13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES An...
-
Upload
brian-moore -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES An...
13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES
An Attitudinal-Discursive Approach to Sustainability:
The Case of Argentina’s Polluting Firms
Vazquez, D.A. – Royal Holloway, University of LondonListon-Heyes, C. – Royal Holloway, University of London
An important stream of literature investigate human factors in the
determination of corporate
environmental performance.
Empirical Evidence mixed, Values difficult to assess
Discourse analysis could be used to unveil the paradigms
that help explain why an individual or group of
individuals (e.g. a firm) behave in the way they do
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
Gaining a greater understanding of managers’ values, attitudes and intentions will help explain corporate behaviour
Theoretical approaches, no empirical link to corporate behaviour
Are managers´ values, beliefs and attitudes at the heart of genuine improvements in a firm’s environmental performance (i.e. its action)?
To develop a behavioural model of corporate environmental performance that focuses on the interactions between managers’ values and environmental behavioural intentions taking into account the context in which these intentions are formed
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
AIM
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
The Value-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action (VAICA) Model is an attempt at synthesising developments in the field of behavioural research, environmental economics and discourse analysis
It reflects discourse theories by recognising that actions are guided by paradigms which reflect each individual’s system of values and beliefs
It uses behavioural theories by assuming that an individual’s values will first need to be converted into attitudes and behavioural intentions before they materialise into a specific behaviour and that this process will be affected by the individual’s governance principles and locus of control
VAICA MODEL (Values-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action)
INTRODUCTION RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
VAICA MODEL (Values-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action)
Core Values, Beliefs andAttitudes
Principles of Governance
Behavioural Intentions
EnvironmentalDiscourse
EnvironmentalActions
Locus of Control
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
INTERPHASECORE VALUES INTENDED ACTION/BEHAVIOUR ACTION/BEHAVIOUR
This paper examines the translation of core environmental values, beliefs and attitudes into behavioural intentions, i.e. Phases 1-3.
Context Factors:•Obstacles•Drivers•Demographics•Market Forces
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
HYPOTHESIS :
H1: Basic assumptions, values, and beliefs (i.e. the core environmental mindset) can explain variations in intended environmental behaviour (EMI)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
H2: Policy variables will impact upon the core environmental mindset by amplifying or dampening intentions to behave in an environmentally friendly manner.
H3: Internal and external pressures to behave for or against the environment will amplify or dampen the effects of core environmental values and impact upon managers’ intended environmental behaviour.
SECTOR: Polluting Firms in Buenos Aires Province
Sample Frame: 4000 prioritary polluters
Sample:536 firms
Collection of Data: 1. Government/IDB Support 2. Pre-testing: Focus Groups3. Pilot Surveys4. Face-to-face delivery by municipalities’ surveyors5. Training & financial incentives to surveyors
Response Rate: 76 % (March to September, 2005)Random checks to companies were made to verify the responses submitted by the surveyors
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
THE SURVEY :
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
Questionnaire 1: Firm’s environmental practicesManager in charge of environmental affairs
300 questions, 60 minutes to complete
Questionnaire 2: Managers’ environmental valuesSenior manager empowered to take strategic
decisions on environmental issues atcompany level
98 questions, 20 minutes to complete
TWO QUESTIONNAIRES
THE SURVEY :
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
Core Values, Beliefs andAttitudes
Principles of Governance
Behavioural Intentions
EMI
EnvironmentalDiscourse
EnvironmentalActions
Locus of Control
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
INTERPHASECORE VALUES INTENDED ACTION/BEHAVIOUR ACTION/BEHAVIOUR
This paper examines the translation of core environmental values, beliefs and attitudes into behavioural intentions, i.e. Phases 1-3.
Context Factors:
•Obstacles
•Drivers
•Demographics
•Market Forces
OWN, EXP, SIZE, SUPCH
3
1iNATHUM
4
1iETHICS
3
1iAGENCY
6
1iLOC
21
1iGVP
6
1iOBS
4
1iPRS
6
1iDEM
7
1iIND
THE ESTIMATED VAICA MODEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR
INTENDED BEHAVIOUR (EMI)
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
CORE VALUESPOLICY VARIABLES CONTEXT VARIABLES
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
18
15
14
12111098
7
10 iiiiii ETHICSbNATHUMbSUPCHbSIZEbEXPbOWNbINDbbEMI
70
63
62
58
57
52
51
29
28
22
21
19iiiiiiiiiiii DEMbPRSbOBSbGVPbLOCbAGENCYb
REGRESSION EQUATION:
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
A hierarchical regression model was built in five distinct stages
MODEL 1: Control variables
MODEL 2: Stage 1 +environmental values (H1)
MODEL 3: Stage 2 + policy variables (H2)
MODEL 4: Stage 3 + pressures and obstacles (H3)
MODEL 5: Stage 4 + demographic variables
70
63
62
58
57
52
51
29
28
22
21
19iiiiiiiiiiii DEMbPRSbOBSbGVPbLOCbAGENCYb
21
19
18
15
14
12111098
7
10 iiiiiiii AGENCYbETHICSbNATHUMbSUPCHbSIZEbEXPbOWNbINDbbEMI
Model 1 Model 2
Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
REGRESSION
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 MODEL 5
Firm Characteristics + Core Values + Policy Level + Obstacles and Drivers + Social/individual.
Demographics
R 0.557 0.639 0.718 0.74 0.75
Adjusted R2 0.295 0.383 0.465 0.489 0.498
Change in R 0,311** 0,409** 0,516** 0,553** 0,56**
F 20,16** 15,87** 10,16** 9,28** 8,67**
SUMMARY STATISTISTICS REGRESSION MODELS 1-5
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
Location: Firms located in areas where household have a higher number of dependents (children, pensioners) will tend to invest more heavily in environmental management systems (Higher EMI).
Ownership and Size: High EMI firms will tend to be larger with headquarters overseas.
Supply Chain: Firms that are located towards the start of the supply chain are associated with higher environmental investments levels
Firms with high EMI index will also tend to be proactive on health and
safety issues and will routinely participate in CSR projects
Firms with higher levels of stakeholder integration will also have more developed environmental management systems
RESULTS: Firms’ characteristics
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
•Ethics: Firms with managers who care about the environment (on ethical, profits, or legal grounds) tend to have more developed environmental management systems than firms populated by managers who treat the environment either as a replenishable resource or as a minor priority dominated by either social concerns (e.g. poverty).
•Obstacles: The representative managers at these firms also typically agree that the Argentinean market environment does not provide the incentives to be more proactive and hampers firms’ attempts at doing so.
•Governance: At the same time, they do not endorse the notion that we are experiencing the symptoms of an environmental crisis requiring systematic changes in the way we conduct our business activities.
•Locus of Control: Firms which managers feel empowered to act (authority, resources, ability to improve) will have higher EMS
RESULTS: Managers
The explanatory power of our analysis in documenting variations in the scale and scope of environmental management across firms (fluctuating around 50%) is promising.
Environmental performance is preceded by environmental intentions reflecting corporate environmental values that have been amplified/dampened by context factors
Core environmental values and policy level variables are key determinants of environmental behavioural intentions
Policy level variables, notably managers’ locus of control (i.e. the extent to which they feel empowered to act in matters of the environment) and the principles of governance they adhere to (i.e. how should Nature be managed) will amplify or dampen pro-environment core value thereby affecting the translation of values into intentions to behave
Stakeholder pressures, particularly those applied by suppliers and buyers in the firm’s vertical chain will substantially influence a firm’s EMI lending support to the ‘cascade effect’ associated with environmental standards
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
CONCLUSIONS
Policy variables can be manipulated and any insight on how they impact upon environmental behaviour is potentially useful
Education programmes that explicitly target the inter-phase values-intentions may become efficient regulatory tool
Raising managers’ awareness on environmental aspects is necessary but not sufficient to improve performance. Managers should feel they are empowered to act and can make a difference with their actions
Supply chain related pressures will be particularly important in a developing country like Argentina who is primarily concerned with securing access to markets in
Europe and the US..
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
IMPLICATIONS
13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES
An Attitudinal-Discursive Approach to Sustainability:
The Case of Argentina’s Polluting Firms THANKS!
Vazquez, D.A. – Royal Holloway, University of LondonListon-Heyes, C. – Royal Holloway, University of London
INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY
Streamlined Regression ModelCoefficients t Sig. Collinearity Dependent Variable: EMS
Variable information B Error Beta Tol. FIV
Constant -.091 .217 -.421 .674
National or International owner? OWN -.558 .129 -.184 -4.329 .000 .748 1.337
Size of the firm SIZE .205 .066 .137 3.106 .002 .689 1.452
Supply chain requirement SUPCH .627 .086 .288 7.325 .000 .870 1.149
Utilitarian Ethics ETHi=F4_UTIL .084 .038 .083 2.227 .027 .965 1.036
Non-utilitarian Ethics ETHi=F1_ETH .275 .044 .278 6.199 .000 .669 1.495
‘My firm has no resources to improve the environment’
LOCi =V223D
-.138 .029 -.188 -4.684 .000 .840 1.190
‘No environmental crisis only isolated problems’
GVPi =V224I
.097 .030 .125 3.298 .001 .935 1.070
‘Trade-off between economic and environmental performance’
GVPi =V227D
.105 .036 .125 2.956 .003 .756 1.323
Env. Performance: Pressures Internal requirements
PRSi=PRS_INT
.184 .041 .172 4.463 .000 .912 1.097
Model Summary R = 0.710; R 2 = 0.504; Adjusted R 2 = 0.492; S.E.E = 0.728
Table 1: Environmental Management Index (EMI) – Component Indicators
Var. Indicators Variable values Mean (S.D)
Final Weights
PE Green label 0: no green labels 1: green labels
0.18 (0.38)
0.00
PA* Environmental Plan 0: no environmental plan 1: environmental plan
0.47 (0.49)
0.32
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
0: no approved EIA; 1: in process 2: approved EIA
0.56 (0.42)
0.00
ISO* Environmental Management System
0: no EMS 1: EMS
0.17 (0.38)
0.28
CAP* Environmental training
0: no environmental training 1: environmental training
0.31 (0.46)
0.31
AUD* Environmental Audits
Variable ranging from 0-1 where 0: no assessment; 1: monthly assessments
0.30 (0.14)
0.28
SIN Environmental synergies
Variable ranging from 0-1 where 0: no synergies; 1:synergies in processes, inputs and outputs
0.13 (0.21)
0.00
DIV Environmental disclosure
0: no disclosure; 0.25: if < once a year; 0.5: if once a year; 0.75: if twice a year; 1: if > once a month
0.05 (0.21)
0.00
NGO Collaboration with env. NGOs
0: no collaboration 1: collaboration
0.05 (0.21)
0.00
INV Investment in env. R&D
0: no investment 1: investment
0.11 (0.25)
0.00
POL* Environmental Policy 0: not implemented 1: implemented
0.44 (0.49)
0.26
*PA, ISO, CAP, AUD, POL are retained in the final computations of the EMI.
Table 2: Environmental Core Values Var.Group Var.Name Construct Mean S. D
FAC1_H Anthropocentric: Nature is robust and under human dominance 0 1
FAC2_B Sustain-centric: Nature is a fine balance and definite limits 0 1 NATHUM
FAC3_N Nature-centric: Nature is fragile and technology is destructive 0 1
F1_ETH "Non utilitarian ethics" 0 1
F2_NORM "Normative ethics" 0 1
F3_IND "Personal commitment- free will ": 0 1 ETHICS
F4_UTIL "Utilitarian ethics" 0 1
FAG_SOC Social partnership 0 1
FAG_GOV State empowered 0 1 AGENCY
FAG_FIRM Firms empowered 0 1
V221i Advances in technology will eventually solve problems related to environmental degradation
2,50 1,21 ROLE OF TECHNO. V225i The most efficient way to prevent pollution is to develop awareness in
society and responsible behaviours. 4,40 0,95
Table 3: Policy Variables-Locus of Control
Variable Description Mean S.D.
V223A I do not have enough knowledge to influence my firm’s environmental decisions 2.7038 1.27406 V223B I do not have enough authority to influence my firm’s environmental decisions. 2.1925 1.25507 V223C Improvements in my firm’s environmental performance will not impact upon the
environment. 3.0895 1.39933
V223D My firm has no resources to improve the environment. 2.7877 1.36433 V223E My firm cannot improve environmental performance and remain competitive. 2.5179 1.33900
Table 4: Policy Variables-Governance Principles
Variable Description Mean S.D V222I Our responsibility to future generations is to guarantee sustained growth. 2.6278 1.27011 V222J Our responsibility to future generations is to preserve the environment as it is. 4.4325 0.87340 V222K Our responsibility to future generations is to ensure that our activities´ do not damage the
environment. 4.4901 0.84122
V224A Adherence to the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’. 4.3512 00.98380 V224B Users of public natural resources should pay for them. 3.9643 1.13621 V224C Environmental damage should be scientifically proved before restricting an activity. 4.0476 1.10201 V224D Adherence to the ‘Precautionary Principle’: An activity cannot be performed if there are no
proofs that it doesn’t damage the environment. 4.0198 1.02047
V224E Inefficient users of natural resources are as accountable as polluters. 3.9365 1.15065
V224F The price of products using energy intensive process should be raised. 3.3976 1.29085 V224G Environmental Protection is not urgent. 2.3016 1.38018 V224H Environmental damage has been largely overestimated. 2.8845 1.30964
V224I There is no environmental crisis but isolated problems. 2.3698 1.27746 V221j Some level of environmental damage is unavoidable if we want to secure economic growth. 2.3433 1.20107 V224K Economic growth will allow future generations to solve environmental problems. 2.7361 1.34645 V224L We need to revise inequalities between developed and developing countries before we
tackle environmental problems. 2.2798 1.17085
V227G There are no explicit relationship between firm profits and the environment. 3.6052 1.18509 V227F Environmental protection is essential to the survival of our firm. 2.8869 1.27567
Q# Managerial Perceptions of External Obstacles
1 2 3 External Obstacles: Extracted Components Interpreted
141n Lack of government incentives (tax breaks and subsidies)
.818 .380 .407
141j Lack of an environmental culture in Argentinean society
.818 .385 .401
141o High rates of non compliance .818 .383 .406 141l Economic crisis makes environmental
concerns a low social priority .817 .384 .406
141p Lack of support from industry associations .814 .381 .414 114i Lack of government resources for
environmental training at the firm .744 .491 .237
Component 1:
‘Environmental Culture and Incentives to Perform’ (Dominant Promethean Society)
EXT_CULT
141m Excessive and overlapping governmental regulation
.352 .878 .225
141r Inefficiency and non-availability of national technologies
.354 .818 .347
141k Inappropriate and costly environmental standards for Argentina
.299 .810 .304
141q Excessive cost of imported technologies .468 .753 .279
Component 2: ‘Economic and regulatory restrictions’
(‘Dominant Foreign Environmental-Problem-Solving (EPS) Paradigm in Local Regulations)’
EXT_ECON
141e Lack of information about environmental standards
.442 .200 .825
141d Government bureaucracy .225 .461 .821 141g Lack of information about implementation
of clean technologies .572 .246 .749
141h Lack of access to environmental consultants
.575 .245 .746
141f Lack of information about end-of-pipe technologies
.318 .522 .745
Component 3:
‘Lack of Information and Support About Environmental Issues’
EXT_INFO
Q# Managerial Perceptions of Internal Obstacles 1 2 3 Internal Obstacles: Extracted Components Interpreted
142b Lack of internal information about implementation clean technologies
.797 .273 .210
142h Lack of awareness of the environmental impact of processes/emissions
.788 .262 .183
142c Lack of training at management level .760 .225 .277 142d Lack of training of employees .745 .188 .220 142a Lack of internal knowledge about
environmental technologies .735 .314 .207
142e Lack of prioritisation of the environment by firm’s executives
.718 .169 .311
142j Inability to identify and punish non-compliance .708 .402 .135 142i Lack of environmental impact measurements .646 .507 .101
Component 1: ‘Lack of Awareness and Trained Human
Resources’
INT_AW
142l Pressures to meet environmental standards within shorter time scales
.302 .772 .127
142k High costs and long time scale associated with cleaner performances
.246 .758 .297
142m Lack of resources for end-of-pipe technologies .374 .579 .366
Component 2: ‘Perception of the Environment as an
Additional Cost and/or Burden’
INT_BURD 142n Other priorities dominate the firm’s agenda and
budgets .143 .171 .795
142g Lack of economic resources .225 .401 .691
142f Lack of time .445 .085 .598
Component 3: ‘Low Priority Assigned to Environmental
Issues’ INT_LOWP
Q# Drivers of Environmental Performance 1 2 3 4 Components Interpreted
214p To gain a competitive advantage over rival firms .860 .112 .211 .100
214n To gain product differentiation .817 .054 .213 .217 214q To avoid being left behind by rival firms .812 .204 .264 .022 214o To improve corporate reputation .808 .212 .105 .211 214m To improve product quality .661 .030 .133 .519 214l To improve efficiency/productivity .643 .086 .044 .529 214r To avoid bad publicity from the media .585 .435 .124 .204
Component 1: ‘Opportunities to improve
competitiveness’ or
‘Pollution prevention pays’
PRS_OP
214c To avoid judicial closures .096 .884 .143 .160 214d To reduce legal liabilities on managers .088 .837 .171 .206 214a To avoid non-compliance fines .134 .787 .024 .110
214e To avoid complaints and boycotts from the community
.067 .665 .157 .375
214b To avoid potentially more stringent regulations
.223 .585 .135 .279
Component 2: ‘Threats from formal and informal
regulations’
PRS_REG
214g To satisfy the requirements of foreign customers (e.g. bids)
.152 .164 .861 .008
214f To satisfy the requirements of national customers (e.g. bids)
.144 .234 .826 .023
214i To gain access to new markets .413 .103 .605 .400
214h To satisfy customer preferences (e.g. green consumers)
.295 .034 .592 .404
Component 3: ‘Supply chain requirements’
PRS_SCH
214k To avoid health and safety –related risks .334 .261 .003 .726
214j To comply with the company’s internal policy
.210 .244 .194 .660
Component 4: ‘Internal organisational stakeholders
requirements ’ PRS_INT