See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330089504

Green Management-Concept and Strategies

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

28 44,292

2 authors, including:

Bepar Abdul Azeem

Annamacharya Institute of Technology & Sciences
9 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "The Business Ecosystem Research of the Environmental Goods and Services Sector" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bepar Abdul Azeem on 02 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

Green Management – Concept and Strategies

Y. Loknath
yama.lok@gmail.com
B. Abdul Azeem
Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences

There are far reaching repercussions of human industrial activities resulting in the extinction
and endangering of many life forms. Upon realisation of this alarmingly increasing threat on
its own survival, the human industrial activities have started to transform itself which has led
to discussions on newer concepts like green management. Hence, this paper attempts to
provide a basic overview of the concept of green management at the introductory level and
discuss different types of green management strategies adopted by organisations. The paper
attempts to contribute to the emerging field of green management and the stakeholders of
sustainable development.
Keywords: Green Management, Green Business, Sustainable Development, Triple Bottom
Line

1. Introduction
Since the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, we (humans) have been acting in ways
and multiplying at rates which affect the balance of life on the surface of the Earth as whole.
Before the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, the effects of human activity were local,
or at most regional, rather than global. Now the impact is indeed global. The idea may be
hard to accept, but in its long history with all its variations the Earth has never been in this
situation before. Business has always depended on – and had an impact on – the natural
world. But the development of the relationship between business and the environment – from
the extraction of raw materials to the management of resources to the generation of waste –
has long been neglected by business historians. In business, when we use these natural
resources without any limit, natural environment changes. Global warming, floods, famines,
tsunami and earth quake are its result.
Environmental degradation has been a part of human history forever specifically from
business operations. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, however,

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 688

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

brought with it the ability to degrade the natural environment to a greater extent and at a
faster rate than ever before. Each of these monumental environmental events is largely due to
human activity, and specifically to our present arrangements of modern industrial society.
Simply put, the way we have done business over the last two centuries has brought us up
against the biophysical limits of the earth‘s capacity to support human life, and it has already
crossed those limits in the case of countless other forms of life.

Sustainability and TBL

After two centuries of industrialism and urbanisation, people now began to rediscover the
idea that they were part of nature. The combination of actual changes in the environment and
people‘s perceptions generally at this time brought widespread public support for the
environmental movement, particularly amongst the younger groups. For the new
environmentalists, it was not solely their local outdoor environments which were perceived to
be under threat, but human survival itself. The scientific consensus on the occurrence of
ecological imbalances has gradually coming to the conclusion that the damage inflicted by
human activities on the natural environment render those activities unsustainable. This has
created a need for a new world view to serve as a basis for global consensus, which
eventually led to the coining of the term ―sustainable development‖.
In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (The
Bundled Commission) defined sustainable development as one that ―meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖
(Matusya & Yarime, 2014). Sustainability has three interdependent dimensions relating to the
environment, economics and society —often referred to as the triple bottom line. Since the
publication of Brundtland report by the United Nations, industry practice has embraced the
notion that sustainability derives from focusing on the triple bottom line (Slaper & Hall,
2011). The term ―Triple Bottom Line‖ (TBL) dates back to the mid 1990‘s, when
management think tank Accountability coined and began using the term in its work. The term
found public currency with the 1997 publication of the British edition of John Ellington‘s
Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. The TBL approach
pioneered by the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability emphasises that companies are
responsible for multiple impacts on society, with associated bottom lines. TBL as it is
evolving is a systematic approach to managing the complete set of a company‘s
responsibilities.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 689

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

At its broadest, the term is used to capture the whole set of values, issues and processes that
companies must address in order to maximise the positive impacts of their activities and
generate added economic, social and environmental value. At its narrowest, the term is used
to refer to a framework for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic,
Social and environmental parameters (UNIDO). The TBL approach is grounded in the
simple realisation that corporations can add value and should publicly account along three
drivers, namely the economic, the environmental and the social drivers. Traditional economic
indicators have persisted including typical performance measures such as net profit, gross
margin and return on average capital employed. Much progress has been made in recent years
in evolving high quality global environmental standards (e.g. quantity of main pollutants to
air, land and water, management systems and eco-labels) but social reporting is still in its
infancy with a range of diverse indicators grouped under the social dimension (e.g. health and
safety, wages, training, discrimination, freedom of association and gender equality). The TBL
approach therefore looks at how corporations manage all three responsibilities and attempts
to account for these inter-related spheres of activity for a more balanced view of overall
corporate performance.
With being blamed for much of the environmental ills plaguing the world, as well as being
held responsible for finding solutions to these problems, organizations had little choice but to
attempt to incorporate green management initiatives into all of their business functions.
Nattrass and Alto mare (1999) discussed the development of industrial sustainability, or what
may be considered green management, and maintained that organizations encountered a steep
learning curve process when adopting green management practices. Specifically, they
constructed a model of organizational adoption of green management practices by which
organizations obtained knowledge, responded to environmental issues, and set goals for
environmental protection and restoration. This paper attempts to identify such knowledge for
the purpose of providing basic understanding in more cohesive form for the readers.
Specifically, objective is to identify literature which builds an understanding of what the
concept of green management stands for. Subsequently, it is objected to identify literature
which has brought forward green management strategies. The first part of the paper provides
a definition of green management and compares with that of green business. The second part
provides a discussion of what encapsulates green management and finally, types of green
management strategies were discussed.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 690

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

2. Definition of Green Management

One of the primary reasons why it is difficult to decipher a consistent and comprehensive
definition of green management is that it is a relatively new term. Database searches yield
relatively few works addressing the exact term ―green management‖ and the majority of such
works focus on environmental management and environmental management systems (EMS)
as ways to improve environmental and business performance [e.g. (Florida & Davison, 2001;
Darnall, Jolley, & Handfield, 2008)]. While both improved environmental and business
performance are basic goals of green management, we believe that a more specific and
extensive conceptualization is warranted. When definitions of the exact term ―green
management‖ are found in the literature, they often appear either too vague or incomplete.
One of the most recent studies on green management defined the term as ―practices that
produce environmentally-friendly products and minimize the impact on the environment
through green production, green research and development, and green marketing‖ (Peng &
Lin, 2008). With no mention of factors such as strategic integration or sustainability, we feel
that this definition falls short of what it means to embrace true green management, but
recognize that developing a definition of the term was not the purpose of these authors. While
researchers have made valiant attempts to develop conceptualizations and typologies, arriving
at a widely-accepted definition of green management does not appear to have been a priority.
In addition to green management being a rather new term, the lack of a comprehensive and
specific definition, and the confusion surrounding the range of practices that actually
constitute green management, another obstacle in determining a solid definition of the term is
that green management is typically labelled with a different nomenclature such as corporate
environmentalism, environmental management, or corporate sustainability. Not only are there
different terms by which we label green management, but each of these terms are defined and
interpreted in a variety of ways by a diverse group of researchers and practitioners. For
example, some suggest that the concept of corporate environmentalism revolves around the
objective of reducing waste, which in turn contributes to the organization‘s ultimate goal of
making money (Costello, 2008). However, others define corporate environmentalism as
something much more broad and profound than financial returns derived from waste
reduction. For instance, one working definition of the term identifies corporate
environmentalism as ―the organization-wide recognition of the legitimacy and importance of
the biophysical environment in the formulation of organization strategy, and the integration
of environmental issues into the strategic planning process‖ (Banerjee, Corporate

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 691

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

environmentalism: the construct and its measurement, 2002). While this definition stresses
the importance of environmental issues and the need to integrate these issues into the strategy
of the organization, some factors that we believe are critical to the practice of green
management seem to be missing or need to be specified; factors such as continuous
improvement, sustainability, and innovation.
Environmental management and corporate sustainability are also terms that have been used
in close conjunction with or as a substitute for green management. Both concepts seem to
extend beyond simply reducing waste, and therefore more accurately embrace the ideal of
green management than the description of corporate environmentalism offered by Costello
(2008). Environmental management focuses on continuous improvement and environmental
management systems have been looked upon with much favour by large organizations, policy
makers, consultants, and researchers as an effective approach for proactively dealing with
environmental issues (Kautto, 2006). However, we should note that some have defined
environmental management simply in terms of economic profit (e.g. (Denton, 1994)).
Corporate sustainability also stretches beyond waste reduction and requires continuous
improvements to achieve its challenging objectives. In order for sustainability to be possible,
according to Daly (1996), our economy must radically shift from a focus on growth to a
steady-state economy, which requires that rates of consumption do not exceed rates of
regeneration, rates of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable
renewable substitutes are developed, and the rates of pollution emissions do not exceed the
assimilative capacity of the environment (Daly, 1991). Hawke (1993)
Applies an economic golden rule to define what it means to be sustainable when he advises
everyone to ―leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to
harm life or the environment, [and] make amends if you do.‖ Borrowing from the basic
premises of these terms, we feel the need to incorporate ideas such as continuous
improvement and sustainable processes into the definition of green management.
Following careful examination of the preceding review and the additional historically-based,
practitioner-based, and theoretically-based literatures concerning green management, several
recurring concepts were identified. The recurrence of similar concepts across three different
perspectives solidified the importance of their inclusion in the following definition of green
management (Haden, Oyler, & Humphreys, 2009): Green management is the organization-
wide process of applying innovation to achieve sustainability, waste reduction, social
responsibility, and a competitive advantage via Continuous learning and development and by

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 692

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

embracing environmental goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and
strategies of the organization.

3. Green Business
Green businesses adopt green management principles, policies, and practices that improve the
quality of life for their customers, their employees, the communities in which they operate,
and the environment. Many green businesses begin with a desire to resolve the impacts of
climate change and other environmental problems. Green businesses must follow a green
approach and green standards in their operational management and in the output of products.
Green business can be derived from two perspectives related to the output in the form of
green products (goods and services) as well as the process (or production) of an economic
activity. Entrepreneurs can enter into an overtly ‗green‘ business sector, providing green and
environmentally friendly products (e.g. waste management, renewable energy among others).
Alternately, green business can provide their goods or services through an environmentally
friendly process or with the help of clean technologies (e.g. ecotourism).
Irrespective of the two perspectives upon which green businesses are operated, following
definition embodies the true nature of green businesses: Green business is an organization
that is committed to the principles of environmental sustainability in its operations, strives to
use renewable resources, and tries to minimize the negative environmental impact of its
activities.
In this perception, ―greening‖ of business is part of a long-term strategy of becoming
sustainable, i.e. being able to achieve business tasks in the way that does not develop any
threat – economic, social or environmental – for both current and future generations.

Characteristics of Green Businesses

Hirsch identifies nine categories of green business behaviour. Hirsch explains claiming that:
when firms go green, they exceed legal requirements by:
1. Directly reducing their own regulated—or unregulated—environmental impacts in ways
that will reduce regulatory risk, improve company brand, and allow firms to get out in
front of anticipated regulations;
2. Reducing their customers‘ environmental impacts and decreasing their customers‘
exposure to unhealthy substances;
3. increasing their reuse and recycling of materials used in the production process;

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 693

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

4. improving their energy efficiency or that of their customers;

5. improving their resource productivity or that of their customers;
6. implementing systems to identify waste reduction, pollution prevention, energy
efficiency, or resource productivity opportunities throughout the company or facility;
7. collecting and disseminating more information about the firm‘s environmental impacts
and performance than the law requires;
8. providing more opportunities for stakeholder input into corporate environmental decision
making than the law requires; and
9. Financing and investing in green products and business models, such as those described
above.

Scope of Green Management

The scope of the meaning of green is considerable. It can relate to issues such as ecological
concerns, conservation (planet and animal), corporate social responsibility (CSR),
humanitarian concerns, fair trade, clean water, animal welfare, equality, and sustainability.
Each of these issues alone is broad and complex. The term ―green‖ may also imply different
things to professionals in various fields. In health and medicine, for example, greening may
mean minimizing damage to human health; in business, the term may imply harmonizing
corporate environmental performance with stakeholders‘ expectations. However, even in
business, the word green differs greatly. This is particularly the case when describing
products as green. Even products that are the same may be green in different ways.
Furthermore, the use of green in products has led to controversy. For example, for products
that may be environmentally friendly in some respects but are at the same time unsafe in the
long term, it could be argued that labelling them as green is incorrect, and it would even be
socially irresponsible to have these products in the marketplace.
Since green management is a new term, researchers and practitioners interpret green
management in a variety of ways. Some may view compliance with regulatory standards or a
simple initiative to reduce paper consumption (i.e. requiring that all photocopying be double-
sided) as green management. Others may feel that green management entails new corporate
strategies, organizational restructuring, or a complete overhaul of manufacturing processes.
The range separating these two viewpoints is vast, suggesting that there is a broad continuum
or spectrum along which a variety of ―green‖ business practices can fall, from the simple and
easy to the complex and challenging. Banerjee (2001) suggests that the range of an

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 694

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

organization‘s environmentally-based strategies progresses from reactive to proactive; that

organizations can resist or merely comply with environmental standards, or they can view
environmental concerns as an opportunity to be innovative and gain a competitive advantage.
Other researchers have also identified similar continuums of environmental strategies,
models, typologies, and classifications (e.g. (Hass, 1996; Freeman, Pierce, & Dodd, 2000)).
We believe that organizations will vary along a continuum ranging from low to high levels of
green management, based on a definition that fully encapsulates the concept of green
management. As research efforts progress our understanding of green management, we may
find that one basic definition is not sufficient to describe the concept in its entirety and that it
may actually be composed of different types of green management.

Types of Green Management

Various researchers in the field of green management have categorised the concept from
different stand points which can be considered from the point of view of strategic approaches
adopted or the classification of organisations based on the strategic approaches. Meima's
(1994) categorization of the various environmental management paradigms that have
emerged over the past few years into four groups, gives us an overall theoretical framework.
His approach suggests that while there are some who perceive the environment as an
anthropocentric moral/ethical issue, there are others who regard it as a means to gaining
financial benefits. It is here that the concept of competitive strategies and competitive
advantage comes in. The third paradigm perceives environmental management as a function
of quality (e.g. TQEM, BS7750). The fourth approach to environmental management is
determining ways in which industrial action can be made compatible with nature; for
instance, by minimizing emissions, by reducing wastes at source etc.
Simpson (1991) suggests that corporate responses to environmental pressures can be
categorized into three main groups; the `Why Mes', the `Smart Movers' and the `Enthusiasts'.
The `Why Mes' are the companies that have been forced to improve their environmental
performance as a result of some well-publicized event. Some outstanding environmental
accident acts as a catalyst and induces the company to take some action in the field. `Smart
Movers' are the ones that have been able to exploit the opportunity created by the arrival of
the green consumer to gain competitive advantage. The `Enthusiasts' include companies that
have moved beyond compliance, and have incorporated their environmental strategy into
their overall business strategy.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 695

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

Similarly, Steger's conceptual model (Roome, Business Strategy, R & D Management and
Environmental Imperatives, 1994) categorizes corporate strategies into four categories;
indifference, offensive, defensive and innovative. Indifferent companies are those that have
low environmental risk and even less environmentally-based opportunities for growth.
Offensive companies are those that have considerable potential for exploiting
environmentally-related market opportunities, and include companies that manufacture
pollution control equipment etc. Those adopting a defensive strategy are companies like the
chemical companies, which have high environmental risk and cannot afford to ignore
environmental issues, or their very survival could be at stake. The innovators are those that
have high environmental risk and also a lot of environmentally-based opportunities for
growth.
In Roome's Strategic Options Model (1992), there are five environmental strategies for
companies, namely; non-compliance, compliance, compliance-plus, commercial and
environmental excellence, and leading edge. These are referred to as; stable, reactive,
anticipatory, entrepreneurial and creative in Ansoff‘s Strategic Posture Analysis (Ketola,
1993). The first three strategies are related to compliance with the environmental standards,
as the name suggests. Compliance-plus implies looking beyond the existing standards and
norms. It involves integration of the environmental management techniques with the entire
management system of the company. Excellence and leading-edge approaches view
environmental management as good management, recognize the opportunities that have
arisen as a result of the environmental revolution and strive towards state-of-the-art
environmental management. Hence, it is through the adoption of excellence and leading-edge
strategies that a company can gain competitive advantage.
The difference between Steger's and Roome's models is that while Steger perceives
corporate response to the environment as based on environmental risks and market-based
opportunities, Roome argues that environmental pressures like legislation, constraints within
the firm, and the ability of managers to bring about an organizational change in order to
incorporate environmental issues, are equally important. James’ framework (1992) is similar
to that of Roome‘s. He believes that there are four categories into which companies can be
divided, in accordance with the environmental strategy adopted by them. The first category is
similar to Steger‘s indifference and Roome‘s non-compliance, where all environmental issues
are simply ignored. Companies that do the minimum that is required by law fall in the second

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 696

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

category. In the third category are companies that move beyond legislation and the last group
consist of companies that use the environment as a tool for gaining competitive advantage.
Welford’s (1994) categorization of the SME (small- and medium-sized enterprises) sector
into four main groups is slightly different. The first group is referred to as the ‗ostriches‘.
Companies that fall in this category not only assume that concern for the environment is a
passing phase and that their impact on the environment is negligible, but also assume that
their competitors feel the same and hence do nothing to conserve the environment. Then there
are the ‗laggards‘, companies that are aware of the environmental challenges facing them, but
are unable to combat those challenges because of cost constraints, lack of trained manpower,
lack of knowledge etc. The third group consists of the ‗thinkers‘, companies that know that
something should be done, but are still waiting for others to show the way forward. The
‗doers‘ are the ones that have proceeded to put their thoughts into action.
Topfer (Bostrum & Poysti, 1992)also divides companies into four categories, namely;
resistant, passive, reactive and innovative. Companies that fall in the first category are the
ones that view concern for the environment as a hindrance to their growth and do their level
best to hinder the passing of environmental laws. Passive companies are like Steger's
indifferent companies, who ignore the issue altogether. Roome argues that action taken by
reactive companies has been triggered off by legislation, whereas Topfer sees it as a
defensive move to catch up with the competitors. The last category, the innovators, are the
same as Steger‘s innovators and Simpson‘s enthusiasts.
Beaumont, Pedersen and Whitaker (1993) perceive corporations at six different levels, in
accordance to their response to the environment. The first two levels are similar to Roome‘s
non-compliance and compliance. The third level is referred to as ‗corporate action‘, where
management begins to regard environmental matters as important and takes a broader and a
more long-term perspective of the environment. At the fourth level changes take place in the
organization in response to environmental issues. The fifth level is ‗supply chain action‘,
where environmental matters become an integral part of the entire industry's supply chain. At
the final level of ‗business scope action‘, an organization expands its activities, using
environmental issues to get ahead in business.
Dodge and Welford have developed an environmental performance scale which has
become known as the ROAST scale (Welford, 1995) and is now being used by others to
identify aspects of corporate environmental performance. In order to measure improving
environmental performance, Dodge and Welford argue that we need to define an ultimate

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 697

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

goal towards which the organization must move. This goal may not be achievable, but it will
serve as an upper boundary of sustainable performance on a five-point scale. This utopian
form of organization is referred to as the ‗transcendent firm‘. As a lower boundary, the least
environmentally sensitive measure on the ROAST scale is represented by the ‗resistant
organization‘. Table 1 compares the extremes on the performance scale

Table 1 Environmental Performance Scale Extremes

Resistant Organisation Transcendent Organisation
 Resists any green behaviour
 Internalises sustainable development
 Disregards green aspects in decisions
 Green criteria become paramount in decision making
Willing to damage environment if
 No decision will upset the ecological relations
beneficial to the organisation Negative
environment values Sees resources and  Environmental values take on an ideology associated
nature for human profit and pleasure with sustainable development Human being are not
above nature and but with nature, all decisions must
 Resists any green intellectual or
reflect the intrinsic values and interrelationships of other
philosophical argument as trite views of
members of the biosphere
extremists

It is argued that an organization's performance can be categorized as lying somewhere

between the resistant firm and the transcendent firm. The five-point ROAST scale is therefore
being represented by the following interval values (Table 2):

Table 2 Five-Point ROAST Scale

Resistance (Stage Total resistance to environmental values and rules. Organizations would be absolutely
I) unresponsive and reactive to environmental initiatives.
Observe &
The organization observes environmental laws, but actions reflect an unwilling attitude or
Comply
lack of ability to comply. Actions are being enforced through legislation or court decisions.
(Stage II)
Organization begins to adapt to change. Early indications of proactive and responsive
Accommodate
behaviours. Actions are no longer based entirely on complying with environmental
(Stage III)
legislation; the organization begins to exhibit voluntary behaviour.
The organization voluntarily seizes and preempts its actions with environmental concerns. It
Seize & Preempt
proactively engages in setting the agenda. It is responsive to the many external stakeholders.
(Stage IV)
The latter phases would display the attributes of sustainable development
The organization's environmental values, attitudes, beliefs and culture exhibit a total support
Transcend (Stage
for the environment. The organization would proactively support and be responsive to all
V)
living things. It would act in a way which is fully consistent with sustainable development.

The ROAST scale can be useful in the classification of environmental performance

responses from both external stakeholder groups and internal organizational functions,
systems and activities. It integrates the deep ecology, social and business performance models
of environmental performance. The scale, although it is a continuous spectrum, has been
broken into five descriptive points for convenience. The extreme top end of Stage V
represents near perfect environmental performance reflecting the near-theological views of

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 698

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

deep ecology. The voluntary environmental actions of the organization represented by Stages
III and IV can be compared to the ideals of a shallower ecology often typified by traditional
approaches to environmental management. The organization displays a proactive and
responsive attitude and stance as it moves from accommodating the greening agenda to
seizing and pre-empting it. At Stage V the firm transcends traditional commercial
performance measures and adopts strategies consistent with ecological management and
sustainable development. It becomes almost evangelical in its green marketing strategy and
considers very carefully whether it is operating at an appropriate scale.
In summary we would suggest that while the frameworks developed by Steger, Roome,
Topfer etc. speak about competitive advantage, they do not specify the various strategies a
company should adopt in order to become greener or to gain competitive advantage.
Pietilainen, Vandermerwe and Oliff, Barisal and Beaumont, Pedersen and Whitaker have
attempted to do this. Their frameworks, however, fail to indicate how competitive advantage
and sustainability can be measured in the way which Dodge and Welford have described. We
can, however, synthesize much of this discussion into a list of the various environmental
strategies adopted by companies.
Table 3 therefore expands much of the literature referenced above into a ten-point strategy
classification. We should note that all these theoretical frameworks have been developed only
during the past couple of years. Although passing references to the environment have been
made by Ansoff (1979) and Porter (1991), earlier strategic management literature has
otherwise been devoid of any mention of the ‗natural‘ environment.

Table 3 The Ten-Point Strategy

No. Strategy Description
Companies that assume environmental challenge is a
1 Ostrich
passing fad
Companies that hinder the passing of environmental
2 Resistant
laws and regulations
Companies in which some well publicized event or
3 Why Mes
accident acts as a catalyst
Indifference/non- Companies having low environmental risks, low
4
compliance/stable/passive/laggards/ignored environmental returns, cost constraints etc.
5 Thinkers Companies waiting for others to take the lead
6 Offensive/smart movers Companies having high environmental returns
7 Defensive/compliance/reactive/localized action Companies having high environmental risks
Compliance-plus/anticipatory/doers/corporate
8 Companies that move beyond compliance (proactive)
action
Commercial and environmental Companies where there is clean technology and
9
excellence/entrepreneurial organizational reform
Innovative/enthusiasts/leading edge/business scope Companies having high environmental risk, and also
10
action high return

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 699

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

4. Conclusions
This monograph has provided a background, overview, and discussion on the basics of green
management practices. The presentation of this material was at the introductory level and
only providing a thin overview of each topic. The complexity and issues facing managers and
engineers when faced with GSCM topics continues to increase. The growth of this field is
necessary as environmental burdens from industrial and supply chain operations continue.
There are still substantial gaps and future directions for which managers and engineers need
to be made aware.
Greening of the economy not only seeks to produce goods in a more resource efficient way
but also to produce goods and services that support greener outcomes such as recycled paper
and solar water heaters. The greener production methods are, the greater the availability of
green goods and services. Therefore, the easier it is to practice greening principles until it
becomes a standard practice and not an add-on or unique feature. This requires a strategic
transformation of management practices to next level of green management practices as
discussed above.
However, since the environment is a complex, variable and extensive system, protecting the
environment is a hard and enduring task. It is impossible that all the existing pollution
problems in the environmental can completely be resolved in the next decade. A wonderful
and quality environment must be achieved by continuous planning, governmental policies,
efforts of the enterprises and public participation.

5. Reference
1. Ansoff, H. (1979). The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem. In Strategic
Management: A New View of Business and Policy Planning. Boston: Little, Brown and
Co.
2. Banerjee, S. (2001). Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Management
Decision , 39 (1), 36-44.
3. Banerjee, S. (2002). Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement.
Journal of Business Research , 55 (3), 177-191.
4. Beaumont, J., Pedersen, L., & Whitaker, B. (1993). Managing the Environment. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heineman Ltd.
5. Bostrum, T., & Poysti, E. (1992). Environmental Strategy in the Enterprise. Helsinki:
Helsinki School of Economics.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 700

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

6. Costello, M. (2008). 13 Steps to Green Your Business. Business & Economic Review , 54
(4), 6-9.
7. Daly, H. (1996). Beyond Growth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
8. Daly, H. (1991). Steady‐State Economics: Second Edition with New Essays. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
9. Darnall, N., Jolley, G., & Handfield, R. (2008). Environmental Management Systems and
Green Supply Chain Management: Complements for Sustainability? Business Strategy
and the Environment, 18, 30-45.
10. Denton, D. (1994). Enviro‐Management: How Smart Companies Turn Environmental
Costs into Profits. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from Green Management: Environmental
Management Systems inside and outside the Factory. California Management Review ,
43 (3), 64-84.
12. Freeman, R., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. (2000). Environmentalism and the New Logic of
Business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13. Haden, S. P., Oyler, J., & Humphreys, J. (2009). Historical, practical, and theoretical
perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis. Management Decision , 47
(7), 1041-1055.
14. Hass, J. (1996). Environmental (‗green‘) management typologies: an evaluation,
operationalization and empirical development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5
(2), 59-68.
15. Hawken, P. (1993). The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New
York, NY: Collins Business.
16. James, P. (1992). The Corporate Response. In M. Charter, Greener Marketing. Sheffield.
17. Kautto, P. (2006). New instruments – old practices? The implications of environmental
management systems and extended producer responsibility for design for the
environment. Business Strategy and the Environment , 15 (6), 377-388.
18. Ketola, T. (1993). The Seven Sisters: Snow Whites, Dwarfs or Evil Queens? A
Comparison of the Official Environmental Policies of the Largest Oil Corporations in the
World. Business Strategy and the Environment , 2 (3), 22-33.
19. Matusya, E., & Yarime, M. (2014). Moving towards Urban Sustainability in Kenya: a
Framework for Integration of Environmental, Economic, Social and Governance
Dimensions. Sustainability Science , 9 (2), 205-215.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 701

 National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

20. Meima, R. (1994). 'Making Sense of Environmental Management Concepts and Practices:
A Critical Exploration of Emerging Paradigms. Proceedings of the 1994 Business
Strategy and the Environment Conference. The University of Nottingham.
21. Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). He Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology and
the Evolutionary Corporation. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
22. Peng, Y., & Lin, S. (2008). Local Responsiveness Pressure, Subsidiary Resources, Green
Management Adoption, and Subsidiaries‘ Performance: Evidence from Taiwanese
Manufacturers . Journal of Business Ethics , 79 (1/2), 199-212.
23. Porter, M. (1991, April). Green Competitiveness. Scientific American .
24. Roome, N. (1994). Business Strategy, R & D Management and Environmental
Imperatives. R & D Management , 24, 65-82.
25. Roome, N. (1992). Developing Environmental Management Strategies. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 1 (1), 11-24.
26. Simpson, A. (1991). The Greening of Global Investment - How the Environment, Ethics
and Politics are Reshaping Strategies. London: The Economist Publications.
27. Slaper, T., & Hall, T. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does it Work?
Indiana Business Review, 1-7.
28. UNIDO. (n.d.). What is CSR? Retrieved 09 10, 2017, from United Nations Industrial
Development Organization: http://www.unido.org/csr/o72054.html
29. Welford, R. (1994). Cases in Environmental Management and Business Strategy.
London: Rtman Publishing.
30. Welford, R. (1995). Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development: The
Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 702

View publication stats