DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Motivations, benefits and barriers experienced by micro, small and medium sized enterprises

within Sweden when implementing an environmental management system

Amber Cottis

Degree project for Master of Science (120 hec) with a major in Environmental Science 2016 120 HEC Second Cycle

Abstract Purpose - Research claims that many environmental management systems (EMSs) are tailored to fit the structure of larger organisations. As a result, SMEs can experience difficulties when implementing an EMS. The purpose of this paper is to identify the main motives, benefits and barriers that have been experienced within micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Sweden when adopting either an Environmental Diploma or an ISO 14001 environmental management system. Design – A research project using a questionnaire based methodology compares the experiences of three groups of participants: one group of SMEs certified with an Environmental Diploma, one group of SMEs certified with an ISO 14001 system and one group of ‘large’ companies certified with an ISO 14001. A questionnaire was used to identify if the motive, benefits and barriers experienced differ between different environmental management systems and also between SMEs and ‘large’ organisations. Findings - The results show that the same motives and barriers for implementation have been identified by the three groups of participants. However there was a slight difference in the perceived benefits. The results identified that companies with an ISO 14001 in SMEs did experience more barriers than larger companies with an ISO 14001. In addition to this, the research has indicated that those with an ISO 14001 in SMEs experienced more benefits compared to SMEs with an Environmental Diploma. Practical implications - The report recommends that measures in environmental evaluation need to be improved to identify comprehensively the benefits experienced. Furthermore, the report recommends practical measures that can be developed to assist SMEs in the implementation process of EMS. Key words - Environmental management systems (EMS), Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Motives, Benefits, Barriers, Environmental Diploma, ISO 14001.

Sammanfattning Syfte – Forskning visar att många miljöledningssystem (MLS) är skräddarsydda för att passa större organisationer. Som ett resultat kan mikro, små och medelstora företag (SMF) uppleva svårigheter vid genomförandet av ett MLS. Syftet med denna uppsats är att identifiera de viktigaste motiven, fördelar och hinder som har upplevts inom SMF i Sverige när dom ska införa Miljödiplomering eller ISO 14001. Design – En undersökning har gjorts med hjälp av en frågeformulärbaserad metod för att jämföra erfarenheter av tre grupper: en grupp av SMF som är certifierade med Miljödiplomering, en grupp av SMF certifierade med ISO 14001 system och en grupp av ’stora’ företag certifierade med ISO 14001. En enkät användes för att identifiera motiv, fördelar och hinder som skiljer sig mellan olika miljöledningssystem och även mellan SMF och ’stora’ organisationer. Resultat - Resultaten visar att samma motiv och hinder för genomförandet har identifierats av olika forskargrupper, men det var en viss skillnad i hur dom uppfattade fördelarna. Resultaten identifierade att företag med en ISO 14001 i SMF upplever fler hinder än ’stora’ företag med ett ISO 14001. Utöver detta har forskning även visat att de med ett ISO 14001 i SMF upplevt fler fördelar jämfört med SMF som har Miljödiplomering. Praktiska konsekvenser - Rapporten rekommenderar att åtgärder inom miljöutvärdering måste förbättras för att företag ska kunna identifiera fördelarna med ett miljöledningssystem. Dessutom rekommenderas i rapporten praktiska åtgärder som kan utvecklas för att hjälpa SMF med implementeringen av MLS. Nyckelord - Miljöledningssystem (MLS), Mikro, små och medelstora företag (SMF), Motiv, Fördelar, Hinder, Miljödiplomering, ISO 14001.

Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Presentation of the problem ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.3. The purpose of this research ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.4. Aim of the research ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5. Research objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.6. Scope and Delimitations .............................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2 - Literature review ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2. Features of a SME ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2.3. Environmental management ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1. What is an environmental management system? ................................................................................ 4

2.4. Difference between ISO 14001 and the Environmental Diploma................................................................ 5

2.5. Motives, benefits and barriers ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.5.1. Motives ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.5.2. Benefits ................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.5.3. Barriers ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.6. Proposed measures and areas for improvement ........................................................................................ 9

2.7. Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter Three - Methodology .................................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2. Research methodology - questionnaires ................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1. Questionnaire Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2.2. Pilot study and cover email ................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.3. Questionnaire 1 - Sample size and selection ...................................................................................... 13

3.2.4. Questionnaire 2 (Follow up questionnaire) - Sample selection .......................................................... 13

3.2.5. The contents of the research questionnaires ..................................................................................... 13

3.2.6. Reviewing the questionnaires ............................................................................................................ 14

3.3. Data analysis methodology ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.4. Limitations of the methodology ................................................................................................................ 15

3.5. Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 4 - Results ..................................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 16

4.2 Results from the first questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1 Response rate ...................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.2 Profile of participants and industry sectors ......................................................................................... 16

4.2.4 Motives for adopting an EMS .............................................................................................................. 17

4.2.5 The benefits of EMS implementation .................................................................................................. 18

4.2.6 The barriers of EMS implementation ................................................................................................... 19

4.2.7. Summary of main results from the first questionnaire ...................................................................... 21

4.3 Results from the second questionnaire (follow up questionnaire) ............................................................ 21

4.3.1 Response rate for follow up questionnaire ......................................................................................... 21

4.3.2 The structure of the EMS ..................................................................................................................... 22

4.3.3 Suggested measures ............................................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 5 - Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 24

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 24

5.2. Discussion of results .................................................................................................................................. 24

5.3. Summary of the discussion ........................................................................................................................ 28

5.4. Limitations of the research ........................................................................................................................ 28

5.5. Further research ........................................................................................................................................ 29

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 30

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 33

References ................................................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 1 – Comparison between the requirements of the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma ............... 37

Appendix 2 – Cover email ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 3 – First questionnaire to SMEs ............................................................................................................ 40

Appendix 4 – First questionnaire to ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 .......................................................... 45

Appendix 5 – Follow up questionnaire for SMEs .................................................................................................. 50

Appendix 6 – Respondents industry sector .......................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 7 – Motives for implementing an EMS ................................................................................................. 54

Appendix 8 – Perceived benefits from the implementation of an EMS ............................................................... 55

Appendix 9 – The barriers experienced when implementing an EMS .................................................................. 56

Appendix 10 – Practical measures ........................................................................................................................ 57

List of figures and tables Figure 1. The continual cycle of the ISO 14001 management system ................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Classification of the respondent’s company size .................................................................................. 17 Figure 3. Comparison between the EMS and the main motives for implementation ......................................... 18 Figure 4. Example of the cover email .................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 5. The industry sector of respondents of the ISO 14001 questionnaire for SMEs .................................... 53 Figure 6. The industry sector of respondents of the Environmental Diploma questionnaire for SMEs .............. 53 Figure 7. The industry sector of respondents of the ISO 14001 questionnaire for 'large' companies ................ 53 Figure 8. The motives for implementation selected by the three participant groups ......................................... 54 Figure 9. Graphs representing the different benefits experienced ..................................................................... 55 Figure 10. Graphs representing the different barriers experienced .................................................................... 56 Figure 11. The helpfulness of proposed measures .............................................................................................. 57

Table 1. The mean calculation for the perceived benefits since the implementation of the different EMS. The top three perceived benefits are marked in red .................................................................................................. 19 Table 2. The mean calculation for the perceived barriers hindering EMS implementation. The top three barriers are marked in red .................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3. The mean calculation for the level of help each suggested measure would be. The top three have been marked in red. ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Table 4. Comparison between the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma certification requirements. The information has been summarised from the European Standard EN ISO 14001 (2004) and the Swedish Environmental Base standard (2010) ................................................................................................................... 37

1

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1. Background The growth of the human population and their activities is exponentially increasing. This could have a detrimental impact on human well-being by causing irreversible environmental change (Rockström et al., 2009). The Swedish Government is encouraging awareness and addressing the increasing pressure from anthropogenic activities by the introduction of sixteen environmental quality objectives1 that Sweden wishes to achieve by 2020. A quote concerning these objectives states ‘Companies, organisations and we as individuals, by our actions, affect progress towards the objectives’ (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2012: 7). It is this understanding that we all share our planet and at present large amounts of pollution, exploitation of resources and waste are all contributing to the unsustainable amounts of environmental degradation. The Brundtland Report (1987) also called ‘Our Common Future’ tried to unite all countries in the pursuit for sustainable development. The report introduced many to the classic, and still often used, definition of sustainable development ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (United Nations, 1987: 43). Stemming from this there was a realisation that not only large industries were accountable for environmental degradation but smaller organisations were as well. This influence and demand on the environment and the resources it provides is predicted to become more of a concern based on recent human population projections. Global Footprint Network (2016) state that at present ‘humanity uses the equivalent of 1.6 planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb our waste’. Consequently, it is within everyone’s interest to reduce this impact and level of resource consumption.

1.2. Presentation of the problem The introduction of environmental management system (EMS) is a practice now used by many companies to help minimise this impact. An EMS is a management system introduced within all levels of a company to aid the management of their environmental practices and decrease their impact on the environment. Sroufe (2003: 426) summarised the purpose of an EMS as ‘a system and database which integrates procedures and processes for training of personnel, monitoring, summarizing, and reporting of specialized environmental performance information to internal and external stakeholders of a firm’. However, many management systems are directed towards larger companies and are not always suitable for micro, small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Consequently, some SMEs have struggled with the implementation of an EMS. The definition of an SME used in this report is from the European Commission (2003). Two factors determine whether a company is considered an SME. Firstly, the company must employ less than 250 personnel. Secondly the turnover of the company must be under or equal to €50m (European Commission, 2003). The definition of a ‘large’ company is a company that has over or equal to 250 employees and an annual turnover of over €50m (European Commission, 2003).

As early as 1992, the EU recognised that vital steps towards sustainable development was for SMEs to implement ‘environmental improvements’ (Commission of the European Communities, 1992). Since then research into the implementation of an EMS within SMEs has attracted considerable attention. Due to the diverse activities and size of SMEs, their industry sector is often overlooked and Hillary (2004) states that they are generally all placed into the one category of ‘SMEs’. However, 1 More information of Sweden’s 16 environmental objectives can be found on www.miljomal.se.

2

with varying environmental impacts, SMEs are often faced with their own individualised problems when implementing an EMS.

Jorgensson and Knudsen (2006) predict that SMEs will have an increased presence and greater influence and role within the global market in the future. They believe that factors such as declining trade barriers, the reduction of transportation costs and improvements within the communication system will assist in integrating different working activities that have previously been separated by either organisational or geographical boundaries.

It is widely reported that some EMSs have been designed to fit the structure of larger organisations. Consequently, this structure can often hinder the application to SMEs. In addition to this, it is common for the outlook of SMEs to be different to that of a larger company.

1.3. The purpose of this research Although a SMEs environmental impact compared to a large company is significantly smaller, due to the large number of SMEs, the overall impact can be significant (Seidel, et al. 2009). Mitchell et al. (2011) states that SMEs in Europe produce 64% of total industrial pollution. The number of people employed by SMEs within Sweden is just over 2 million2, employing 65.7% of Sweden’s working population and making up a share of 99.8% of the number of enterprises3 (European Commission, 2015). Furthermore, the number of SMEs is expected to grow by the end of 2016, creating a further 100 000 jobs within Sweden (European Commission, 2015). The predicted growth of SMEs places more emphasis on the need for SMEs to engage in environmental activity and how important barriers faced through this engagement should be addressed.

In 2005 the Swedish Environmental Base (sv. Svensk Miljöbas) introduced the ‘Environmental Diploma’ (sv. Miljödiplom). It was tailored to fit SMEs, in an attempt to reduce the obstacles faced by SMEs when implementing other EMSs, for example the internationally recognised ISO 14001 environmental management system. The Environmental Diploma was derived from EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) and ISO 14001 and offers SMEs a cheaper, easier and better suited EMS (Nutek, 2003). The Environmental Diploma differs from the ISO 14001, by having lower requirements for documentation, and greater emphasis is placed upon the company’s environmental performance and the improvements that have been made (Appendix 1, p. 37).

1.4. Aim of the research The main aim of this paper is to identify the main motives, benefits and barriers that have been experienced within SMEs in Sweden when adopting either an Environmental Diploma or an ISO 14001 system. It was important to identify if the experiences of SMEs were in fact different from ‘large’ companies, therefore this research aims to identify their perceptions of motives, benefits and barriers experienced since the implementation of their ISO 14001 system. This report will identify ways to encourage more SMEs to implement an EMS by identifying the benefits, and offering practical solutions to any barriers which had previously hindered the application of an EMS.

1.5. Research objectives This report aims to fulfil 4 objectives

• Identify the main motives, benefits and barriers experienced by SMEs within Sweden when adopting either an ISO 14001 or an Environmental Diploma.

2 The European Commission (2015) state that 2 011 199 people in Sweden are employed by SMEs. 3 94.6% of these are considered micro enterprises (European Commissions, 2015).

3

• Identify if the benefits and barriers experienced are different between SMEs with an ISO 14001 and SMEs with an Environmental Diploma.

• Identify if the motives, benefits and barriers are perceived differently between SMEs and ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 certification.

• Offer practical measures that will make the implementation of an EMS easier within SMEs.

1.6. Scope and Delimitations The scope of this study is confined to companies within Sweden who are either certified according to ISO 14001 or have an Environmental Diploma. The reason for only conducting research within Sweden is to gain more knowledge about the experiences of SMEs when implementing an EMS. This research will only study companies with either an ISO 14001 or Environmental Diploma because these are the most popular EMSs within Sweden. A further delimitation of this was to use a computer based questionnaire to collect data, confining the potential respondents to those that have access to a computer and producing only quantitative data.

4

Chapter 2 - Literature review 2.1. Introduction The following chapter will discuss the features of SMEs, describe in more detail what an EMS is and compare the differences between the two EMSs researched in this paper: the Environmental Diploma and ISO 14001.

Furthermore, the literature review will then examine literature surrounding the research objectives of this report. This section will examine research from existing literature when considering the motives, benefits and barriers for SMEs when implementing an EMS. The results from the literature review and the results from this study will be compared to conclude whether the findings are in corroboration with each other and if there are any discrepancies between the findings.

2.2. Features of a SME It would be wrong to consider SMEs in a similar way to ‘large’ companies. The structure from both an organisational and managerial perspective are usually different. Seidel et al. (2009) highlights the specific features of a SME:

• Ownership – SMEs are usually privately owned companies, with the management of the company commonly being undertaken by the owner.

• The ‘power base’ – most of the strategic decisions within a SME are usually undertaken by the owner. In contrast to a larger company where the power base is dispersed between different management groups which control different sections of the business.

• Job roles – Job roles and responsibilities within SMEs are often not well defined and can overlap with other employees. In addition to this, employees can have a number of different roles, leading consequently to more focus being directed towards more ‘immediate’ work activities.

• Day-to-day focus – SMEs commonly have more staffing and financial restrictions than larger organisations. Consequently the focus of the day to day activity is directed towards ‘making ends meets’ and they do not always have the luxury of making long term strategic plans.

Therefore, the structure of most SMEs is considerable different to that of larger organisations. One model of an EMS that suits the structure of one company may therefore not suit the structure of another. Another significant feature of a SME is that the strategic direction of the company can be led by the beliefs, education, characteristics and values of the owner (Mandl and Dorr, 2007). Furthermore, due to the homogenous nature of SMEs, a great discrepancy can therefore, not only occur between SMEs and ‘large’ companies but can also occur between SMEs themselves.

2.3. Environmental management 2.3.1. What is an environmental management system? An EMS is a management framework that had been structured to assist companies to control and minimise their organisations impact on the environment. The framework can be used to help identify the company’s significant environmental impacts and formulate a plan to minimise or eradicate any significant negative impacts. An EMS should be seen as a continuous cycle in which four key areas of action should be undertaken:

• Plan – Conducting an environmental impact evaluation on how the company’s activities influence the environment. Using this evaluation to write objectives, targets and an action plan.

5

• Do – Communicate the objectives and targets to employees. Provide education and training to employees. Incorporate the management system into all levels of the organisation.

• Check – Monitor the progress towards achieving the targets. Evaluate the compliance to legal and any other requirements which have been placed upon the company. Conduct internal audits.

• Act – Any corrective or preventative action will be documented and then a new plan will be implemented to ensure that this action doesn’t need to be taken again. A management review will be used to highlight areas that need further attention.

A common aspect of different EMSs is that it should be viewed as a cycle which strives for continual management and improvement of the company’s environmental impact. This is an important element that is needed to achieve a successful and efficient EMS. Figure 1 shows the continuous cycle that is adopted by the ISO 14001 management system. The aim for continuous improvement is used as the driving force within an EMS and emphasises the need for continual work with the management system after the initial implementation.

Figure 1. The continual cycle of the ISO 14001 management system

2.4. Difference between ISO 14001 and the Environmental Diploma Many different types of EMS are used globally. The ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) 14001 is the most widely known standard with more than 300,000 companies being certified according to this standard globally (ISO, 2014). The ISO 14001 is a generic management system, which does not set exact goals and targets but instead offers a way to identify targets (usually based upon the significant environmental aspects of the company) and then implements measures needed to reach these targets. The ISO 14001 was developed in 1996 from a previous environment standard4. More than 300,000 companies have been certified according to this standard in 171 countries. This standard is self-proclaimed to be ‘suitable for organisations of all types and sizes, be they private, not-for-profit or governmental’ (ISO, 2015).

An environmental certificate offered within Sweden is an EMS that is in accordance with the Swedish Environmental Base (sv: Svenska Miljöbas). This certificate is called an Environmental Diploma (sv: Miljödiplom) and is a recognised environmental certificate within the Swedish business market. In contrast to the ISO 14001, the Environmental Diploma is directed towards smaller sized companies. 4 The BS 7750 was the world’s first standard (British Standard Institution, 2016) and produced the template which the ISO 14001 was later developed from.

6

The Environmental Diploma is based on the basic requirements of ISO 14001 and for some is seen as a first step for small businesses who have the aim of eventually being certified with a more internationally recognised standard, such as the ISO 14001. This report will focus on both ISO 14001 and the Environmental Diploma.

2.5. Motives, benefits and barriers A large amount of research has been conducted to identify the most significant motives, benefits and barriers experienced by SMEs when implementing an EMS. However, literature concerning the implementation of the Environmental Diploma specifically is limited. Due to both the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma being structured to fit a wide variety of different company sectors and activities, the motives, benefits and barriers are not homogenous for all the companies who have an EMS. The aspects listed below are a summary from different literature sources which have highlighted the most widely recognised motives, benefits and barriers for implementing an EMS. The majority of the research is based on the ISO 14001 management system, as limited research could be found with regards to the implementation of the Environmental Diploma.

Although, research has been conducted within Sweden, no literature was found comparing the experiences of SMEs within Sweden who have implemented an ISO 14001 system and those that have an Environmental Diploma certification. Consequently, the research conducted within this report, aims to support and build upon the current literature by identifying the different experiences when implementing different EMS. Furthermore, it will offer a direct comparison between the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma management systems with the aim to identify the benefits and motives whilst highlighting the barriers and areas for improvements to make implementation easier.

2.5.1. Motives A great deal of literature exists identifying the motives for implementing an EMS into a company’s activity. Chavan (2005) warns that for some businesses the motivation for implementation of an EMS is to gain a competitive advantage rather than to improve environmental performance. The activities of the company plays a significant role on what is considered to be an important motive when implementing an EMS. For example, it could be a recently introduced government legislation, a demand from a customer, or a moral judgement that is a significant motive. The following section will address the main motives for implementation suggested by different authors.

Poksinska et al. (2003) conducted a survey in October 2000 in Sweden to discover the experiences of different companies when implementing the ISO 14001 system. The report states that the main use for an ISO 14001 certification within Sweden is to convey a commitment to tackling environmental issues within their company’s work activities. The results from the research indicated that ‘corporate image’ was the most important motive followed by ‘marketing advantage’, ‘customer pressure’, ‘relations within communities’ and ‘relations with authorities’.

Biondi et al. (2000) conducted a questionnaire based research on SMEs that have been involved in a pilot project conducted by the European Commission to evaluate the experiences of implementation of an EMS in an SME. This research found that the three main motives for implementation were, in decreasing order of significance: for companies to ensure legal compliance to requirements, increasing their competitive advantage and finally, ensuring compliance with customer based requirements.

In other research the motives for implementation were categorised into two different groups: internal motives and external motives. Psomas et al. (2011) research project conducted on ISO 14001 certified companies within Greece suggested that internal motives were often more of a

7

significant driving force. For example, the top internal motives found were for companies to have an environmentally friendly policy and for the management to make a commitment to improve their environmental performance. Psomas et al. (2011) also listed the less significant external motives as being to enhance the company’s competitive advantage and the implementation of an EMS was a response to a social requirement.

Hillary’s (2003) research stated that different stakeholders are often a significant motive for EMS implementation within SMEs. The research suggested that the most significant stakeholder encouraging implementation for SMEs is their customers. Hillary (2003) also stated that different sized SMEs can influence which stakeholder is of greatest significance. For example, customers are a less significant stakeholder to medium sized companies, who deem stakeholders, such as local authorities as more of a driving force.

2.5.2. Benefits Alberti et al. (2000) considers the benefits of EMS implementation should be split into economically quantifiable benefits and non-economically quantifiable benefits. The report suggests that economically quantifiable benefits are important, but that they are often less tangible than the ‘costs’ of implementation, so therefore, these benefits can often be overlooked because of uncertainty in how to measure them. The economically quantifiable benefits listed in Alberti et al. (2000) report are: decreasing the amount of raw materials used by streamlining production, optimising resource use leading to increased productivity and a more efficient production system, reduced energy consumption and finally reduced transportation and waste treatment costs. On the other hand, Alberti et al. (2000) list the non-economically quantifiable benefits as: employees gain better knowledge and more awareness of the consequences to the environment if procedures are not followed, an improved company image, improved risk assessment and management, increased market opportunities, and an improved attitude toward the environment. The reasoning why the benefits should be split into two groups is because the non-economically quantifiable benefits are often hard to calculate with economic measurements, consequently the weight of that benefit is often hard to compare directly with an economically quantifiable benefit.

Morrow and Rondinelli (2002) survey on the benefits experienced by German companies after implementing an EMS system found a total of 14 benefits. The top 5 most significant benefits were ‘better organisation and documentation’, ‘increased legal certainty’, ‘improved image’, ‘greater’ employee motivation’ and ‘reduced resource use’. Some of the less significant benefits found were: ‘competitive advantage’, ‘cost savings’ and ‘positive market effect’.

Poksinska et al. (2003) identified the significant benefits experienced by Swedish companies when implementing the ISO 14001. The top 5 significant benefits, listed here in decreasing significance are: improved company image, improvements for the environment, their relationship with authorities and the public had improved, the organisation of procedures had improved, and there has been an increase in customer satisfaction.

Wagner (2014) noted that employee satisfaction and morale can be improved with employees having a sense of pride in their contribution and commitment to an EMS. In addition to this, communication, knowledge and the attitudes of the employees can be improved by the introduction of an EMS. Adopting an EMS can be seen as a new journey the company and employees can take together, strengthening bonds not only within the workplace but also with the environment.

The section so far has focussed on the benefits gained from implementing an EMS, however Hillary (2003) stated that by a company not having an EMS this can actually act as a disbenefit. Hillary

8

(2003) reasoned that the public will respond more positively to a company working with environmental practices than those who are not. Furthermore, that lack to conformity to requirements or negative environmental activities can be a disbenefit to SMEs and a risk to their reputation if they are exposed as having little consideration for their company’s environmental impact.

Brammer et al. (2012) explains that one obstacle that hinders SMEs engagement with environmental practices is that for SMEs it is not always visible to see the benefits and therefore perceive fewer benefits from their implementation of environmental practices than larger companies. Axelsson and Almgren (2003) state that companies seldom follow up on the economic benefits of their EMS. Furthermore, Mårder (2015) states that within Sweden only 1/3 of small companies assess the impact of their sustainability work. Therefore, a large percentage of the benefits of sustainability work goes undocumented.

2.5.3. Barriers A variety of different research has been conducted into the barriers faced by companies when implementing EMS. This is encouraging as it shows that great efforts are being made by researchers to identify the barriers so they can be addressed and more companies can be encouraged to work with EMSs. The barriers can be categorised into internal barrier and external barriers.

Internal

Hillary (2003) defined internal barriers as being obstacles that arise within the company and prevent or impede SMEs implementation of an EMS. Many articles agree that financial considerations are a significant barrier. This can include both the direct and indirect costs of implementation. A direct cost on one hand, for example, can be changing the equipment or manufacturing process to one which is more environmentally suitable. On the other hand an indirect cost could be the use of human resources to implement and monitor the EMS. Internal barriers that can present themselves are listed by Hillary (2003) as being a lack of resources (whether human, financial, technical or knowledge based), lack of understanding of the EMS, difficulties in the implementation process, for example identifying the relevant environmental aspects and interpretation of the requirements and finally, the culture of the company can present a problem (for example lack of managerial support and negative perceptions of EMSs).

The first internal barrier highlighted by Hillary (2003), was a lack of resources. Iraldo et al. (2010) also identified this barrier and stated that the requirement for continuous documentation, certification and review can stretch the human resources that are available and focus is diverted to paper work instead of developing their environmental performance.

The following internal barriers within the implementation process were also reported by Zackrisson et al. (2000) whose research on Swedish companies with an ISO 14001 certification, found that nearly half of the companies studied (49%) had difficulties identifying the significant environmental aspects of their company. In addition to this, it has been reported that the ISO 14001 is not tailored towards individual industry sectors or different company sizes (Poole 1999 cited in Hillary 2003), instead a generic ‘one fits all’ framework is provided. This can therefore, present itself as a barrier for SMEs who cannot access guidance material for their specific company size or industry sector.

External

The first external barrier identified by Hillary (2003) is with regards to the auditors and certifiers. She states that not only are the external auditors costly, but that internal auditors are not always

9

equipped with the relevant experiences to perform the audit comprehensively. The second external barrier is that SMEs are highly influenced by the changing economic climate and their priorities may change to more immediate activities. The third external barrier is institutional weaknesses. This could be insufficient funding for the EMS or lack of support by management and employees. The final external barrier is deficiencies in support and guidance. The SMEs may lack experience especially when identifying the significant environmental aspects.

In addition to the internal and external benefits, Constantinos et al. (2010) states that SMEs are reluctant to engage in an EMS because of the lack of perceived benefits. Young (2010) notes that SMEs are less likely to take financial and operational risks because in some SMEs their focus is surrounded around day to day survival and less on long term strategic planning. Jenkins (2004) reiterates this claiming that for many SMEs the failure to survive is the largest perceived risk. Therefore, participating in environmental activity, for some, may seem too large of a risk discouraging companies from implementing environmental activities, such as an EMS.

2.6. Proposed measures and areas for improvement This section of the literature review will name measures proposed in literature to encourage the adoption of sustainable activity through the introduction of an EMS and what is needed to break down the barriers hindering and preventing companies from implementing an EMS. This section will address literature from Sweden as well as other European based research.

Within Sweden, SMEs sustainable activity is an integrated part of a company’s activity (Mårder, 2015). However, despite this, Mårder’s (2015) research found that only half of businesses have policy documents for this area. In addition to this, his research has found that only one in ten SMEs have an employee who is specifically responsible for environmental work. Furthermore, his research found that a very small number of employees (1 in 10) are working with sustainability issues more than half of their work hours. Although Mårder’s (2015) research is related to sustainable activity, not specifically EMS, the two are closely linked with similar issues influencing engagement within these areas. The proposals from Mårder (2015) for more effective sustainable activity within SMEs seems to be replicated by literature concerning EMSs within Europe.

The following paragraphs will summarise measures proposed by different authors.

Increased access to information and more available support

Literature has suggested that the availability and quality of information needs to be improved. Smaller companies are consequently relying on outside consultants to help with the environmental management systems because they do not feel they have the required knowledge. Consequently, the cost of implementation would significantly rise due to the cost of consultants fees. Other authors have stated that peer support and mentoring could facilitate information exchanges between different organisations (Wills, 2008).

Financial contributions

Many SMEs do not always have the luxury of long term planning of activities. Instead efforts are directed towards the day to day survival of their business. Due to this, many are hesitant that the financial requirements of an EMS are too large without any guarantee of financial returns. Biondi et al. (2000) thus stated that financial support and incentives could be a tool to remove this uncertainty.

Simpler requirements and guidelines

10

Despite the ISO 14001 being suitable for all different types and size of organisations, many smaller organisations perceived it to be more suitable for larger organisations. Naturvårdsverket (2003) state that the ISO 14001 should have a simpler system that fits the work activities of smaller companies. The Environmental Diploma is a system that claims to be suitable for smaller organisations. This research will therefore aim to identify if the simpler system is in fact addressing some of the barriers being experienced within ISO 14001 implementation.

Decrease administrative time for paperwork

Administrative work should not divert attention away from environmental work (Svenskt näringsliv, 2015). Restrictions on resources (financial and human) already present a barrier to SMEs so the time which is devoted to environmental work should not be monopolised by administrative work. The Environmental Diploma has been structured so that less effort is focussed towards documentation of the system (Svensk Miljöbas, 2014).

Example from a similar organisation

Naturvårdsverket (2015) suggested that examples from other organisations that have successfully implemented an EMS might improve the interpretation of the requirements to other companies. Companies therefore have an example of how an organisation similar to theirs has successfully implemented an EMS.

2.7. Summary This chapter begins by addressing in more detail the different structure of SMEs in comparison to larger companies. This can help identify why some companies may struggle with a ‘one fits all’ EMS. The two EMSs which are the focus of this research paper, ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma, are compared to identify the similarities and difference in the requirements. Next relevant literature has been reviewed to identify what different authors have identified as being the significant motives for implementation, the perceived benefits which have resulted from implementation and the barriers that have hindered the application of the EMS. Due to current literature already highlighting the barriers that have been experienced as a result of the implementation of different EMSs, practical measures have been suggested to overcome these barrier.

11

Chapter Three - Methodology 3.1. Introduction It was highlighted in the literature review that researchers have identified that companies can have different perceptions of the motives, barriers and benefits that have been experienced since the implementation of an EMS. The objectives of this research aim to identify the motives, barriers and benefits that have been experienced within Sweden. This chapter will outline the methodology used within this research project to record the experiences of different sized organisations. This chapter outlines the criteria for the questionnaire and how it was designed to ensure that the research objectives were met. Secondly, the selection process for the participants and the questionnaire distribution will be outlined. In addition to this, this chapter will address how the questionnaires were reviewed and analysed. Finally, the limitations of the research methodology will be discussed.

3.2. Research methodology - questionnaires The data for this research was collected using a questionnaire that was distributed to the selected sample group email addresses. The use of a questionnaire for data collection was decided to be the best methodology for this research because it limited the amount of contact the respondents had with the researcher, thus decreasing the risk of the researcher influencing the respondent’s answers (Gall et al. 2007). Secondly, the sample of respondents within this research are spread over a large geographical range within Sweden. Consequently the logistics of conducting a face to face interview was not feasible.

Furthermore, for this research the distribution process of the questionnaire was best suited to be conducted by email. The use of email distribution is cheaper and quicker in comparison to postal distribution. Furthermore, computer based questionnaires allows the responses to be randomised (Gall et al, 2007). In addition to this, the data is already stored in the computer, saving time and reducing the occurrence of human errors within the data input process (Nardi, 2003).

The questionnaire was designed and distributed using the website www.esurvey.com. This webpage offered easy access to the questionnaire, clear question formulation and easier navigation through the questionnaire.

3.2.1. Questionnaire Design Criteria The success of this research is dependent on the participation of the three different groups being studied. Gorard (2003) suggests that a way to minimise non responses and increase response rate is thorough the design of the questionnaire. It was important for the questionnaire to contain questions which helped fulfil the objectives of the research. Consequently, the questionnaire was formulated based on the following criteria:

• The questionnaire contained different styles of questions − Open ended questions – allows participants to freely answer the question.

However, the use of open ended questions will be kept to a minimum because statistical analysis is harder to conduct.

− Closed questions – allows participants to answer quicker and easier. Furthermore, the answers are easier to statistically analyse.

− Likert rating scale was used to identify the opinions of the respondents. The responses produced from this question type are easy to quantify and conduct statistical analysis on.

12

• The correct choice of language is very important to ensure that the respondent does not feel threatened, challenged or intimidated (Brace, 2008). Consequently the questionnaire was designed using unambiguous language.

• The layout of the questionnaire is important to ensure the data is collected accurately. For this project it was decided that each question should be presented on a different page. Evidence from Couper, Traugott and Lamias (2001) showed that when using a Likert scale, greater consistency is achieved if the questions were positioned on different pages.

• To encourage completion of the questionnaire and minimise the risk of abandonment, the questions should be clearly seen on the computer and it should be clear how the questions should be answered. Furthermore, navigation though the questionnaire should be obvious and easy to follow.

• Reducing the number of mouse clicks and the distance the cursor has to travel across the screen is, according to Brace (2008) is a strategy that can be used to reduce frustration and the amount of effort that needs to be exerted into completing the questionnaire.

• A disadvantage of a computer based questionnaire is that is it hard for respondents to gauge the length of the questionnaire. By displaying a progress bar indicating the respondent’s progress, this minimises the risk of participants abandoning the questionnaire (Conrad et al, 2010).

• The design of the questionnaire included ‘don’t know’ codes. This allowed respondents to abstain from answering any questions they do not feel comfortable answering or questions that they do not know the answer to.

• To minimise the risk of abandonment and to hold the participants interest a maximum of 10 questions were asked on each questionnaire.

3.2.2. Pilot study and cover email It was important for a pilot test to be conducted before the questionnaire were distributed. This is crucial to perform in order to test the reliability of the questionnaire (Gorard, 2001; Gall et al., 2007). The pilot study was conducted in two stages, firstly the questionnaire was tested on an industry expert for their advice on the comprehension of the questions and the level of ease to participate in the online questionnaire. Secondly, the questionnaire was distributed to 5 companies who have an ISO 14001 certification and a further 5 sent to companies who are certified according to the Environmental Diploma. The number of non-responses and ‘don’t know’ codes was recorded and any problems identified were noted and amended ahead of the mass distribution of questionnaires.

The cover email (Appendix 2, p. 39), was very important to attract the participant’s attention and to emphasise how valuable their participation in the questionnaire was. To encourage participation Gorard (2001) has listed criteria that should be included in the cover email to encourage participation.

• Brief introduction that should include purpose of the study, why it is important, why their help is needed, what will happen to the results, why the respondents have been chosen and how they can complete and return the questionnaire.

• It should be stated early in the cover email that this is a university research project. • The value of each respondent’s participation should be stressed.

13

3.2.3. Questionnaire 1 - Sample size and selection Due to the large number of companies within Sweden who are certified as having an ISO14001 or an Environmental Diploma, a sample of this population was selected to participate in the questionnaire. Gothenburg city webpage5 suggested that a list of companies within Sweden who had an ISO 14001 certification or an Environmental Diploma could be found on the following website http://www.certifiering.nu/. This website offered the function for the number of employees and the total turnover of the company to be selected so that the criteria for a SME or a ‘large’ company could be selected, ensuring that only the companies that met that criteria would be shown.

Microsoft Excel’s random function method was used to produce a random number list for the number of companies that have been certified with the relevant certification. Each company was assigned a number and then the first 100 numbers from the random number list were selected.

The number of employees and revenue of the selected company was double checked to see if it matched the criteria of a SME. If the criteria did not meet that of the specific group, this company was discarded and the next random number was used until a list of 200 SMEs (100 certified within an ISO 14001 and 100 with an Environmental Diploma) had been selected. A similar process of random selection was used for the selection of 100 ‘large’ companies.

Selected companies were not informed before receiving the questionnaire, this is believed to lower the response rate when conducting questionnaires online. The acceptance of participation was consequently when the respondent participated in answering the questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed in March-April 2016.

3.2.4. Questionnaire 2 (follow up questionnaire) - Sample selection In the first questionnaire, participants were asked if they would consider participating further within the research study. From the participants that selected that they would participate further, 10 were randomly selected using Microsoft Excel’s random function method from each group. After consideration it was decided that a similar style questionnaire as the one previously sent would be used to ask further questions.

3.2.5. The contents of the research questionnaires In order for the research objectives to be met, it was decided that a first questionnaire (Appendix 3-4, p. 40 and 45) should be distributed to 300 companies within Sweden: 100 to SMEs with an Environmental Diploma, 100 to SMEs with an ISO 14001 and a further 100 to ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 system. The content of the questionnaire distributed to both SME groups were the same apart from substituting the name of the relevant EMS of that group. Within this questionnaire the participants were asked if they would be willing to complete a follow up questionnaire, although the contents of this second questionnaire was not disclosed. From the participants that were willing to participate, 10 respondents from each group were randomly selected and a total of 30 follow up questionnaires distributed.

Within the first questionnaire the first two questions were to confirm that the participants company met the criteria of that of a SME or a ‘large’ company. In the third question the participants were asked to identify the industry sector of their company. The following four questions were designed to answer the research objectives: identifying the motives, benefits and barriers that have been experienced when implementing their EMS. Subsequently, a question was asked for participants to identify the main reason for choosing to implement this specific EMS.

5 Gothenburg city website https://goteborg.se

14

The second questionnaire (Appendix 5, p. 50) was sent to 30 participants (10 to SMEs with an Environmental Diploma, 10 to SMEs with an ISO 14001 certification and 10 to ‘large companies’ with an ISO 14001 certification). The questions were designed from the measures which had been identified in the literature review as being a possible solution for reducing the barriers experienced when implementing an EMS. The purpose of this questionnaire was to identify which measures would have best assisted the respondents with the implementation of their EMS.

3.2.6. Reviewing the questionnaires If the questionnaire had been completed but some answers missing, it was treated as missing data but the other answered questions were recorded and included in the results. All non-response answers were considered as a ‘no opinion’ response. All ‘no opinion’ answers were excluded from analysis, this is based on the assumption that the respondents who have left a question unanswered, would answer in a similar way to those that had already answered the question (Weisberg, Krosnick and Bowen, 1996). If the questionnaire was abandoned, during participation the questionnaire was deleted and none of the answers recorded.

3.3. Data analysis methodology The questionnaires were designed so that statistical analysis of the results could be conducted. The data was interpreted and the results presented in graph form. The data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Microsoft Excel was also used to produce graphs presenting the data. This offers an easy way to compare results from the three different groups.

Acevedo (2013) suggests that descriptive statistics is the best form of statistical analysis for research that is not attempting to predict or make inferences about the data but which is trying to categorise the data. This was deemed the most relevant form of data analysis for this research project for a number of reasons. Firstly, the different groups can be compared by calculating the average response to the questions (Blaikie, 2003). Secondly, this form of analysis is used to quantitatively describe what the results are showing (Mann, 1995) and summarise the main results from the different groups (Thompson, 2009). Descriptive statistics can be used to help compare the results from different groups to help detect the similarities and differences between samples (Thompson, 2009).

The data collected using the Likert scale was considered a quantitative form of data. This type of question offers what is called a ‘quantitative variable’ where the respondents answer is rated on a scale and a number is assigned to the different levels on that scale. A higher number represents a higher opinion or experience of that variable (Cramer, 2003). Also, a quantitative data set allows indicators such as reliability, generalisability and reproducibility to be tested (O’Leary, 2004).

Once the raw data was collected and before analysis and interpretation of the results, several steps needed to be taken to prepare the data. This is an important step in data collection and interpretation and if the data is not prepared correctly this can have a significant impact on the results and the credibility of the findings. Consequently, Koomey (2006) has offered advice (listed below) so mistakes within the analysis phase can be avoided.

• Important calculations should be conducted more than once to check that no errors have occurred, thus producing incorrect results.

• Check that all sub totals add up to the main total. This will highlight if any data within the input stage has been missed.

• To make comparison between results easier, numbers should be ‘normalised’ to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.

15

3.4. Limitations of the methodology The methodology being used has some limitations which are important to highlight. Firstly, because the selected sample of potential participants were not contacted before asking if they would like to participate this could affect the response rate. Furthermore, the participants of this study were limited to those who had an email address. Nardi (2003) considered a limitation to this methodology to be that the findings can only be generalised to those that have participated to the questionnaire. A further limitation with the methodology is noted by Gorard (2001) who states that anonymity is a problem which may influence the response rate and maybe even their responses.

Using the same groups of participants to answer the follow up questionnaire can also present limitations. The respondents who have agreed to participate in the second questionnaire, may be the ones who have had stronger experiences within the implementation process and therefore, want to continue in the research to help portray these experiences.

3.5. Summary This chapter identified the research methodology that has been used to conduct this research and the reasons for this choice. Careful consideration was taken when deciding the methodology that was going to be used to conduct this research. This was to minimise the number of limitations of this research and to ensure that the research produces results that can be used to fulfil the aim and objectives of this project. The distribution of two questionnaires was used to collect all the relevant data for interpretation and analysis. Furthermore, having a random sample of participants allowed for a fair representation of the target audience and eliminated any sampling bias. The use of quantitative analysis allowed for the three groups of participants to be compared and the main results from the groups to be identified.

16

Chapter 4 - Results 4.1 Introduction This chapter is a compilation of the results from the descriptive data analysis. Within this chapter the results will be presented and the significant findings will be summarised. The results from the first questionnaire will be presented first, the following will be discussed, the response rate for the questionnaires and whether the respondents were considered to have a ‘micro’, ‘small’ or ‘medium’ sized company. Following this the results from the Environmental Diploma questionnaire and the ISO 14001 questionnaire that has been distributed to SMEs will be discussed. These results will present the motives, benefits and barriers the companies have experienced with implementation. Within this section a comparison of the results from ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 will be made in contrast to the respondents with an ISO 14001 in SMEs. Finally, the results from the second questionnaire will be presented with a focus on identifying what measures highlighted in the literature review would have made the process of implementing an EMS easier.

4.2 Results from the first questionnaire 4.2.1 Response rate

The first questionnaire was distributed to three groups of participants

• 100 distributed to SMEs that had an Environmental Diploma In total, 48 companies participated in this questionnaire. However, after analysis of the questionnaires, a total of 8 questionnaires were considered ‘abandoned’ and therefore removed from further analysis. Consequently, 40 questionnaires were available for statistical analysis. The response rate has only been calculated based on the questionnaires that were completed and therefore could be used for further analysis. This questionnaire had a response rate of 40%.

• 100 distributed to SMEs that are certified according to ISO 14001 In total, 51 companies participated in the questionnaire. 10 were removed from further interpretation on grounds that they were considered ‘abandoned’. Leaving a total of 41 questionnaires available for analysis, producing a total response rate of 41%.

• 100 distributed to ‘large companies’ who are certified according to ISO 14001 In total, 39 companies participated in this questionnaire. However, after further analysis of the questionnaire, 5 questionnaires were removed on grounds that they were considered ‘abandoned’. Leaving a total of 34 questionnaires available for analysis. Producing a response rate of 34%.

The questionnaires were distributed by email in March 2016. The questionnaire was closed at the beginning of May 2016.

4.2.2 Profile of participants and industry sectors The respondents who were considered an SME were categorised into ‘micro’, ‘small’ or ‘medium’ sized company (Figure 2). The definition of a ‘micro’, ‘small’ and ‘medium’ sized company used in this report is from the European Commission (2003)6. 25% of respondents with Environmental Diploma and 23% with an ISO 14001 who participated in the questionnaire were considered a ‘micro’ sized company. The highest proportion (58%) of respondents for the Environmental Diploma questionnaire were categorised as being a ‘small’ company. A total of 33% of ISO 14001 respondents were categorised as being a ‘small’ company. The highest number of respondents for

6 The European Commission (2003) considers a company with <10 employees and ≤ €2m turnover is a ‘micro’ sized company. A ‘small’ company has <50 employees and an annual turnover of ≤ €10m. Lastly, a ‘medium’ sized company has <250 employees and an annual turnover of ≤ €50m.

17

the ISO 14001 questionnaire were considered a ‘medium’ sized company (44%), whereas only 17% of respondents for the Environmental Diploma questionnaire were categorise as a ‘medium’ sized company. This indicates that the highest proportion of respondents for the ISO 14001 questionnaire were considered a ‘medium’ sized company. Whereas the highest proportion of respondents for the Environmental Diploma questionnaire were considered a ‘small’ company.

FIGURE 2. CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT’S COMPANY SIZE

The respondents of each questionnaire were asked to list their industry branch. A wide variety of different industry branches participated in the questionnaire (Appendix 6, p. 53). Due to a random selection of participants, it was unknown which industry branches would be participating. It is interesting that in both the ISO 14001 questionnaire to SMEs and ‘large’ companies, the majority of respondents were within the manufacturing industry. In contrast to this, the branch sector of the Environmental Diploma respondents was more diverse with consultancy and real estate being the leading branches.

4.2.4 Motives for adopting an EMS Participants were asked to indicate their foremost reasons for introducing an EMS. All three groups indicated the same foremost reasons for introduction as being: to improve marketing and competitiveness, requirements and demands from customers and to reduce their environmental impact (Figure 3). Participants with an Environmental Diploma and participants with an ISO 14001 in a ‘large’ company agreed that ‘to improve marketing and competitiveness’ was the main reason for implementation. Whereas results from ISO 14001 in SMEs presented that the two joint top reasons were ‘to improve marketing and competitiveness’ and ‘requirements from customers’. Some of the other motives for implementation listed were ‘to create a better culture and work environmental for employees’, ‘reduce waste’ and ‘to fulfil requirements from legislations’ (Appendix 7, p. 54).

Micro25%

Small58%

Medium17%

Environmental Diploma

Micro Small Medium

Micro23%

Small33%

Medium44%

ISO 14001

Micro Small Medium

18

FIGURE 3. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EMS AND THE MAIN MOTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

4.2.5 The benefits of EMS implementation The questionnaire asked the respondents to rate whether the benefits that have been highlighted in the literature review (section 2.5.2) could also be identified as benefitting the company since the implementation of the EMS. The respondents were asked to choose if the listed benefit had had; ‘no benefit’, a ‘small benefit’ or a ‘large benefit’ within the company. A further option of ‘I don’t know’ was also offered.

The results showed that the top three perceived benefits for each group were different (Table 1). Respondents of SMEs who had an Environmental Diploma stated that they had noticed the greatest benefit in their competitiveness and marketing, followed by an improvement within the culture among their employees. The third ranked benefit was an improved structure within the company. Respondents with an ISO 14001 certification in SMEs also noticed an improved structure within the company, however they ranked this as the greatest perceived benefit, followed by stronger competitiveness and marketing, and thirdly they noticed an increase in customer satisfaction. However, the mean score for each benefit shows that the respondents from SMEs with an ISO 14001 certification had had a greater perceived level of benefit for all of the listed benefits compared to the respondents with an Environmental Diploma. Consequently, the results show that implementation of an ISO 14001 produces more perceived benefits than the implementation of the Environmental Diploma.

The ‘large’ companies who have implemented an ISO 14001 had noticed the greatest benefit within the structure of their company (Table 1). Two benefits came in joint second these were; stronger competitiveness and marketing and, improved culture among employees. The respondents with an ISO 14001 in SMEs had in general noticed a greater benefit in the ‘number of customers’ and in ‘customer satisfactions’ than the ‘large’ companies who are certified according to ISO 14001. The results indicate that the ‘culture among employees’ had improved more within the larger companies than SMEs.

Both sample groups with an ISO 14001 (SMEs and ‘large’ companies) had identified that they had experienced a ‘large’ benefit in the improved structure of the company. This was the only benefit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Environmental Diploma (SMEs) ISO 14001 (SMEs) ISO 14001 (Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Improve marketing and competitiveness Requirements from customers

Reduce the impact on the environment Other

19

that had been perceived to have produced a ‘large’ benefit for the ISO 14001 companies. However, the respondents of the Environmental Diploma group considered this to have only had a ‘small’ benefit within their company. It is important to note that the results identify that the mean analysis indicates that from all of the listed benefits, companies within Sweden have also noticed a certain level of benefit to their company since the implementation of an EMS. None of the groups stated that ‘no benefits’ had been experienced. However, these results have been concluded from the mean calculation, and this doesn’t reflect the experiences of all companies. See Appendix 8 (p. 55) for more results.

TABLE 1. THE MEAN CALCULATION FOR THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIFFERENT EMS. THE TOP THREE PERCEIVED BENEFITS ARE MARKED IN RED

Environmental Diploma ISO 14001 (SMEs) ISO 14001 (Large)

Benefits Mean SD Benefit Mean SD Benefit Mean SD Benefit Stronger competitiveness and marketing

2.34 0.63 Small 2.43 0.65 Small 2.42 0.62 Small

Improved culture among employees 2.16 0.69 Small 2.28 0.66 Small 2.42 0.62 Small

Increased number of customers 1.69 0.75 Small 2.10 0.77 Small 1.79 0.66 Small

Customer satisfaction 1.86 0.75 Small 2.38 0.75 Small 2.31 0.55 Small

Increased profitability 1.53 0.70 Small 1.84 0.68 Small 2.00 0.75 Small

Improved structure within the company 1.97 0.73 Small 2.57 0.56 Large 2.52 0.51 Large

Scale: 1 = no perceived benefits, 2 = small perceived benefits, 3 = large perceived benefits. SD = standard deviation

Summary of benefits

• The mean scores indicate that all three groups had experienced some level of benefit within their company from the list of benefits identified in the literature review.

• All the listed benefits were perceived by respondents from SMEs with an ISO 14001 to have benefitted their company to a greater extent compared to the amount they have been perceived to have benefitted those with an Environmental Diploma.

4.2.6 The barriers of EMS implementation Respondents were asked to indicate if the six barriers which have been identified in the literature review (section 2.5.3) by previous authors had presented a barrier within their company whilst implementing an EMS. They had four answers to choose from: no barrier, small barrier, large barrier or don’t know. In addition to this, space was available for them to identify if any further barriers had been experienced.

The results indicate that none of the three groups of participants considered any of the listed barriers to have presented a ‘large barrier’ in their implementation of their respective EMS. The results indicate that the top three barriers experienced with EMS implementation were the same for all three groups of respondents (Table 2). The cost of human resources to implement and maintain

20

the system was identified to have presented the largest barrier for all three groups. Both SME groups indicated ‘the cost of certifying and auditing’ was the second greatest perceived barrier. Whereas, the ‘large’ companies with the ISO 14001 certificate identified ‘deficiencies in knowledge’ to have presented the second largest barrier. Again, the respondents for both SMEs groups agreed that ‘deficiencies in knowledge’ was the third greatest barrier. Whereas, the ‘large’ company, considered the third barrier to be the ‘cost of certifying and auditing’.

Furthermore, respondents with an Environmental Diploma and respondents from the ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 both stated that ‘no barrier’ had been experienced with conducting ‘major organisational changes’ within their company. However, respondents from SMEs with an ISO 14001 states that this did present a ‘small barrier’ in their implementation process. Respondents with an Environmental Diploma state that a ‘small barrier’ had presented itself with the initial cost of environmental equipment. However, both groups of ISO 14001 respondents stated that this had not been a barrier within their company.

If a comparison is made between the different size companies experience when implementing an ISO 14001 system, the results indicate that the SMEs had experienced a slightly higher level of a barrier from implementation than ‘large’ companies for four of the barriers listed (the cost of human resources to implement and maintain the system, the cost of certifying and auditing, major organisational and structural changes and the potential benefits are too small compared to the changed necessary). Both ISO 14001 respondents had had a very similar experience when faced with the initial cost of environmental equipment, but the mean score showed that overall this had not been experienced as a barrier. See Appendix 9 (p. 56) for more results.

TABLE 2. THE MEAN CALCULATION FOR THE PERCEIVED BARRIERS HINDERING EMS IMPLEMENTATION. THE TOP THREE BARRIERS ARE MARKED IN RED

Environmental Diploma ISO 14001 (SMEs) ISO 14001 (Large)

Barriers Mean SD Barrier Mean SD Barrier Mean SD BarrierDeficiencies in knowledge 1.72 0.72 Small 1.70 0.62 Small 1.80 0.55 Small

The costs of human resources 1.87 0.70 Small 2.03 0.77 Small 1.90 0.70 Small

The cost of certifying and auditing 1.77 0.78 Small 1.94 0.73 Small 1.73 0.64 Small

Initial costs for environmental equipment

1.58 0.68 Small 1.47 0.56 None 1.46 0.64 None

Major organisational structural changes 1.29 0.57 None 1.57 0.55 Small 1.38 0.56 None

The potential benefits are too small compared to the changes that were necessary

1.45 0.60 Small 1.53 0.61 Small 1.27 0.53 None

Scale: 1 = no barrier, 2 = small barrier, 3 = large barrier. SD = standard deviation

21

Summary of the barriers

• For all three groups of participants, two of the top three barriers (‘the costs of human resources to implement and maintain the system’ and ‘the cost of certifying and auditing’) identified are considered ‘economic’ barriers. However, no barriers had presented a ‘large’ barrier.

• SMEs with an ISO 14001 identified that ‘major structural changes’ presented a barrier within implementation. However, SMEs with an Environmental Diploma found this to have not presented a barrier within implementation.

• The standard deviation scores show that respondents had different experiences of whether a barrier had hindered their implementation of their respective EMS.

• SMEs with an ISO 14001 experienced more of a barrier in implementation than ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001.

4.2.7. Summary of main results from the first questionnaire • The main motives for implementation are the same for respondents with an Environmental

Diploma, ISO 14001 in SMEs and an ISO 14001 in ‘large’ companies. • The results suggest that those with an ISO 14001 in SMEs had noticed a greater level of a

benefit than SMEs with an Environmental Diploma. • The comparison of ISO 14001 in SMEs and ‘large’ companies showed that larger companies

had, in general, experienced less barriers with the implementation of the ISO 14001 system than SMEs.

• It is important to note that these results are not conclusive and due to the response rate there is a low statistical validity. Furthermore, the results listed do not represent the experiences of all respondents, they have been concluded from the mean scores.

4.3 Results from the second questionnaire (follow up questionnaire) In the first questionnaire participants were asked if they would participate in a follow up questionnaire. This questionnaire was distributed to 10 randomly selected companies from each group from the participants who stated they would participate in a further questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire was to gain a greater insight into the implementation of an EMS. The main aim of this questionnaire was to present the suggested measures for improvement that had been identified in the literature review and identify if they would have removed any barriers or difficulties experienced in the implementation process.

Although the results for this questionnaire have low statistical significance, the results can still be used as an indication of the opinions of the respondents.

4.3.1 Response rate for follow up questionnaire • Environmental Diploma for SMEs

A total of 10 questionnaires were sent to SMEs with an Environmental Diploma, 8 companies participated in this follow up questionnaire.

• ISO 14001 in SMEs A total of 10 questionnaires were sent to SMEs with an ISO 14001 certificate, 6 companies participated in this follow up questionnaire.

• ISO 14001 in ‘large’ companies A total of 10 questionnaires were sent to ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 certificate, a total of 9 companies responded to this questionnaire.

22

4.3.2 The structure of the EMS The results show that the 57% of respondents think that the Environmental Diploma offered clear guidelines of how to fulfil the requirements, whereas 43% felt that some areas of the Environmental Diploma were unclear. In contrast to this, a higher percentage of respondents for the ISO 14001 in SMEs thought that the guidelines were unclear in some areas (50%), with 25% responding that guidelines were unclear in all areas. 25% responded that guidelines were clear.

If we consider the findings from the ISO 14001 in ‘large’ companies the highest percentage (71%) responded that the guidelines were clear. The remaining respondents (29%) thought that some areas were missing clear guidelines.

4.3.3 Suggested measures The following section will present the results of the participants when asked if the eight measures that have been discussed in the literature review (section 2.6) would have been beneficial and helpful to their company’s implementation and experiences when working with an EMS. The respondents were asked to rate how helpful each measure would have been to their company. The rating scale was ‘no help’, ‘small help’, ‘large help or ‘don’t know’.

TABLE 3. THE MEAN CALCULATION FOR THE LEVEL OF HELP EACH SUGGESTED MEASURE WOULD BE. THE TOP THREE HAVE BEEN MARKED IN RED.

Environmental Diploma ISO 14001 (SMEs) ISO 14001 (Large)

Measures Mean SD Level of help Mean SD

Level of help Mean SD

Level of help

Economic contribution 1.57 0.71 Small 2.80 0.63 Large 1.57 0.99 Small

Practical support 2.43 0.74 Small 3.00 0.00 Large 2.13 0.64 Small

Concrete tools 2.86 0.46 Large 3.00 0.41 Large 2.43 0.74 Small

Easier requirements 2.00 1.04 Small 2.60 0.75 Large 1.88 0.64 Small

Easier guidelines 2.57 0.74 Large 2.50 0.55 Large 2.00 0.53 Small More available advice 2.43 0.53 Small 2.83 0.41 Large 2.29 0.49 Small Less administrative time on paperwork 2.14 0.64 Small 2.67 0.52 Large 2.29 0.92 Small Examples from similar organisations 2.57 0.52 Large 3.00 0.00 Large 2.63 0.52 Large

Scale: 1 = No help, 2 = Small help, 3 = Large help, 0 = Don't know, SD = standard deviation

Firstly, it is important to note that all the response groups considered that all the listed measures would have been of some help within their implementation process. None were considered to have been of ‘no help’ (Table 3).

The results identify that from all the listed measures, respondents from SMEs with an ISO 14001 considered that all would have been a ‘large help’ in their implementation process. Furthermore, all participants within this response group agreed that three of the measures (‘practical support’, ‘concrete tools’ and ‘examples from similar organisations’) were considered to have offered a ‘large help’ in their implementation process, this is indicated by the standard deviation score of 0. The

23

respondents with an Environmental Diploma considered three of the measures to be a ‘large help’ (‘concrete tools’, ‘easier guidelines’ and ‘examples from similar organisations’). The remaining measures were considered to have offered a ‘small help’.

In comparison to the SMEs with an ISO 14001 who identified all measures to be a ‘large’ help, respondents from ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 only identified one measure (‘examples from similar organisations’) to be a ‘large’ help. See Appendix 10 (p. 57) for more results.

Summary of results

• All of the listed measures would have been of some help to all three groups being researched.

• The results indicate that the measures presented would have been a greater help to SMEs with an ISO 14001 than the other groups.

• Implementing an ISO 14001 in a SMEs requires more help compared to implementation in a ‘large’ company.

24

Chapter 5 - Discussion 5.1. Introduction The number of SMEs within Sweden expected to grow by the end of 2016 (European Commission, 2015) and with 65.7 % of Sweden’s working population already employed with SMEs (European Commission, 2015), it is important for these enterprises to be engaged in environmental activities. The use of an EMS is a good way to structure this work. This chapter discusses whether the results from this study are consistent with the results from the literature review and identify if the experiences of SMEs within Sweden are similar to that of other countries. In addition to this, this chapter will use the findings of this research to answer the four research objectives.

This study aims to build upon the existing research already available on the motives, benefits and barriers of implementing an EMS within SMEs. However, this research has a special interest in unearthing whether the introduction of the Environmental Diploma within Sweden has addressed existing barriers which have posed as an obstacle for SMEs when implementing the ISO 14001. This research will help evaluate if the Environmental Diploma has been successful in reducing the barriers and, if not, what barriers are still hindering SMEs when implementing an EMS.

5.2. Discussion of results The first three objectives will be considered in the next section. Objective four will be addressed in the following section.

• Objective 1 - Identify the main drivers, benefits and barriers experienced by SMEs within Sweden when adopting either an ISO 14001 or an Environmental Diploma

• Objective 2 - Identify if the benefits and barriers experienced are different between SMEs with an ISO 14001 and SMEs with an Environmental Diploma

• Objective 3 - Identify if the motives, benefits and barriers are perceived differently between SMEs and ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 certification

Motives The three top motives for implementation were the same for all three groups. These were to improve marketing and competitiveness, requirements from customers or to reduce their company’s impact on the environment. These results are encouraging and demonstrate that pressure from the market and consumers is a significant factor contributing to the implementation of an EMS. It is also encouraging to see that within Swedish SMEs, many state that their company’s personal philosophy is encouraging them to reduce their impact on the environment. The Swedish Government’s, 16 environmental quality objectives, may have been one factor encouraging companies to take responsibility. This attitude stresses that responsibility for these objectives should be encouraging owners and employees to search for a tool to help decrease their environmental impact and an EMS is a structured way of doing this.

The identification of the motive ‘to improve marketing and competitiveness’ is consistent with Chavan’s (2005) warning that for some companies the leading motivation is to gain a competitive advantage within the market. However, due to ‘improvements within the environment’ also being listed as one of the top three motivations within Sweden, it is clear that environmental performance is still a significant factor influencing a company’s decision to implement an EMS.

The results from the questionnaire are also consistent with Hillary’s (2003) research that states a leading motivation is to meet the demands of significant stakeholders. For SMEs, customers are deemed by Hillary (2003) to be the most significant stakeholder. The second most significant motivation identified in this research was for companies to meet the requirements from customers.

25

Biondi et al. (2000) research identifies the most significant motivation to be to ensure that companies meet their legal requirements. This result is in contrast to the results from the questionnaire. Legal requirements were listed by a few participants to be a motivation, however not to the same extent as Biondi et al. (2000) had previously identified.

Research in Greece (Psomas et al. 2011) and research within Sweden (Poksinska et al. 2003) identified that one of the leading motivations for conducting environment work is to improve the company’s environmental performance, thus reducing their impact on the environment. This result is in correlation with the results from the questionnaire, which identified ‘improvements for the environment’ to be one of the top three motivations for EMS implementation.

The results from the questionnaire indicate that the motives for both SMEs and ‘large’ companies are very similar. The motivation for implementation are therefore, not significantly influenced by the size of the company or the type of EMS that is being implemented. However, some little distinctions can be made: SMEs with an Environmental Diploma are more likely to consider ‘improvements within the environment’ to be more of a significant motive than ‘requirements from customers’. Whereas, the opposite is found for SMEs with an ISO 14001. An explanation for this result could be because the ISO 14001 is an internationally recognised EMS, so customers are more familiar with this and consequently there exists more of a demand.

In addition to this, when asked to identify the reasons for selecting the specific EMS for their company, participants from a SME with an ISO 14001 were more likely to state that a motive for selection was because the ISO 14001 is internationally recognised and well known. Whereas no participants with an Environmental Diploma stated this as a motive. However, the respondents with an Environmental Diploma were more likely to state that a reason for selecting the Environmental Diploma was that the requirements were not as strict as an ISO 14001 system, with one respondent commenting that the Environmental Diploma was ‘not as expensive and time consuming as the ISO 14001’ and another stating ‘less management is involved (in the implementation process) compared to the ISO 14001 system’.

Benefits The literature review stated that companies seldom follow up on the economic benefits after EMS implementation (Axelson & Almgren, 2003). The results from the questionnaire showed that in comparison to the other questions, respondents were more likely to state that they did not know if the benefit stated had been experienced within their company. One respondent stated that ‘it is difficult to make a clear link between environmental management, profitability and the increase in customers because there are many aspects that come into play’. Another respondent stated that they have tried to evaluate the benefits of their environmental work but that it is ‘difficult to set a monetary value on things our company still needs to do to fulfil the legal requirements’. The results suggested that companies have difficulty evaluating their environmental work and consequently are unsure about if they have experienced any benefits. However, many companies have successfully evaluated their environmental performance, with one company stating that they also ‘follow up…environmental work with a customer survey to see how our customers understand our environmental work’. One could suggest that for some companies, environmental evaluation is easier to perform.

The results from the respondents were positive with many noticing benefits since the introduction of the EMS. The benefits that were identified in the literature review (Hillary 2003; Alberti et al. 2000; Wagner 2014; Psomas et al. 2011 and Roberts et al. 2006) have also been experienced within SMEs in Sweden. Interestingly, respondents who had an Environmental Diploma in general, stated that

26

they have perceived less benefits than SMEs with an ISO 14001. Consequently, the results would suggest that in general more benefits are perceived by those with an ISO 14001 certification.

Morrow and Rondinelli (2002) stated that the most significant benefit experienced within their research were improvements in their companies organisation and documentation. This result is in conjunction with this research that identified the most significant benefit found for both the SMEs and ‘large’ companies who have implemented the ISO 14001 system, both indicating that improvements within the structure of their company was the biggest perceived benefit. In comparison to the respondents with an Environmental Diploma, who only perceived a ‘small’ benefit to have been experienced within their company’s structure. The comparison between the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma showed in the literature review, that the ISO 14001 system places more requirements on the company, consequently, in order for a company to meet the requirements the structure of the organisation may need to be changed. This is a positive result showing that although this change needs to occur, companies have experienced some benefits from this.

All three groups indicated that ‘stronger competitiveness and marketing’ was one of the top three perceived benefits. This is consistent with Alberti et al. (2000) research which cited that increased market opportunities were a significant non-economically quantifiable benefit. However, Morrow and Rondinelli (2002) stated that their research had found ‘competitive advantage’ to be a less significant benefit experienced.

The most significant result is that with all the benefits identified in the literature review, the level of perceived benefits for SMEs with an ISO 14001 was always higher compared to SMEs with an Environmental Diploma. The results indicate that although some level of benefit had been perceived, it was more prevalent from the implementation of the ISO 14001. This could be a consequence of the Environmental Diploma being considered a cheaper and easier EMS (Nutek, 2003) and therefore less change has occurred within the company resulting in less benefits being experienced.

The results showed that ‘large’ companies had, similarly to SMEs, noticed benefits in their work activities since the implementation of the ISO 14001. The SMEs had noticed greater benefits with regards to their customers, the results showed that they had noticed a greater benefit in ‘customer satisfaction’ and an ‘increase in customer numbers’ than in ‘large’ companies. The customer benefits may be easier to monitor by SMEs who may be in closer contact with their customers than the larger companies. The results indicate that despite the size of the company, the introduction of the ISO 14001 had produced similar benefits.

Barriers The results from this section of the questionnaire identified that all three groups identified the same three main barriers. These three barriers were deficiencies of knowledge within that area; the cost of human resources to implement and maintain the system; and the cost of certifying and auditing. This is an important result, as although not all respondents did perceive these three as barriers, over half of the respondents did. In addition to this, it is interesting to note that although in all three barriers, respondents who have an Environmental Diploma perceived these to be slightly less or equal to both ISO 14001 groups. This suggests that although, to some extent, the Environmental Diploma has decreased the presence of barriers slightly, for some companies these barriers were still present. Furthermore, two of the three main barriers can be classified as a ‘financial barrier’. This coincides with the European Commissions (2012) research which states that 51% of EU SMEs find that financial incentives are the best incentive to encourage SMEs in becoming sustainable. In

27

addition to this, especially with SMEs, their focus is more towards the day-to-day running of a company and ‘making ends meet’ (Seidel et al., 2009).

Hillary (2003) identified the first two internal barrier in her report to be ‘resources’ and ‘understanding and perception’. The results from the questionnaire are consistent with Hillary’s report. Furthermore, Hillary (2003) states that the lack of human resources is often a more prominent barrier than lack of financial resources. The results from the questionnaire also support this, stating that it is the ‘cost of human resources’ which has presented one of the most significant barriers. Additionally, the second internal barrier listed by Hillary (2003) is the ‘lack of understanding’. All three groups identified ‘deficiencies of knowledge within this subject area’ to be one of the most significant barriers hindering EMS implementation. Moreover, Hillary (2003) identified the first external barrier as being ‘auditors and certifiers’. The results from all three groups identified the cost of certifying and auditing as one of the top three barriers presenting an obstacle for companies when implementing an EMS.

The process of implementing ISO 14001 in SMEs had presented significantly more barriers than within ‘large’ companies. SMEs with an Environmental Diploma ranked all but one barrier (‘deficiencies in knowledge’) as presenting more of a significant barrier, compared to the experiences of ‘large’ companies. It is clear from the results that SMEs are faced with greater barriers than ‘large’ companies. These results are consistent with other research (Hillary, 2003; Nutek, 2003). This is not to say that these barriers have not presented some problems within the ‘large’ companies, just not to the same extent that they have been a hindrance within SMEs.

Objective 4 - Offer practical measures that will make the implementation of EMS easier with SMEs.

It is important to highlight that these results have low statistical validity. However, the aim of the follow up questionnaire was to suggest possible measures to assist SMEs in the implementation process of an EMS and how each would be received within the industry. Eight measures that had been identified in the literature review to help companies with the implementation of EMS were suggested to the three participant groups in the follow up questionnaire. The results identified that all the measures suggested would have been of some help to all three groups. However, respondents with an ISO 14001 in SMEs considered that all the measures would have been a ‘large help’ within their implementation process. Compared to the respondents with an Environmental Diploma in SMEs who stated three would have been a ‘large help’ and the remaining five a ‘small help’. Consequently, SMEs with an ISO 14001 appear to require more assistance and help within implementation (see Table 3 in Results).

Although there was less of a demand for the measures from the respondents with an Environmental Diploma, they did feel that the measures were required to a certain extent. Consequently, this suggests that although the Swedish Environmental Base (sv. Svensk Miljöbas) have made some progress in reducing the barriers faced by SMEs with the Environmental Diploma, some barriers still exist.

Furthermore, at times there also exists a contrast between the results within the same group of participants with some respondents feeling differently to whether a measure would have helped. This could depend on the industry branch of a company. One respondent commented that ‘as a service company, the effects are small, so a lot of the demands seem irrelevant and the environmental benefits gained were limited’.

In addition to this, it is clear from the results that a SME required more assistance and support than a larger company when implementing an ISO 14001 certification. This is consistent with previous

28

research that states that the ISO 14001 certification system is tailored to the activities of larger companies (Nutek, 2003). This could be because the requirements are demanding and a SME might not have the required knowledge and resources to meet these demands. Although these results have low statistical validity due to the low number of respondents, it is clear that within this sample, a clear distinction between the need for more measures and to what extent they would have helped in the implementation process has formed. Respondents with an ISO 14001 in SMEs required a higher level of help than the other two groups.

However, an important question needs to be asked at this point, how easy should it be for a company to implement an EMS? If the requirements were made easier would this detract from the improvements that the EMS aims to do? One respondents stated that ‘maybe (certification) should not be too easy, it must mean something for a company to be certified’. It’s imperative that any measures adopted to make the process of implementation easier for SMEs, must not devalue what it means to be certified with an EMS and reduce the effectiveness of the environmental work. Consequently, a careful balance needs to be found between making the implementation process easier without devaluing what it means to have an EMS.

One respondent who has worked with an EMS for a number of years commented that the ‘(implementation of an ISO 14001) has become easier over the years… (and that) the certified companies have become better.’ Furthermore, they noted from their experience that when they started working with an EMS ‘it was about generating lots of documents. It is not like that today. It (environmental work) has become a part of business activity and not as it was considered before, a necessary evil.’ This is encouraging, as this respondents experience indicated that for them, they have perceived an improvement within the ISO 14001 certification process.

5.3. Summary of the discussion The overall experiences of all three groups identified very similar significant motives, benefits and barriers. However, the extent to which each motive, benefit and barrier had been perceived differed between the groups of participants. The SMEs respondents for both the Environmental Diploma and ISO 14001 had experienced the same barriers to a similar extent, however, the follow up questionnaire identified that the ISO 14001 respondents, had a much stronger desire for more measures to be available to help with implementation. This could be a topic for further research.

The experiences of different sized companies with an ISO 14001, however do show that in general SMEs perceive a slightly higher barrier than ‘large’ companies. Yet, even though the respondents from ‘large’ companies hadn’t experienced as much of a barrier compared SMEs, it was still reported that they have still perceived some barriers. This demonstrates that not only SMEs face barriers within the implementation of the ISO 14001, but also ‘large’ companies.

It has become apparent that, although within this report the results have presented the mean calculations, it is important to state that the results do not represent the experiences of each individual company. Companies who have been classified as a SMEs and have the same EMS have been identified as having very different experiences with regards to the implementation of the EMS. Other factors, for example the industry branch, the specific size of a company (‘micro’, ‘small’ or ‘medium’) or the attitude of the management can also have a significant influence on the experiences of the company, however this is outside the scope of this report.

5.4. Limitations of the research A limitation to this research is that it has low statistical validity based on a low response rate. The low response rate could be a result from a number of different factors. Firstly, the distribution

29

method of using email might have meant the questionnaires were not reaching those responsible for the company’s environmental work. Furthermore, those receiving the email may have felt that this method lacked a personal touch and may have underestimated how important participation was.

In addition to this, the respondents in this research were those that have already been successfully certified with an Environmental Diploma or an ISO 14001. The research did not consider the companies that have not implemented a managements system and the barriers that have prevented them from doing so.

Furthermore, the results have been generalised to all the respondents. However, it was clear from the results that within each group, respondents have had different experiences and opinions, which was a factor that was not taken into consideration within this report. This would be an interesting topic to explore in further research.

5.5. Further research After conducting this research, it has highlighted the need for more research to be conducted into the barriers that are presented and any other further barriers that have been experienced. A great deal of disparity exists between the individual respondents experiences within the same group. Further research could be undertaken to identify what factors are determining the different experiences within the same group of participants. For example, further research could be conducted into the specific industry sectors or whether the company is classified as a micro, small or medium-sized company. In addition to this, other factors could influence the experiences of companies, for example, the beliefs of the management/owners or the encouragement and support the management offers to those working with the environmental activities. All of these factors could be individually researched.

30

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations The European Commission (2012) state that ‘SMEs are important for a smooth transition to a greener economy’. It is increasingly important for SMEs to engage in environmental work. The use of an EMS, is a formal way for this work to be structured. However, this report has identified that although SMEs can benefit from the implementation of an EMS, they are also faced with barriers hindering their progress. This report stresses the need to enhance the benefits experienced and implement measures to help SMEs overcome the barriers.

The results report that the experiences of the three groups being researched (Environmental Diploma (SMEs), ISO 14001 (SMEs), ISO 14001 (‘large’ companies)) are similar with the top three motives and barriers being the same.

The results suggest that improved marketing and competitiveness, requirements from customers and to reduce their impact on the environment were identified as the top three motives for implementation.

Furthermore, deficiencies in knowledge, the cost of human resources to implement the EMS and the cost of certifying and auditing were identified by the three groups of participants to have presented the largest degree of difficulty within implementation.

Interestingly, the results do not suggest that for SMEs, the implementation of the ISO 14001 necessarily presented more barriers, than the Environmental Diploma. Different perceptions of barriers were experienced within both EMSs. For example, those with an Environmental Diploma experienced a small barrier in the initial cost of environmental equipment, whereas those with an ISO 14001 did not experience this as a barrier. In contrast to this, the respondents for the ISO 14001 experienced a barrier in the amount of organisational change, whereas those with an Environmental Diploma did not. Consequently, the results did not suggest that the implementation by SMEs of the Environmental Diploma did necessarily result in less barriers being experienced. In addition to this, although the ISO 14001 is reported to be tailored towards the organisational structure of larger organisations, the results from this research suggest that ‘large’ companies also experienced barriers within the implementation process of an ISO 14001 system.

Stronger competitiveness and marketing and improved culture among employees were identified as two of the top three benefits experienced by all three groups. The respondents with an Environmental Diploma in SMEs and those with an ISO 14001 in ‘large’ companies reported an improved culture among employees to be within the top three benefits. Whereas the respondents with an ISO 14001 in SMEs identified customer satisfaction to be within the top three benefits experienced. All respondents reported that at least a small level of a benefit had been experienced with regards to the benefits identified in the literature review since implementation. However, the results suggest that both groups with an ISO 14001 (SMEs and ‘large’ companies) had experienced a higher level of a benefit than those with an Environmental Diploma.

The results suggest that all the respondents had experienced some level of a benefit. However, the method to measure these benefits was often unclear to the respondents. This report recommends that a practical method to encourage and assist environmental evaluation needs to be developed, to ensure that the full benefits since the implementation of a formal EMS are being identified.

This report recommends practical measures for the development of the Environmental Diploma and ISO 14001 to reduce the barriers experienced by SMEs within the implementation process. According to the research the most desired measures to be developed are similar for both SMEs with an Environmental Diploma and ISO 14001. The most important measures recommended in this

31

report are to offer more concrete tools and increase communication between companies so that similar organisations that have already implemented an EMS can be used as an example for companies introducing an EMS. However, the need for the measures has been expressed as being more desired for SMEs with an ISO 14001, who reported that all of the measures listed from the literature review would have offered a large help within the implementation process. These measures were: economic contributions, practical support, easier requirement, easier guidelines, more available advice and less administrative time on paperwork.

In addition to this, ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001 also identified that the measures would have helped within their implementation process but not to the same extent as SMEs with an ISO 14001. Suggesting that the ISO 14001 is more challenging to implement within an SME and more support with this is needed.

It is accepted that this research does have its limitations, but one conclusion that can be drawn is that SMEs are still experiencing constraints in their implementation process and this is a topic that needs further consideration within SMEs in Sweden. Furthermore, although the Environmental Diploma is tailored towards the activities of SMEs, many still have experienced barriers within this. In addition to this, the experience of different SMEs who have implemented the same EMS, are not always consistent, this could be a result of the diverse nature of SMEs. This report recommends that further research needs to be conducted into the individual experiences of SMEs, identifying what determines their different experiences.

The use of a formal EMS encourages environmental considerations to be integrated into a company’s day to day activities. However, companies must be offered more assistance in how to conduct environmental performance evaluation within their work activities. Practical support and guidelines into how to evaluate this could be offered to companies, who are at present unsure of how to conduct environmental performance evaluation on certain aspects of their work activities. This evaluation will highlight the full extent of the benefits that have be experienced since implementing an EMS. Furthermore, measures to improve the implementation process and decrease the barriers that have been faced by SMEs need to be developed. In addition to this, although the experiences of SMEs with an ISO 14001 or Environmental Diploma are not always consistent, the results do suggest that within EMS implementation within Sweden, in general companies have had similar experiences.

This report does not identify either the ISO 14001 or the Environmental Diploma as presenting less barriers within the implementation process. However, the results do suggest that SMEs who are certified according to ISO 14001 have experienced more benefits within their organisation. Furthermore, it identifies the need for more research to be conducted into different factors, for example, the industry sector, the specific size of the company or the support offered by management of the company. This would determine if it these factors that can have an influence on the benefits and barriers experienced and whether one EMS is more suitable for a specific industry sector or size of organisation. From this, appropriate measures can then be tailored to suit, for example, a specific industry sector who may be experiencing more barriers compared to another sector.

In conclusion, the report has identified different measures which could be used to reduce the barriers and increase the benefits experienced. Although the results suggested there was more of a need for these measures in companies implementing an ISO 14001, those implementing an Environmental Diploma would have also benefitted from these measures. It is important for a balance to be found between introducing measures to assist companies in their implementation

32

process without making it too easy and therefore detracting from its effectiveness and devaluing what it means to have an EMS. This report concludes that within Sweden, SMEs are benefitting from both the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma but as SMEs within Sweden are increasing, the necessity of EMS will become increasingly important so a clear strategy on how to achieve this is needed.

33

Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Mum, without whom I would not be studying at a Masters level.

I would like to thank my external supervisor, Magnus Ruberg, for his guidance and extensive knowledge.

A further thanks, goes to my internal supervisor, Per Nilsson for his support and advice.

I am also thankful to my parents and spouse for their continual support, patience and calming words.

A special thanks goes to the Swedish companies who have participated in this research, without you, this research would not have been possible.

34

References Acevedo, M. F. (2013). Data Analysis and Statistics for Geography, Environmental Science, and Engineering.

Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 7.

Alberti, M., Caini, L., Calabrese, A., & Rossi, D. (2000). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of an environmental management system. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4455-4466.

Axelsson, U., & Almgren, R. (2003). Effektivare miljöledningssystem – en studie om brister, behov och möjlighter till förbättring. Retireved 27th April, 2016, from https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5304-3.pdf

Biondi, V., Frey, M., & Iraldo, F. (2000). Environmental Management Systems and SMEs. Greener Management International, Spring, 55-79.

Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing Quantitative Data. Vol. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 29-30.

Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire Design. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd, 106-152.

Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S., & Marchant, K. (2012). Environmental Management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, Pressures and Perceived Benefits. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 423-434.

British Standard Institution (2016). Our History. Retrieved 27th April, 2016, from http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/our-history/

Chavan, M. (2005). An appraisal of environment management systems: a competitive advantage for small businesses. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 16(5), 444-463.

Commission of the European Communities (1992). Towards sustainability: a European community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.

Conrad, F., Couper, M., Tourangeau, R., & Peytchev, A. (2010). The impact of progress indicators on task completion. Interacting with Computers, 22, 417-427.

Constantinos, C., Sorensen, S., Larsen, P., & Alexopoulou, S. (2010). SMEs and the environment in the European Union, PLANET SA and Danish Technological Institute. European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry.

Couper, M., Traugott, M., & Lamias, M. (2011). Web Survey Design and Administration. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2).

Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced Quantitative Data Analysis. 1st ed. Glasgow: Bell and Bain Ltd., 2-3.

European Commission (2003). What is an SME? Retrieved 8th May, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/sme-definition/index_en.htm

European Commission (2012). Eurobarometer survey: SMEs are important for a smooth transition to a greener economy. Retrieved 18th May, 2016, from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-218_en.htm

European Commission (2015). SBA Fact Sheet. Retrieved 6th April, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16344/attachments/33/translations/en/renditions/native

European Committee for Standardization (2004). European Management Systems - Requirements with guideance for use (ISO 14001: 4). Retrieved 6th March, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31807

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational Research: An introduction. 8th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 212-227.

35

Global Footprint Network (2016). World Footprint. Retrieved 27th April, 2016, from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative Methods in Educational Research. The role of numbers made easy. Suffolk: Paston PrePress Ltd, 36-89.

Hillary, R. (2003). Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 561-569.

Iraldo, F., Testa, F. & Frey, M. (2010). Environmental Management Systems and SMEs: EU Experience, Barriers and Perspectives. Retrieved 5th May, 2016, from http://www.intechopen.com/books/environmentalmanagement/environmental-management-system-and-smes-eu-experience-barriers-and-perspectives

International Standards Organisation (2014). The ISO survey of Management System Standard Certifications -2014. Retrieved 27th April, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_survey_executive-summary.pdf?v2014

International Standards Organisation (2015). Introduction to ISO 14001:2015. Retrieved 27th April, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/introduction_to_iso_14001.pdf

International Standards Organisation (2015). ISO 14001: Key Benefits. Retrieved 27th April, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14001_-_key_benefits.pdf

Jenkins, H. (2004). A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 37-57.

Jorgensson, A. & Knudsen, J. (2006). Sustainable competitiveness in global value chains: how do small Danish firms behave? Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 6(4), 449-462.

Koomey, J. G. (2006). Best Practices for Understanding Quantitative Data. Retrieved 3rd May, 2016, from http://www.perceptualedge.com/articles/b-eye/quantitative_data.pdf

Mandl, I., & Dorr, A. (2007). CSR and competitiveness-European SMEs’ good practice. Vienna: KMU Forschung Austria J. G.

Mann, P. S. (1998). Introductory Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 35-37.

Mitchell, S., O’Dowd, A. & Roche. T. (2011). The issue of waste in European Manufacturing SMEs. Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.

Morrow, D. & Rondinelli, D. (2002). Adopting Corporate EMSs: Motivations and Results of ISO 14001 and EMAS Certification. European Management Journal, 20(2), 159-171.

Mårder, G. (2015). Hållbara Företag Bygger Framtiden. Företagarna. Retrieved 5th April, 2016, from www.foretagarna.se

Nardi, M. (2003). Doing survey research: a guide to quantitative methods. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 60-204.

Naturvårdsverket (2003). Effektivare miljöledningssystem – en studie om brister, behov och möjligheter till förbättring. Rapport 5304. Retrieved 5th March, 2016, from https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju5fjy3N7MAhVkMJoKHRD9CGQQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.naturvardsverket.se%2FDocuments%2Fpublikationer%2F620-5304-3.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEwFa-QGTkVuIvwAx7wN0Cmaa5-Ag

Nutek (2003). Miljöarbete i småföretag – en ren vinst? Företagens villkor och verklighet 2002. B 2003:2, Stockholm: Alfa Print, 38.

Nutek (2004). Det lönsamma miljöarbetet. Miljöstrategier och resultat I småföretag. B 2004:4, Stockholm: Alfa Print, 41-44.

36

O’Leary (2004). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage Publications, 99.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. & Eklund, J.A.E. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(5), 585-606.

Poole, M., Coombs J. & Van Gool K. (1999). The environmental needs of the micro-company sector and the development of a tool to meet those needs. Plymouth: Payback Business Environmental Association for the Southwest.

Psomas, E. L., Fotopoulos, C. V. & Kafetzopoulos, D. P. (2011). Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(4), 502–521.

Roberts, S., Lawson, R. & Nicholls, J. (2006). Generating Regional-Scale Improvements in SME Corporate Responsibility Performance: Lessons from Responsibility Northwest. Journal of Business Ethics, 2006(67), 275-86.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., deWit, C., Hughes, T., Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, L., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.

Seidel, M., Seidel, R., Tedford, D., Cross, R., Wait, L. & Hämmerle, E. (2009). Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Environmentally Benign Manufacturing Practices: Strategic Tools for SMEs. Environmental Quality Management, Spring 2009, 37-55.

Swedish Environmental Base (sv. Svensk Miljöbas) (2013). Samlad kravstandard. Retrieved 30th April, 2016, from http://svenskmiljobas.se/krav.html

Swedish Environmental Base (sv. Svensk Miljöbas) (2014). Vill ni miljödiplomera er verksamhet? Retrieved 21st April, 2016, from http://svenskmiljobas.se/miljodiplomering.html

Svenskt Näringsliv (2015). Engagemang och drivkrafter i de små- och medlestora företagens miljoarete. Retrieved 21st April, 2016, from http://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/material/rapporter/engagemang-och-drivkrafter-i-de-sma-och-medelstora-foretagens-mil_632843.html

Sroufe, R. (2003). Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Environmental Management Practices and Operations. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 416-431.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Sweden’s Environmental Objectives – An introduction. Retrieved 12th May, 2016, from http://www.swedishepa.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-8620-6.pdf?pid=6759

Thompson, C. (2009). Descriptive Data Analysis. Air Medical Journal, 28(2), 56-59.

United Nations (1987). Our Common Future - Brundtland Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43.

Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A. & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An Introduction to Survey Research, Polling and Data Analysis. 3rd ed. California: SAGE Publications, Inc, 193-194.

Wills, M. (2008). Talking about the future within an SME? Corporate foresight and the potential contributions to sustainable development. Management of Environmental Quality, 19(2), 234-42.

Young, G. (2010). Opportunities and challenges related to SME implementation of EMS. Retrieved 12th May, 2016, from http://synapsechronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Opportunities-and-challenges-related-to-SME-implementation-of-EMSs.pdf

Zackrisson, M., Enroth M. & Widing A. (2000). Environmental management systems – paper tiger or powerful tool. Retrieved 12th May, 2016, from http://www.swerea.se/file/531/download?token=j3sm1gI_

37

Appendix 1 – Comparison between the requirements of the ISO 14001 and Environmental Diploma TABLE 4. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ISO 14001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMA CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUMMARISED FROM THE EUROPEAN STANDARD EN ISO 14001 (2004) AND THE SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL BASE STANDARD (2010)

ISO 14001 Environmental Diploma 4.2 Environmental policy 3.4 Environmental policy - defined by top management - be well anchored within the management - appropriate scale for activities - commitment to continually improve and prevent pollution

- a promise to continually improve and prevent pollution

- comply with applicable legal and other requirements

- a promise to follow the businesses current environmental legislations

- have a framework to review the environmental objectives - documented, implemented and maintained - documented - communicated to all personnel - available to the public - available to the public4.3 Planning 4.3.1 Environmental aspects 3.3 Environmental review - identify environmental aspects of its activities, products and services - environmental aspects should be identified - determine which ones have a significant effect on the environment - determine the significant environmental aspects - document and keep up to date - the business should continually identify which

environmental aspects are significant 4.3.2 Legal and other requirements 3.6 Legal requirements - identify legal requirements - comply with applicable legal requirements - identify other requirements that are applicable - comply with other requirements from other agencies

4.3.3 Objectives, targets and programmes 3.4 Environmental policy, environmental targets and action plan

- establish, implement and maintain documented environmental objectives and targets

- the environmental targets and action plan should be documented - the environmental targets and action plan should be

possible to follow up and verify 4.4 Implementation and operation 4.4.1 Resources, roles, responsibility and authority - managements should ensure availability of resources - roles, responsibilities and authorities shall be defined and documented 4.4.2 Competence, training and awareness 3.8 Training needs and competence requirements - persons performing tasks which have the potential to cause significant environmental impact have the appropriate education, training and experience

- employees have the suitable competence

- training needs should be identified

- all employees should receive education in basic

environmental knowledge

38

4.4.3 Communication 3.9 Internal and external communication - establish internal communication among various level of organisation

- employees and others that are interested should be informed about the organisations environmental work

- organisation decides whether to communicate the information about their significant environmental aspects externally 4.4.4 Documentation 3.4 Environmental policy, environmental targets and

action plan - environmental policy, objectives and targets - environmental policy, environmental targets and action

plan should be documented - scope of environmental management system - description of the main elements

3.3 Environmental review - environmental review should be documented 4.4.5 Control of documents - review and update documents - documents remain legible 4.4.6 Operational control - establish, implement and maintain a documented procedure to control situations where their absence could lead to deviation from the environmental policy, objectives and targets 4.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response

3.7 Emergency preparedness

- establish, implement and maintain a procedure to identify potential emergency situations

- organisation should conduct an assessment of environmental risks

- periodically review and revise emergency preparedness

- organisation should plan how they should react if an accident was to occur

4.5 Checking 4.5.1 Monitoring and measurement 3.10 Self-monitoring and continuous improvement - monitor and measure on a regular basis if operations can have a significant environmental impact

- once a year environmental work should be followed up

4.5.2 Evaluation of compliance - procedure to periodically evaluate compliance with applicable legal requirements 4.5.3 Nonconformity, corrective action and preventive action - identify and correct non conformity - record results of corrective or preventive action 4.5.4 Control of records - maintain records to demonstrate conformity - establish an environmental report containing a statement

of the organisations own follow up work 4.5.5 Internal audit 3.12 Audit - internal audits should be conducted at planned intervals

- organisation should undergo an internal audit once a year for the first three years

- organisation should undergo a third party audit at least every three year

4.6 Management review 3.11 Management review - top management should review at planned intervals

- top management should implement a yearly evaluation of the organisations environmental work

39

Appendix 2 – Cover email

Hej, Jag är en student från Göteborgs universitet och läser miljövetenskap på masternivå. Jag gör mitt examensarbete nu och det handlar om fördelar, motiv och hinder som upplevs av företag när dom ska införa ett ISO 14001 miljöledningssystem. I samband med detta, skulle jag vilja be er om hjälp att svara på mitt frågeformulär. Det är ett kort formulär som tar max 10 minuter. Jag är intresserad av era erfarenheter av att ha ett miljöledningssystem och er hjälp är väldigt uppskattad. Om du klickar på länken nedan, kommer du bli omdirigerad till mitt frågeformulär. https://www.esurveycreator.com/s/7e67dbd&id=f403344 Jag ser fram emot ert svar och tack för hjälpen. Med vänlig hälsning, Amber Cottis

FIGURE 4. EXAMPLE OF THE COVER EMAIL

40

Appendix 3 – First questionnaire to SMEs

41

42

43

44

45

Appendix 4 – First questionnaire to ‘large’ companies with an ISO 14001

46

47

48

49

50

Appendix 5 – Follow up questionnaire for SMEs

51

52

53

Appendix 6 – Respondents industry sector

FIGURE 5. THE INDUSTRY SECTOR OF RESPONDENTS OF THE ISO 14001 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SMES

FIGURE 6. THE INDUSTRY SECTOR OF RESPONDENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMA QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SMES

FIGURE 7. THE INDUSTRY SECTOR OF RESPONDENTS OF THE ISO 14001 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR 'LARGE' COMPANIES

Energy5%

Trade2% Waste and

recycling5%Transport

5%Buying and

selling2%

Manufacturing

43%

Real estate5%

Consultancy10%

Other23%

Energy3%

Food industry5%

Trademan5%

Transport19%

Buying and selling

5%Manufacturin

g13%

Real estate16%

Consultancy16%

Other18%

Energy7% Food industry

10% Economy3%

Waste and recycling

3%Transport

6%

Buying and selling

6%Manufacturin

g31%

Real estate3%

Consultancy3%

Other28%

54

Appendix 7 – Motives for implementing an EMS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other

Improve the culture and working environment

Improve marketing and competitiveness

Requirement from the public

Requirment from customers

Requirement from legislations

Improving waste handling

Reduce waste

Reduce the impact on the environment

Percentage (%)

Environmental Diploma

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other

Improve the culture and working environment

Improve marketing and competitiveness

Requirement from the public

Requirment from customers

Requirement from legislations

Improving waste handling

Reduce waste

Reduce the impact on the environment

Percentage (%)

ISO 14001 (SMEs)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other

Improve the culture and working environment

Improve marketing and competitiveness

Requirement from the public

Requirment from customers

Requirement from legislations

Improving waste handling

Reduce waste

Reduce the impact on the environment

Percentage (%)

ISO 14001 (Large)

FIGURE 8. THE MOTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SELECTED BY THE THREE PARTICIPANT GROUPS

55

Appendix 8 – Perceived benefits from the implementation of an EMS

1. Stronger competitiveness and marketing 2. Improved culture among employees

3. Increased number of customers 4. Customer satisfaction

5. Increase profitability 6. Improved structure within company

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

FIGURE 9. GRAPHS REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENT BENEFITS EXPERIENCED

56

Appendix 9 – The barriers experienced when implementing an EMS

1. Lack of knowledge within that area 2. The cost of human resources

3. Cost of maintenance and auditing 4. Cost of environmental equipment

5. Potential benefits are too small 6. Major organisational change

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

FIGURE 10. GRAPHS REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS EXPERIENCED

57

Appendix 10 – Practical measures

FIGURE 1 ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION FIGURE 2 PRACTICAL SUPPORT

FIGURE 3 CONCRETE TOOLS FIGURE 4 EASIER REQUIREMENTS

FIGURE 5 EASIER GUIDELINES FIGURE 6 MORE AVAILABLE ADVICE

FIGURE 7 LESS ADMINISTRATIVE TIME FIGURE 8 EXAMPLES FROM SIMILAR ORGANISATIONS

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

EnvironmentalDiploma

ISO 14001(SMEs)

ISO 14001(Large)

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

FIGURE 11. THE HELPFULNESS OF PROPOSED MEASURES