources and a
positive relationship might be anticipated: the higher the level of resources
available to the firm for the EMS, the greater the outcomes of the EMS.
Although this is just a hypothesis that should be explored, many works in the
literature (e.g. Szymanski and Tiwari, 2004; Nishitani, 2009) use the size of the
certified firm as a proxy for more resources to devote to the adoption.
- Sector of activity: The potential outcomes for a company might be related to its
sector of activity. Firstly, as is evident from the practitioner literature (e.g.
Cascio, 1996) not all the sectors of activity can reduce costs and increase
productivity when an EMS is adopted (Chiarini et al., 2013; CarballoPenela and
CastromnDiz, 2014). Manufacturing companies are better placed to obtain
more benefits. Secondly, companies belonging to those sector with a higher
intensity of adoption of EMSs, such as manufacturing (Lagodimos et al., 2007;
Bodas, 2009), may get outcomes more easily, as some crucial services (e.g.
consulting) will be more specialized and sector benchmarks and best practices
will be more available (Delmas, 2001; Mrtensson and Westerberg, 2014). .
- Age of the EMS: How long an EMS has been in place should affect its
outcomes. As identified by both the scholarly (e.g. Corbett and Kirsch 2001;
Boiral, 2011) and practitioner literature (e.g. Cascio, 1996), an EMS should take
time to become integrated in a company and provide operative benefits. As
Melnyk et al. (2003) found, a mature and well-established EMS should have
better outcomes.
- Previous experience with other meta-standards: Companies with an existing
quality or environmental standard can adopt a new meta-standard faster and
better due to the commonality of elements in those standards, as they are based
on the same generic model (Boiral, 2011). Indeed, evidence of the relationship
between successful ISO 9001 adoption and subsequent successful ISO 14001
has been provided in the scholarly literature (e.g. Zhu et al., 2013) and the
practitioner literature on the adoption of EMSs (e.g. Block and Marash, 2000).
With regard to the size of the firm, in order to be more rigorous, more detailed
measures, such as the investment per plant or per employee in order to implement and
certify the EMS, could be a better proxy for the resources allocated by the companies.
For example, Gavronski et al. (2011), in one of the few examples that we have found in
the literature, showed that when the level of environmental investment in a plant
increases, the effectiveness of its green process management strategies also increases
(but only weak support for the relationship was provided). Similarly, in addition to the
normal sectoral classification, it might be interesting to analyze whether companies that
belong to sectors with high environmental pressure experience higher benefits as a
result of their EMS. The literature suggests that firms operating in controversial
industries make more effort to improve the local community's perception of them in an
attempt to legitimize the operation of their facilities (Lpez-Navarro et al., 2013).
Pressures from the supply chain, customers, and communities play a positive role in
encouraging firms to improve their environmental management (Zhang et al., 2008).
Therefore, taking into account all these relationships that are reported in the literature,
we posit the following hypothesis regarding the impact of some of the determinants or
characteristics of companies that adopt an EMS:
H3: A set of characteristics of the companies that adopt an EMS namely, the
size of the certified firm, the investment per employee, the belonging to the
manufacturing sector, the belonging to a sector with high environmental
6

pressure, the age of the EMS and previous experience with other meta-standards
improve the outcomes of EMSs.
3. Research methodology
In order to evaluate the research hypotheses, a survey was carried out in Spain, one of
the European Union regions where EMSs based on both ISO 14001 and EMAS have
been most widely distributed in both absolute and relative terms (blind reference). The
research focuses on EMAS rather than ISO 14001 for two main reasons. Firstly, EMAS
certification has been under-researched in the literature (Testa et al., 2014). Although
this may be understandable to some extent, because many more companies all over the
world are ISO 14001 certified than EMAS registered, the latter is generally considered
to be a more stringent and substantial scheme for EMSs (European Commission, 2013;
Neugebauer, 2012). As a result, one can expect that the use of this system as an internal
tool to manage environmental issues in organizations will be more relevant. Secondly,
the European Commission's Environment Directorate established a centralized, detailed
data source of EMAS registered companies (including information about the formal
manager of the EMS) that is rigorously maintained and that is accessible to researchers
from all over the world. Consequently, the data on EMAS registration is reliable,
accessible and open.
The survey was sent by e-mail for the attention of the EMS coordinator of the
organization with an accompanying introductory letter to the 1,217 Spanish companies
registered with EMAS. The data pertaining to firms registered with EMAS were
provided on the last working day of November 2011 by the EU EMAS Helpdesk
Service. After following up by telephone, the survey was concluded at the end of May
2012, at which time 361 valid responses had been returned by companies with valid
EMAS registration. This is a response rate of 29.66 %, which is a very high rate for
Spanish companies, since there is not a strong tradition of collaboration of firms with
researchers (del Brio et al., 2001; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011), especially if one
considers that it was obtained during a period of major economic crisis.
Responses were given on a 5 point Likert scale (with values 1 to 5, from least to
greatest importance). Items were measured using the managers perception of several
aspects of the process of adoption of the EMS. Perceptual measures are often used in
the empirical management literature and are considered to satisfy reliability and validity
requirements (Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004). In our survey, the main reasons for
companies to adopt an EMS and the benefits obtained its implementation and
registration were initially solicited with open questions, and later through closed
questions. The responses to the open-ended questions were coded by two independent
coders and their work was then supervised and analyzed by the principal researcher. As
coders were in agreement for nearly 90% of the responses, their coding was considered
acceptable, as suggested by the literature (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This feature is an
indicator of the internal consistency of the questionnaire (Taylor et al., 2007).
As is now customary in empirical work reported in the literature on the subject (e.g.
Colwell and Joshi, 2011; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009), common method bias was also
analyzed, as the variables were grouped together in the same measuring instrument.
Such possible distortion was tested using Harmans post-hoc single factor test. This
showed that the factor with the greatest weight accounted for 38.81 % of total variance
lower than the 50% criterion referred to in the literature (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
4. Results
4.1. Introduction
Regarding motivation, the main responses to the open question were relatively
homogeneous, with nearly 85% of them reducible to the six sources of generic
7

motivation that were identified in the closed questions. The motivational factors for the
EMS were grouped together into internal and external sources of motivation, based on
the academic literature analyzed. In the case of sources of motivation of an internal
nature, the following types were grouped together: improvement in environmental
efficiency (reduction in consumption, waste, etc.) and minimizing environmental
problems (leaks, spillage, etc.). As for external motives, the following were grouped
together: improvement in the image and social impact of the firm in the market,
customer demand, demands from a public body and the search for a competitive
advantage over competitors.
Similarly, the responses given regarding the benefits of adopting the EMS were
homogeneous, with over 90% of responses matching the five main benefits of the
adoption of EMSs that had been referred to in the academic literature. Subsequently
respondents gave their ratings in closed questions on a 5 point Likert scale. An
assessment of the general level of satisfaction with the adoption of an EMAS-based
EMS was included. In addition to the independent and dependent variables included in
the analysis shown below, the following control variables were also included, based on
the previous evidence from the literature: the size of the certified companies (measured
by the number of employees), the initial investment per employee, the belonging to the
manufacturing sector, the relevance to the industrial sector of environmental pressure
(Eurostat, 2010) and the previous experience working with EMS and with another metastandards.
Internal consistency was tested by a reliability test using Cronbachs alpha as the
criterion. The construct of motivation had an indicator value of 0.680, meaning that the
questionnaire has acceptable internal consistency (Robinson, 1991). The Barletts
sphericity result was significant (p = 0.00), the KMO test value (0.691) was acceptable
and the determinant of the correlation matrix (0.266) was not null. On the basis of these
results, we proceed to the cluster analysis (Cureton and D'Agostino, 1983; Hair et al.,
2006).
4.2. Cluster analysis
We conducted a cluster analysis with SPSS (by means of the technique of K averages
based on a vectoral quantification). The solution with three clusters was considered to be
the optimal one. Boxs M test (p = 0.219) showed that there were no significant
covariances within groups. Similarly, the WilksLambda test (p = 0.000) was used to
test for differences between the averages of the groups. Subsequently, by means of a
canonical analysis, it was shown that 97.8 % of the original cases and 95.6 % of the
cross validations were correctly classified (Hair et al., 2006).
These results (se the Table 1) are in line with those of Gavronski et al. (2013). The first
group, the Holistic group, has a higher degree of motivation in all variables. The second
group, External Focus, has more external motivations in all sections than the Internal
focus group, except for the requirements of public administrations. However, the
average external motivation is lower than the overall average, and for that reason we are
doubtful as to whether the name is appropriate. The third group, Internal focus, has a
high level of internal motivation and a low level of external motivation.
Insert Table 1 here
Following the exploratory analysis, a comparative analysis of the three groups of
companies is shown in Table 2. Significant differences regarding the results or benefits
achieved by the companies belonging to the three clusters or groups of companies were
found. Companies belonging to the Holistic group always achieve significantly better
results or higher benefits from the adoption of the EMS based on EMAS than the External
Focus group, and in two cases (image improvement and competitiveness improvement)
8

than the Internal Focus group. Similarly, the characteristics of the companies in the three
groups were analyzed.
Insert Table 2 here
Table 3 shows a summary of the statistical differences between the companies that belong
to each group, and the Holistic cluster includes a significantly higher proportion of
companies that operate in sectors with high environmental pressure.
Insert Table 3 here
4.3. Correlation and regression analysis
Once the clusters had been identified and explored, we then used correlation and
regression analysis to test the hypotheses of the study. Table 4 contains a summary of
the correlations between the variables included in the analysis.
A positive correlation among all the outcomes for the Holistic group is noteworthy.
There is also a negative correlation between belonging to the External focus group and
all the outcomes except for improvement of external image. Similarly, membership of
the Internal focus group is correlated positively with improvement of environmental
effectiveness and negatively with improvement of image and competitiveness. With
regard to the characteristics of the certified companies, improvement of environmental
effectiveness is negatively correlated with the belonging to the manufacturing sector
and positively correlated with previous experience of other meta-standards. Finally, the
outcome related to compliance with environmental laws and regulations is positively
correlated with belonging to a sector with high environmental pressure.
The purpose of the regression analysis is to evaluate the influence of the three
independent variables the belonging to each of the three identified clusters on the
dependent variable, namely, the outcomes of the EMS, measured by the perceptions of
the managers. We introduced the characteristics of the certified companies as
independent variables, and carried out six regressions in two steps. In the first step, we
introduced the mentioned characteristics of the companies and in the second step the
variable of belonging to a specific cluster. To analyze the significance of the regression
model, we used the F value for the regression and for the step, as shown in Table 5. In
the second step, the regression and the steps are significant for all cases, but this is not
the case for the first step. The significance of these values and the betas of the
independent variables are evidence for the influence of the motivations on the results
and satisfaction (Dean and Snell, 1991). The values of R2 in the second step are
increased by the dependent variables and they explain between 11.1% and 25.6% of the
results and satisfaction.
Insert Table 4 and 5 here
In the analysis of the independent variables, there are positive relationships in all the
tests between belonging to the Holistic cluster and comparatively higher outcomes from
the adoption of EMSs (Hypothesis 1). In those cases the influence is quite strong,
changing the beta coefficients by between 0.176 and 0.474. On the other hand,
belonging to External focus cluster has a significantly negative influence on five of the
six outcomes (image improvement is the only non-significant one). In addition, the
coefficients are strong with values ranging from -0.299 to -0.405 for those five cases.
Finally, belonging to the Internal focus cluster has a negative influence on the outcome
of competitiveness improvement, with no other statistically significant influence in the
case of the other outcomes. Therefore, the results of these analyses provide support for
Hypothesis 1 and partial support for Hypothesis 2, as the correlation and regression
9

coefficients lead us to accept the second hypothesis for the case of four of the six
outcomes considered, namely, compliance with laws and regulations, environmental
effectiveness improvement, minimizing environmental problems and general
satisfaction with the EMS.
The analysis leads us to reject Hypotheses 3 (the influence of the characteristics or
determinants of the certified companies on the outcomes). Generally speaking the
regression in the first step is not significant and the correlation coefficients and the
regression coefficients are not very high and are not significant, with the exception of a
few interesting cases. Firstly, there is a relevant positive influence statistically
significant of the variable high environmental pressure on the benefit of fulfilling the
laws and regulations. Secondly, that outcome is also influenced by the experience of the
certified companies with EMSs. Finally, the environmental effectiveness improvement
outcome is influenced negatively by the variable of belonging to the manufacturing
sector and positively by the age of the EMS as well as by the previous experience of the
certified companies with other meta-standards.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Our survey shows that companies with a certified EMS that belong to the group or
cluster with more intensive sources of motivation (Holistic cluster, following the
terminology of Gavronski et al., 2013), both internal and external, experience higher
outcomes from the adoption of EMSs. Similarly, partial support is provided that
companies belonging to the group with higher internal sources of motivation (Internal
focus) experience higher outcomes from the EMS than companies with a lower internal
motivation (External focus) or companies that also have external motivations (Holistic).
However, only partial support was found, as only four of the six considered outcomes
were related to the adoption of the EMS, namely compliance with laws and regulations,
the improvement of environmental effectiveness and reducing environmental problems.
Our study substantially corroborates the previous evidence for the importance of
internal motivation on the effectiveness of the adoption of EMSs (Boiral, 2011;
Brouwer and Van Koppen, 2008; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Gavronski et al.; Qi
et al., 2012). In the case of EMAS, the impacts of internal motivation may be reinforced
by the higher requirements of this management system compared to ISO 14001, notably
on employee involvement, legal compliance, and external reporting. Given these higher
requirements of EMAS, one can assume that organizations belonging to the Internal
focus group are more likely to obtain substantially improved outcomes from this process
(e.g. improvement of practices, reduction of waste and pollution, implementation of an
environmental policy). Conversely, in organizations in the External focus group, which
have adopted the EMS mostly because of external pressures, the standard is not
necessarily substantially integrated in internal practices, and this may explain why its
impact on performance is less significant. As stressed by Yin and Schmeidler (2009),
the heterogeneity in the implementation of EMSs can explain why the effectiveness of
environmental standards such as ISO 14001 is so variable and controversial in the
literature. Similarly, the findings of our study demonstrate that the impact of the EMAS
system is far from monolithic and largely depends on the main drivers of its
implementation. Generally speaking, the findings are in line with the neo-institutional
approach to EMSs (Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Christmann and Taylor, 2006; HerasSaizarbitoria et al., 2011; Boiral, 2007; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009). According to this
approach, external pressures and the search for legitimacy largely explain the adoption
of new environmental practices. Nevertheless, these practices can be adopted
superficially, notably in the absence of strong internal motivation. From this
perspective, the tendency in certain organizations, such as those in the External focus
cluster, is to adopt the EMS superficially in response to institutional pressures, which is
why external motivation is not as effective as internal motivation in improving
10

environmental performance. This evidence supports the conclusion of hlstrm et al.

(2009) who argued that EMSs should not be considered to be proof of greening.
It would be possible to discuss the fine detail of the results of this study at great length,
but in general terms the findings lead us to conclude that more attention should be given
to the characteristics of the companies, as described here, as well as to other
determinants which might be suggested on a theoretical basis.
The fact that companies from sectors with high environmental pressure perceive that
they receive higher benefits in terms of fulfilling laws and regulations raises interesting
and challenging questions about the role of EMSs as a self-regulation mechanism. On
the one hand, as highlighted by Clapp (2001), the requirement to comply with
environmental regulations may not lead to much improvement, as firms should in theory
already be complying with such regulations. Nevertheless, this argument is based on the
assumption that companies actually comply with regulations. The fact that EMSs such
as the EMAS and ISO 14001 standards contain specific requirements related to the
identification and integration of legal and others compliance obligations suggests that
this compliance should not be taken for granted. For example, Spain has been found to
be a frontrunner in terms of breaches of environmental laws and regulations (Muoz,
2014; CJEA, 2004; blind reference), as they are not systematically enforced, due to a
lack of adequate public resources (e.g. human resources for monitoring, adequate
coordination among different levels of the public administration), real political support
and the culture of the country regarding legal enforcement in practical terms. Thus, the
public support by means of direct grants, of standards for EMSs a measure that is
extensively disseminated in the EU (Testa et al., 2014) could be questionable in the
light of some of the findings of this work.
From this perspective, the promotion of EMSs such as ISO 14001 and EMAS can be
seen as a self-regulation mechanism intended to improve the compliance of companies
with existing regulations and to promote environmental initiatives beyond government
standards (Christmann and Taylor, 2006; Potoski and Prakash, 2005). The wide
diffusion of the EMAS standard in certain EUs countries, including Spain, may be
explained by the implementation of governmental incentives to encourage the adoption
of this standard and to develop, through third party certification, a market-based
regulation process (Glachant et al., 2002; Steger et al., 2002; European Commission,
2013). This self-regulation process seems particularly important in sectors with high
environmental impact and relatively weak governmental control. The fact that our
results show that Spanish companies belonging to sectors with higher environmental
impact tend to be more concerned with the outcome related to fulfillment of
environmental laws and regulations confirms that the EMAS standard is perceived to be
a self-regulation mechanism. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this mechanism remains
understudied and more research is needed on the role of EMAS and others EMSs to
reinforce corporate compliance with regulations in various countries. Likewise, the
influence of incentives such as public grants and regulatory relief measures established
in some EU states, offering lower intensity of public monitoring of EMAS registered
companies, to improve their environmental performance (Testa et al., 2014) should be
analyzed in depth.
The findings of the study have implications for organizations, managers, policy makers,
public decision makers and other stakeholders. The effectiveness of the EMSs in
improving environmental performance should encourage managers concerned with this
issue to adopt this management system. Nevertheless, the prominent role of internal
motivation suggests that managers should first and foremost clarify their motivations for
adopting the standard and examine what could be gained from it. This examination
should embrace, in practical terms, the main proposals of the standards for EMSs and
analysis of the gaps between the existing environmental practices of the organization.
11

The influence of the maturity of the EMSs and the environmental certification suggests
that certification should not be considered as an end in itself but rather as a tool for
continual improvement and communication. Policy makers and public decision makers
should be aware of the real implications of the adoption of EMSs. Generally speaking,
government incentives for ISO 14001 and EMAS adoption should be examined, and
measures sought to discourage superficial adoption of the standard with the intention of
improving corporate image and obtaining public grants. Those incentives should be, as
far as possible, directed toward companies with a real Holistic or Internal focus,
meaning that they intend to improve environmental practices and performance. For
example, prior to the award a grant for the adoption of an EMS, government agencies
could require organizations to explain their motivation, the expected benefits of the
EMSs and/or to demonstrate their improvement of environmental performance. In the
case of EMAS, the EU could also provide more information on the internal benefits
related to EMAS adoption (e.g. case studies, descriptions of exemplary organizations,
an EMAS toolkit for various types of organizations). The EMAS awards, launched by
the EU to reward the environmental performance of certified organizations (European
Commission, 2014) could be used to promote best practice in the implementation of the
standard and highlight its benefits through the example of organizations with a Holistic
or an Internal focus on the standard.
In the light of the findings of this study, it might be appropriate to revisit the question of
support or grants from public agencies to encourage general implementation and
certification of standards for EMSs such as EMAS. These are measures that are
extensively employed in the EU (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2014) responding to the
encouragement included in the proper EMAS regulation, and are shown to be effective
here, but public support aimed at encouraging compliance with public laws is limited by
the regulations of some government bodies (e.g. the EC).
The limitations of this study provide opportunities for future research. First, the
quantitative methodology used, even though it is similar to most studies in this area,
does not allow deeper examination of the implementation of the standard and attitudes
inside the organization. As with the vast majority of quantitative studies, the
information used in this paper is based on the perceptions of managers who have taken
part in the process of introducing the EMS. Thus, the results may be influenced by the
social desirability bias of the respondents (Arnold and Feldman, 1981), a bias related to
the personal interests of the respondents in underlining the success of the adoption of
the EMS. Moreover, the research is focused in a specific geographical, economic, social
and cultural context. More research should be carried out with companies with
environmental certification from other regions in order to study comparatively the
influence and weight of the institutional and cultural variables. Finally, the real impact
of the mentioned public support measures on the adoption and the outcomes of EMSs
should be also analyzed in depth.
Acknowledgements
This article is a result of a Research Group funded by the Basque Autonomous
Government (Grupos de Investigacin del Sistema Universitario Vasco; IT76313/GIC12-158). The authors are in debt to all the companies that collaborated in the
fieldwork. The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to the Editor and to the
anonymous reviewers for their assistance, since their constructive criticism and
suggestions helped to improve and develop the paper.
6. References
hlstrm J, Macquet M, Richter U. 2009. The lack of a critical perspective in
environmental management research: distortion in the scientific discourse. Business
Strategy and the Environment 185: 334-346.
12

Aravind D. 2008. Variations in implementation of certifiable management practices

across certified firms: an examination of the determinants and consequences of ISO
14001 implementation. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, Missouri.
Aravind D, Christmann P. 2008. Institutional and resource-based determinants of
substantive implementation of ISO 14001. Academy of Management Proceedings 14: 16.
Arnold HJ, Feldman DC. 1981. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice
situations. Academy of Management Journal 24: 377-385.
Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological
responsiveness. Academy of management journal 434: 717-736.
Barla P. 2007. ISO 14001 certification and environmental performance in Quebec's pulp
and paper industry. Journal of environmental economics and management 533: 291306.
Block MR, Marash IR. 2000. Integrating ISO 14001 into a quality management system.
McGraw Hill International. New York.
Bodas I. 2009. The diffusion of ISO 9000 and 14001 certification, cross sectoral
evidence from eight OECD countries. Summer Conference - Copenhagen Business
School, Frederiksberg, Denmark, June 17 19.
Boiral O. 2001. ISO 14001 certification in multinational firms: the paradoxes of
integration. Global Focus 13: 79-94.
Boiral O. 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? Organization
Science 181: 127-146.
Boiral O. 2011. Managing with ISO systems: lessons from practice. Long Range
Planning 443: 197-220.
Boiral O, Roy MJ. 2007. ISO 9000: integration rationales and organizational impacts.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27: 226-247.
Brouwer MA, Van Koppen CSA. 2008. The soul of the machine: continual
improvement in ISO 14001. Journal of Cleaner Production 164: 450-457.
CarballoPenela A, CastromnDiz JL. 2014. Environmental Policies for Sustainable
Development: an Analysis of the Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategies in the
Service Sector. Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI:
10.1002/bse.1847.
Chiarini A. 2013. Strategies for Developing an Environmentally Sustainable Supply
Chain: Differences Between Manufacturing and Service Sectors. Business Strategy and
the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI: 10.1002/bse.1799.
Chin KS, Chiu S, Pun KF. 1998. Critical factors for implementing ISO 14000 EMS.
International Journal of Management 15: 237-247.
Christmann P, Taylor G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable
standards: determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of
International Business Studies 37: 863-883.
Colwell SR, Joshi AW. 2011. Corporate ecological responsiveness: antecedent effects
of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact on
organizational performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 22: 7391.
CJEA (Comisin Jurdica de Ecologistas en Accin). 2004. Incumplimiento
generalizado de la normativa ambiental. El Ecologista 41: 14-16 [Available at
http://www.ecologistasenaccion.es/article17356.html]
13

Clapp J. 1998. The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and
the developing world. Global Governance 14: 295-316.
Corbett CJ, Kirsch DA. 2001. International diffusion of
certification. Production and Operations Management 10: 327-342.

ISO

14000

Cureton EE, D'Agostino RB. 1983. Factor analysis: an applied approach. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Hillside, New Jersey.
Curkovic S, Sroufe R. 2011. Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chain
strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment 202: 71-93.
Darnall N, Jolley G J, Handfield R. 2008. Environmental management systems and
green supply chain management: complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and
the Environment 17: 30-45.
Del Brio J, Fernndez E, Junquera B, Vzquez CJ. 2001. Motivations for adopting the
ISO 14001 standard: a study of Spanish industrial companies. Environmental Quality
Management 10: 13-28.
Delmas M. 2001. Stakeholders and competitive advantage: the case of ISO
14001. Production and Operations Management 10: 343-358.
Ervin D, Wu J, Khanna M, Jones C, Wirkkala T. 2013. Motivations and barriers to
corporate environmental management. Business Strategy and the Environment.
Forthcoming: DOI: 10.1002/bse.1752.
European Commission. 2013. EMAS: Statistics and Graphs; Brussels, available from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/articles_en.htm. Accessed December
7, 2013.
European Commission, 2014. EMAS Awards 2014; Brussels, available from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emasawards/pdf/FINAL%20EMAS%20Awards
%20brochure%2025-3%20hauteok-3.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2014.
Eurostat 2010: November 2010 European Commission - EUROSTAT Information Hub
Environmental Pressure of Sectors, by NACE Code
Fryxell GE, Lo CWH, Chung SS. 2004. Influence of motivations for seeking ISO 14001
certification on perceptions of EMS effectiveness in China. Environmental Management
332: 239-251.
Gavronski I, Ferrer G, Paiva E. 2008. ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: motivations and
benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 87-94.
Gavronski I, Klassen RD, Vachon S, Nascimento LFMD. 2011. A resource-based view
of green supply management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 47: 872-885.
Gavronski I, Klassen RD, Vachon S, Nascimento LFMD. 2012. A learning and
knowledge approach to sustainable operations. International Journal of Production
Economics 140: 183-192.
Gavronski I, Paiva EL, Teixeira R, de Andrade MCF. 2013. ISO 14001 certified plants
in Braziltaxonomy and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 39: 32-41.
Glachant M, Schucht S, Bltmann A, Wtzold F. 2002. Companies' participation in
EMAS: the influence of the public regulator. Business Strategy and the Environment
11: 254-266.
Gonzlez-Benito J, Gonzlez-Benito O. 2005. An analysis of the relationship between
environmental motivations and ISO 14001 certification. British Journal of Management
16: 133-148.
14

Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black W. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson
Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
HerasSaizarbitoria I, Boiral O. 2013. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research
Agenda on Management System Standards*. International Journal of Management
Reviews 151: 47-65.
Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Molina-Azorn JF, Dick GP. 2011. ISO 14001 certification and
financial performance: selection-effect versus treatment-effect. Journal of Cleaner
Production 191: 1-12.
Jiang RJ, Bansal P. 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management
Studies 404: 1047-1067.
Ketokivi MA, Schroeder RG. 2004. Perceptual measures of performance: fact or
fiction? Journal of Operations Management 22: 247-64.
Lagodimos AG, Chountalas PT, Chatzi K. 2007. The state of ISO 14001 certification in
Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1743-1754.
Lannelongue G, GonzalezBenito J, GonzalezBenito O. 2013. Input, Output, and
Environmental Management Productivity: Effects on Firm Performance. Business
Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI: 10.1002/bse.1806.
LpezNavarro M, TortosaEdo V, LlorensMonzons J. 2013. Environmental
Management Systems and Local Community Perceptions: the Case of Petrochemical
Complexes Located in Ports. Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming:
DOI: 10.1002/bse.1817.
Mrtensson K, Westerberg K. 2014. Corporate Environmental Strategies Towards
Sustainable Development. Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI:
10.1002/bse.1852.
Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone R. 2003. Assessing the impact of environmental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of
Operations Management 21: 329-351.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. London.
Morrow D, Rondinelli D. 2002. Adopting corporate environmental management
systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS Certification. European
Management Journal 202: 159171.
Muoz D. 2014. Espaa a la cola en cumplimiento de la legislacin ambiental de la
Unin Europea. Available at http://geoinnova.org/blog-territorio/espana-a-la-cola-encumplimiento-de-la-legislacion-ambiental-de-la-union-europea/
Neugebauer F. 2012. EMAS and ISO 14001 in the German industry e complements or
substitutes? Journal of Cleaner Production 37: 249-256.
Neumayer E, Perkins R. 2005. Uneven Geographies of Organizational Practice:
Explaining the CrossNational Transfer and Diffusion of ISO 9000. Economic
Geography 81: 237-259.
Nishitani K. 2009. An empirical study of the initial adoption of ISO 14001 in Japanese
manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics 68: 669-679.
Papagiannakis G, Voudouris I, Lioukas S. 2014. The road to sustainability: Exploring
the process of corporate environmental strategy over time. Business Strategy and the
Environment 23: 254-271.

15

Paulraj A. 2009. Environmental motivations: A classification scheme and its impact on

environmental strategies and practices. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 453
468.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of management 124: 531-544.
Potoski M, Prakash A. 2005. Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and
firms' regulatory compliance. American Journal of Political Science 49: 235-248.
Qi G, Zeng S, Li X, Tam C. 2012. Role of internalization process in defining the
relationship between ISO 14001 certification and corporate environmental
performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 193:
129-140.
Robinson JP. 1991. Criteria for Scale Selection and Evaluation in Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Academic Press. New York.
Russo MV. 2009. Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: a
dynamic capabilities perspective on process and learning. Business Strategy and the
Environment 185: 307-319.
Sambasivan M, Fei NY. 2008. Evaluation of critical success factors of implementation
of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process AHP: a case study from
Malaysia. Journal of cleaner production 16: 1424-1433.
Schylander E, Martinuzzi A. 2007. ISO 14001experiences, effects and future
challenges: national study in Austria. Business Strategy and the Environment 162: 133147.
Spector PE, Brannick MT. 2011. Methodological urban legends: the misuse of
statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods 14: 287-305.
Steger U, Schindel C, Krapf H. 2002. The experience of EMAS in three European
countries: a cultural and competitive analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment
11: 32-42.
Szymanski M, Tiwari P. 2004. ISO 14001 and reduction of toxic emissions. Journal of
Economic Policy Reform 7: 3142.
Testa F, Rizzi F, Daddi T, Gusmerotti NM, Frey M, Iraldo F. 2014. EMAS and ISO
14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. Journal of
Cleaner Production 68: 165-173.
Wahba H. 2010. How do institutional shareholders manipulate corporate environmental
strategy to protect their equity value? A study of the adoption of ISO 14001 by Egyptian
firms. Business Strategy and the Environment 19: 495-511.
Yeung G, Mok V. 2005. What are the impacts of implementing ISOs on the
competitiveness of manufacturing industry in China? Journal of World Business 402:
139-157.
Yin H, Schmeidler PJ. 2009. Why do standardized ISO 14001 environmental
management systems lead to heterogeneous environmental outcomes? Business Strategy
and the Environment 187: 469-486.
Zeng SX, Tam CM, Tam VW, Deng ZM. 2005. Towards implementation of ISO 14001
environmental management systems in selected industries in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production 137: 645-656.
Zhu Q, Cordeiro J, Sarkis J. 2013. Institutional pressures, dynamic capabilities and
environmental management systems: investigating the ISO 9000Environmental
16

management system implementation

management 114: 232-242.

linkage.

17

Journal

of

environmental

Table 1: Analysis of the motivational clusters of companies

131

2-External
Focus
118

Image Improvement

4.28 (0.91) [2,3]

4.01(0.97) [1]

3.82(0.94) [1]

4.05(0.95)

5.79**

Customer demands

3.19(0.81) [2,3]

1.67(0.76) [1]

1.65(0.72) [1]

2.21(1.15)

101.91**

Administration
Competitive advantage
Internal efficiency

3.32(1.05) [2,3]

1.78(1.03) [1,3]

2.30(1.13) [1,2]

2.50(1.24)

56.29**

4.08(0.97) [2,3]

3.74(1.01) [1,3]

2.08(0.90) [1,2]

3.34(1.24)

134.75**

4.35(0.72) [2,3]

2.94(0.91) [1,3]

4.06(0.89) [1,2]

3.79(1.07)

70.16**

3.97(0.98) [2]

2.61(1.01) [1,3]

3.97(0.92) [2]

3.52(1.16)

62.58**

1-Holistic

Envir. proactivity

3-Internal focus

Total

112

361

F statistics

Source: prepared by the authors. Note: ** p <0.01. The numbers in parentheses are sample standard deviation. The
numbers in square brackets are the group means from which this group is significantly different at the 0.05 significance
level (MannWhitney U test).

Table 2: Analysis of results/benefits by the three motivational clusters

131

2-External
Focus
118

Image improvement
Fulfill environmental
laws/regulations
Envir. effectiv. improv.

4.27(0.86) [2,3]

3.72(0.94) [1]

3.55(1.07) [1]

3.86(1.00)

14.89**

4.30(0.83) [2]

3.67(1.15) [1,3]

4.12(0.92) [2]

4.03(0.96)

10.02**

4.15(0.88) [2]

3.23(1.01) [1,3]

4.00(0.98) [2]

3.80(1.04)

23.30**

Minimize envir. problems

Competitiveness
improvement
Satisfaction

3.79(1.10) [2]

2.74(1.11) [1,3]

3.56(1.19) [2]

3.38(1.18)

20.92**

3.82(0.94) [2,3]

3.06(1.23) [1]

3.14(1.18) [1]

3.36(1.16)

13.22**

4.07(0.75) [2]

3.29(1.18) [1,3]

3.85(0.87) [2]

3.75(0.99)

14.20**

1-Holistic

3-Internal focus

Total

112

361

F statistics

Source: prepared by the authors. Note: ** p <0.01. The numbers in parentheses are sample standard deviation. The
numbers in square brackets are the group means from which this group is significantly different at the 0.05 significance
level (MannWhitney U test).

Table 3: Analysis of the characteristics of the companies included in the three

motivational clusters

Firm size
Initial investment per
employee
Manufacturing
Environmental
pressure
Age of EMS
Previous ISO

1- Holistic

2-External Focus

9-Internal Focus

Total

131

118

112

361

193.7 (925.6)

64.3 (89.178) [3]

153.8 (341.9) [2]

138.9 (537)

2.72

800.0 (2514.6)

475.6 (627.4)

423.3 (578.4)

576.8 (1737.9)

1.64

0.328 (0.470)

0.347 (0.47866)

0.288 (0.455)

0.325 (0.467)

0.71

0.294 (0.460) [2,3]

0.119 (0.33397) [1]

0.058 (0.250) [1]

0.163 (0.376)

8.88**

2003.2 (2.8)

2003.6 (3.1)

2003.5 (3.1)

2003.4 (3.10)

0.63

0.733 (0.444)

0.768 (0.424)

0.811 (0.393)

0.768 (0.422)

0.72

Source: prepared by the authors. Note: ** p <0.01. The numbers in parentheses are sample standard deviation. The
numbers in square brackets are the group means from which this group is significantly different at the 0.05 significance
level (MannWhitney U test).

18

Table 4: Descriptive statistics and correlations for motivations and outcomes of the EMS
Firm
size
Firm size
Initial Invest per employee
Manufacturing
Environmental pressure
Age of EMS
Previous ISO
Holistic
External Focus
Internal Focus
Image improvement
Fulfill environmental laws/regulations
Environmental effectiveness improvement
Minimize environmental problems
Competitiveness improvement
Satisfaction

1
-0.061
0.113*
-0.024
0.089
0.067
0.070
-0.087
0.017
0.031
-0.092
-0.065
-0.018
0.019
0.106

Initial
invest per
employee
.
1
-0.088
0.123
0.048
0.003
0.100
-0.047
-0.065
0.101
0.049
0.073
0.122
0.107
0.100

Manuf.

1
0.021
-0.009
0.201**
0.001
0.036
-0.049
-0.074
0.080
-0.132*
-0.038
-0.041
-0.109

Envir.
Press.

Age of
EMS

Previo
us ISO

1
-0.064
0.009
0.261**
-0.081
-0.184**
0.082
0.155**
0.072
-0.020
0.039
-0.048

1
-0.427**
0.006
0.090
-0.090
0.036
0.083
-0.030
-0.000
-0.014
0.090

1
-0.064
-0.001
0.067
-0.014
-0.009
0.134*
0.050
0.096
0.012

Holistic

1
-0.523**
-0.503**
0.310**
0.196**
0.247**
0.246**
0.300**
0.251**

Source: prepared by the authors. Cell entries are standardized coefficients; *P<0.05; **P<0.01 in two-tailed tests.

19

External
Focus

1
-0.466**
-0.092
-0.250**
-0.379**
-0.361**
-0.172**
-0.320**

Internal
Focus

Image
improv.

1
-0.213**
0.053
0.125*
0.111
-0.124*
0.061

1
0.161**
0.213**
0.165**
0.322**
0.249**

Fulfill
laws regul

Environ.
effect.
improv.

Minimize
environ.
problems

1
0.432**
0.464**
0.173**
0.263**

1
0.498**
0.292**
0.475**

1
0.321**
0.380**

Compe
tit.
improv
.

1
0.247**

Satis
facti
on

Table 5: Results of regression analysis for the motivational clusters, the company characteristics and the outcomes from EMS

Step 2
0.009

Environmental
effectiveness
improvement
Step 1
Step 2
0.064
0.000

Minimize
environmental
problems
Step 1
Step 2
0.080
0.016

Step 1
-0.023

Step 2
-0.019

Step 1
0.129

Step 2
0.065

0.010

0.053

0.118

0.090

0.100

0.058

-0.069

-0.108

Image improvement

Fulfill environ. laws

and regulations

Firm size

Step1
-0.087

Step 2
-0.086

Step 1
0.075

Initial Invest per employee

0.087

0.064

0.035

Control Variables

0.017
*

Satisfaction

Manufacturing

0.003

-0.017

0.088

0.093

-0.192

-0.065

-0.056

-0.030

-0.065

-0.107

-0.088

Environmental pressure

0.081

0.035

0.176*

0.181*

0.033

0.022

0.020

0.011

0.031

-0.052

-0.051

-0.077

0.202

0.127

0.172

0.086

0.136

0.017

0.049

0.109

0.141

0.087

0.229*

0.251**

0.062

0.070

0.105

0.134

0.055

0.068

Age of EMS

-0.018

-0.003

0.170

Previous ISO

-0.017

-0.001

0.078

-0.203

Competitiveness
improvement

Independent variables
Holistic

0.258**

0.176*

0.263**

0.225**

0.474**

Internal Focus

-0.164

0.161

0.103

0.151

-0.234**

0.069

-0.299**

-0.405**

External Focus

**

0.124

-0.347

-0.386

**

-0.394

**

0.313**

Model information
R2

0.026

0.111

0.071

0.187

0.071

0.215

0.030

0.178

0.023

0.256

0.040

0.204

F for the regression

0.588

2.110*

1.718

3.800**

1.701

4.497**

0.667

3.480**

0.510

5.052**

0.881

3.968**

F for the step

0.588
14.897**
1.718
10.022**
1.701
23.305**
0.667
20.922**
0.510
13.229**
0.881
14.202**
Source: prepared by the authors. Cell entries are standardized coefficients; *P<0.05; **P<0.01 in two-tailed tests. As the dummy variables of belonging to a cluster are collinear, they have been
introduced individually in order to calculate their coefficients in the regression. Nevertheless, in order to calculate the information related to the model those variables have been introduced simultaneously.

20