The Evolution of Environmental Management From Stage Models To Performance Evaluation

Business Strategy and the Environment
Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 1431 (2002)

DOI: 10.1002/bse.316
THE EVOLUTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT: FROM STAGE
MODELS TO PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
Ans Kolk* and Anniek Mauser
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
In the past two decades, academics and
practitioners have attempted to improve
understanding of environmental
management by classifying companies
environmental behaviour, and evaluating
their performance. Driven by both
research and societal interest, this has
resulted in a wave of stage or phase
models, and a range of typologies. This
article gives an overview of the
development of such environmental
management models, analysing their
characteristics, strengths and weaknesses.
An evolution can be noted in the direction
of typologies and non-linear models to
deal with organizational and strategic
complexities. Models are starting to pay
more attention to the management side.
To overcome problems of
operationalization and limited company
and sector specicity, environmental
performance evaluation systems have
emerged more recently. Although
* Correspondence to: Dr. Ans Kolk, University of Amsterdam,
Department of Accountancy and Information Management,
Faculty of Economics, Roeterstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
comprehensive performance assessments
are still unavailable, the tenets of such a
system can already be delineated. The
paper presents these components, and
draws conclusions on the contribution of
environmental management models and
performance evaluation systems.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
and ERP Environment.
Received 10 April 2001
Revised 20 September 2001
Accepted 10 October 2001
INTRODUCTION
W
ith increasing complexity and diver-
sity in the practice of environmen-
tal management, both academics and
practitioners started to characterize companies
environmental actions. Since the late 1980s,
they have developed classications to describe
trends in environmental management, using
a diversity of labels to designate process and
outcomes, such as strategies, responses or per-
formance. This has attracted scientic and soci-
etal interest, and resulted in a large number of
normative models that outlined future direc-
tions to be taken by companies in order arrive
THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
at a more sustainable future (cf. Dobers et al.,
2000; Kolk, 2000), but merely in the context
of the managerial, reform-oriented paradigm
(Egri and Pineld, 1996; Levy, 1997).
Although environmental management mod-
els showa wide variety of characteristics, many
are stage or phase models that describe a
development in time consisting of an increas-
ing integration of environmental concerns into
business policy and strategy. In the course
of time, typologies that merely characterize
companies position, without assuming such
a growing responsiveness, have also emerged.
Regardless of the type of model, however,
a wide diversity prevails. This applies to the
kinds of business reaction that are described,
the terminology used to characterize the differ-
ent phases and positions, the number of stages
that are distinguished and the empirical evi-
dence on which models are based. Considering
this variety, what can be learned from these
environmental management models? What are
their strengths and limitations? This paper
addresses these questions, starting with an
overview of existing models, their peculiarities
and their contribution to a better understand-
ing of the dynamics of environmental manage-
ment. Subsequently, it analyses how, related
to some limitations and an ongoing quest for
assessing business behaviour, environmental
performance evaluation systems emerged. The
nal section draws conclusions as to where
the efforts have brought us, and what environ-
mental management models and performance
instruments can contribute.
AN OVERVIEWOF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT MODELS
The rst author who, to our knowledge, came
up with a classication model to describe the
increasing importance of environmental con-
cerns for business policy and strategy, was
Petulla (1987). This model built on a long
tradition of classicatory efforts to categorize
social and organizational phenomena in gen-
eral. Although such attempts were criticized
for a number of reasons, it has also been
argued that typologies and taxonomies are
useful to understand organizational structures
and strategies, provided that they meet certain
requirements (Doty and Glick, 1994; Sanchez,
1993; Schwenk, 1985).
Since Petullas rst categorization, many
others have tried to characterize corporate
responses to environmental management. An
inventory of existing studies resulted in 50
models (see Table 1). The overview presents
all articles, books and reports that have been
most often quoted in the literature. Although
it might not be exhaustive, covering probably
only some of the environmental management
typologies that have been developed, we
believe that all the key studies have been
included.
Slightly more than half of the studies (56%)
involved articles, and 30% were included in
books. Ten out of the 28 articles were published
in business and environment journals, with
Business Strategy and the Environment account-
ing for six of them. The fact that so many of
the models appeared in general management
outlets (65% of all articles), and in books from
non-environmental publishers (73%), under-
lines the existence of a broad interest in the
topic outside the environmental eld. More-
over, while around 60% of the models have
a purely academic background, the remain-
der originates from consultancy, from authors
who combine the two activities or from the
(inter-)governmental side. These two charac-
teristics broad interest from general man-
agement, and involvement from academics
and a diversity of practitioners also came to
the fore in a study on the research agenda as
reected in the rst seven volumes of Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment (Dobers et al.,
2000).
Table 1 gives a chronological overview of
the environmental management models that
we have found (within the years, ranked in
chronological order). It includes their main
peculiarities titles, number of and dening
criteria for stages, types of model, degree of
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 1431 (2002)
15
A
.
K
O
L
K
A
N
D
A
.
M
A
U
S
E
R
Table 1. An overview of environmental management models
General characteristics
Nature
Criteria
Empirical basis
Title of the model Designation of No. Type Flex. Dev. No. Nature
Country, sector, No.,
stages/positions
method
Petulla (1987) approaches of
EM
crisis-oriented;
cost-oriented;
enlightened EM
3 continuum no abs/rel 2 int/ext US, industry-wide,
132 rms, survey
env. managers
Steger (1988) env. strategies indifferent; defensive; 4 typology yes rel 2 int/ext Germany,
offensive; innovative 2 2 industry-wide, 592
rms, interviews
board members
Hofstra et al. stages of inspection; total 3 continuum no rel 7 (17) int US & NL,
(1990) completion of
EM
compliance; total
integration
ideal types yes industry-wide, 28
(US), 13 NL rms,
interviews
Hunt & Auster
(1990)
stages of EM beginner; re ghter;
concerned citizen;
pragmatist; proactivist
5 continuum no rel 3 (12) int US, industry-wide,
No. unclear,
general
observations
Greeno (1991) posture towards
env. issues
problem solving;
managing for
compliance; managing
for assurance
3 continuum no rel 3 int NA; conceptual
Simpson (1991) response to env.
pressures
why mess; smart movers;
enthusiasts
3 continuum no rel ext NA; conceptual
UNEP (1991) (see
1995a)
quality, maturity
of EM
programmes
innocence; awareness;
understanding;
competence; excellence
5 continuum no rel 8 int/ext NA; conceptual
Wicke (1991) env. concepts reactive; offensive 2 continuum no rel 6 ext NA; conceptual
GEMI (1992) performance
level
compliance; systems
development and
implementation;
integration into general
business functions; total
quality approach
4 continuum
ideal types
yes rel 16 int world-wide,
industry-wide, 21
rms, case
studies/own
experience
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
1
6
T
H
E
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
O
F
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
M uller &
Koechlin (1992)
stages of env.
strategy
inactive/ignore/
ostriches; reactive/
respond/chicken
lickens; proactive/
anticipate/green
hornets; hyperac-
tive/provoke/Robin
Hood
4 continuum no rel int NA; conceptual
Roome (1992) strategic options
to react on
env. pressures
non-compliance;
compliance; compliance
plus; commercial and
env. excellence; leading
edge
5 continuum no rel 1 (6) int NA; conceptual
Stikker (1992) env. learning
curve
end-of-pipe;
environmental care
systems; environmental
auditing;
cradle-to-grave
approach; sustainable
business
Fischer & Schot
(1993)
env. strategies resistant adaptation;
embracing
environmental issues
without innovating
2 (6) continuum no abs int/ext NA; conceptual
Meffert & env. basis opposition; passivity; 5 continuum no rel 5 int/ext NA; conceptual
Kirchgeorg
(1993)
strategies retreat; adaptation;
innovation
ideal types yes
Newman &
Breeden (1993)
env. strategies reactive; proactive;
innovative
UNCTAD (1993) management
approaches
compliance oriented
(reactive); preventive
(lean and
precautionary); strategic
(opportunity seeking);
sustainable
development
(responsive)
4 continuum no rel 7 int/ext worldwide,
industrywide, 210
multinationals,
survey
(continued overleaf )
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
1
7
A
.
K
O
L
K
A
N
D
A
.
M
A
U
S
E
R
Table 1. (Continued)
Nature
Criteria
Empirical basis
stages/positions
method
Azzone & Bert` ele
(1994)
env. contexts stable; reactive;
anticipatory; proactive;
creative
5 continuum no rel 5 (14) int/ext EU, automotive, No.
and method
unclear
Elkington (1994) stages of
response to
env. problems
ignorance; awakening;
denial; guilt
reduction/displacement
behaviour/tokenism;
conversion; integration
6 continuum no rel/abs worldwide,
industrywide, No.
unclear, case
studies/own
experience
Lee & Green strategic options do nothing or phase 9 typology yes rel 6 int worldwide,
(1994) for green
product
development
out; generic strategies;
diversication; remedy;
tonic; bread-and-butter;
nimble; leadership;
pioneer
3 3 industrywide, 12
rms, case studies
Post & Altman
(1994)
stages of
organizational
change/
learning
adjustment; adaptation
and anticipation;
innovation
3 continuum no rel 4 int worldwide,
industrywide, No.
unclear, existing
case studies
Winsemius &
Mak (1994)
responses to env.
challenges
reactive; receptive;
constructive; proactive
4 continuum no abs 4 int NA; conceptual
Buitelaar (1995) stages of env.
strategies
passive/defensive;
offensive; innovative;
critical sustainable
4 continuum no abs ext EU, industrywide,
No. unclear, case
studies
Cramer & Jansen
(1995)
stages of
technological
innovation
optimization production
and products; further
renewal production
technology;
function-oriented
innovations
Crosbie & Knight
(1995)
strategic options
for
management
do nothing; defensive
posture; social
responsibility; strategic
opportunity; sustainable
business
5 continuum no rel int/ext NA; conceptual
De Vries &
Altenburg
(1995)
env. strategies green jacket; offensive;
innovative; green
mission
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
1
8
T
H
E
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
O
F
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
Molenkamp
(1995)
env. strategies defensive; preventive;
offensive
3 continuum no abs int/ext NA; conceptual
M uller (1995) env. strategies environmentally 33 typology yes rel 14 int NA; conceptual
ignorance; additional
env. protection;
integrated env.
protection; X active (4);
reactive (7)
11 3
Schot (1995) response to env.
problems
problem solving;
defensive; offensive
3 continuum no abs int/ext NA; conceptual
Shrivastava
(1995)
sustainable
competitive
strategies
least cost; differentiation;
niche
3 continuum
ideal types
yes rel 6 int/ext NA; conceptual
Shrivastava &
Hart (1995)
responses to env.
challenge
band-aid; more serious;
deep change
UNEP (1995b) env. strategy complacent 4 typology yes rel 2 ext worldwide,
transitions non-innovator;
complacent innovator,
responsible
non-innovator,
responsible innovator
2 2 industrywide, six
countries, general
experience
Veering (1995) business
categories
defensive; following;
active; proactive
Vermaak (1995) env. strategy
stereotypes
public opinion;
government pressure;
quality management;
liability reduction; cost
efciency; pollution
prevention pays; green
marketing and PR;
chain management; new
business development;
sustainable positioning
Arthur D. Little
(1996a)
stages of env.
performance
minimalists; compliers;
proactors; enhancers
4 continuum no abs/rel 5 int NA; conceptual
Arthur D. Little
(1996b)
stages of EM
evolution
reactive; responsive;
proactive; competitive
4 continuum no abs ext NA; conceptual
(continued overleaf )
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
1
9
A
.
K
O
L
K
A
N
D
A
.
M
A
U
S
E
R
Table 1. (Continued)
Nature
Criteria
Empirical basis
stages/positions
method
Bhargava &
Welford (1996)
env. strategies
for competitive
advantage
excellence and leading
edge; incorporation of
EM strategy into overall
strategy; line driven,
short- versus long-term
strategy, effective
communication
5 non-linear no no int/ext NA; conceptual
Burschel (1996) actor types conservative reactive;
externally imposed
apologetic; strategic
socialtechnological;
environmental
pragmatist
4 continuum no rel 3 int/ext Germany,
industrywide, 208
rms, interviews
Florida (1996) mean score on
key factors
no no 8 int/ext US, industrywide,
217 rms, survey
Hutchinson
(1996)
levels of EM damaging dirty and
dangerous; wasteful
and polluting; silent
destroyers
3 continuum no rel ext NA; conceptual
KPMG/IVA
(1996)
EMS introduction
stages
inactive; beginner;
candidate; advanced
4 continuum yes rel 10 int NL, industrywide,
1000 rms,
interviews
Rondinelli &
Vastag (1996)
classication of
env. policies
reactive; proactive; crisis
preventive; strategic
4 typology yes no 2 (7) int/ext NA; conceptual
Scallon & Sten
(1996)
stages of env.
performance
compliance; alignment;
expansion; integration
4 continuum no rel 46 int US, industrywide,
26 rms,
interviews
Dodge (1997) stages of env.
performance
resistance; observe and
comply; accommodate;
seize and pre-empt;
transcend
Hart (1997) env. strategy pollution prevention;
product stewardship,
clean technology
3 continuum no abs/rel int/ext NA; conceptual
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
2
0
T
H
E
E
V
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
O
F
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
Berry &
Rondinelli
(1998)
stages of
corporate EM
non-compliance;
compliance; beyond
compliance
3 continuum no abs int/ext worldwide,
industrywide, 400
rms, survey
senior executives
Callens &
Wolters (1998)
stages of
sustainable
development
unsustainability; not
taking sustainable
development into
account;
active/proactive;
sustainable
Ehrenfeld (1998) env. strategy
matrix
business as usual;
compliance; prevention;
sustainability
4 cont/typ. yes rel 3 int/ext NA; conceptual
Ghobadian et al.
(1998)
position in
relation to env.
strategy
non-compliance;
compliance; restrained;
compliance plus;
conditional; speculative;
conditional/leading
edge
7 continuum
non-linear
yes rel int/ext UK, industrywide,
78 rms, survey
Brockhoff et al.
(1999)
env. business
strategy
defender; escapist;
dormant; activist
4 typology yes no 6(13) int/ext US & Germany,
chemical industry,
106 rms, survey
Winn & Angell
(2000)
corporate
greening
deliberate reactive
greening; unrealized
greening; emergent
active greening;
deliberate proactive
greening
4 typology yes rel 2 int Germany,
manufacturing &
industry-wide,
combination of
mail survey
(among 135
managing
directors) and
interviews, 12
pilots, and four
cases
EM= environmental management; EMS = environmental management system.
Flex. = exibility; dev. = development; abs = absolute; rel = relative.
int = internal; ext = external.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
2
J
o
h
n
W
i
l
e
y
&
S
o
n
s
,
L
t
d
a
n
d
E
R
P
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
B
u
s
.
S
t
r
a
t
.
E
n
v
.
1
1
,
1
4
3
1
(
2
0
0
2
)
2
1
A. KOLK AND A. MAUSER
dynamism and empirical background. These
different aspects will be examined below. Par-
ticular attention will be paid to the nature of the
models (continuum, typology or a combina-
tion), because this highly inuences their appli-
cability and possibilities for operationalization.
The second column of Table 1 contains the
titles of the models, which reveal the aim of
the authors. These range from an identica-
tion of responses to environmental challenges,
environmental strategy, stages of environmen-
tal management or of environmental perfor-
mance, levels of environmental management
and classication of policies. Titles are impor-
tant to consider because they usually indicate
the underlying paradigm and authors percep-
tion of environmental issues. A wide diversity
of titles can be noted, reecting the confusion
surrounding denitions, concepts and the con-
struct of sustainable development, and lack
of clarity about how to arrive at more sus-
tainable business practices (cf. Harrison, 2000).
Models generally refer to Brundtlands def-
inition of sustainable development, without
paying much attention to its limitations and
contradictions. By their very nature, the mod-
els generally remain within the environmental
management paradigm, which implies that the
environment can indeed be managed, using
(variants of) traditional management tools, and
with corporate managers as important, if not
the main, agents in this process (Egri and Pin-
eld, 1996; Levy, 1997).
The third and fourth columns of Table 1
show respectively how authors designate their
models stages/positions and the number of
categories. A large variety can be observed
in both columns. Most models vary between
three and ve stages, but one model identi-
ed even 33 stages in a matrix of three by
11 (M uller, 1995). The brackets in the num-
ber column indicate the number of dimen-
sions of the matrix in case of typology mod-
els, or the number of sub-phases in a stage
model (see the next section for more details).
The names of the different stages/positions
of the models vary from generic terms such
as defensive, reactive and pro-active to
creative metaphors such as why mess, smart
movers and enthusiasts. Many of the general
designations do, however, recur in different
models, although not necessarily with exactly
the same meaning.
Nature of the models
The fth column shows the type of model: is
it a continuum or a typology? A continuum
is a linear classication scheme that identies
a development in time, whereas a typology
consists of conceptually derived interrelated
sets of ideal types.
This distinction is based on the work of Doty
and Glick (1994), who state that much of the
relevant literature has used terms such as clas-
sication scheme, taxonomy and typology
interchangeably, although the actual meaning
of the concepts differs. In their denition, clas-
sication schemes (continuum models) refer to
systems that categorize phenomena into mutu-
ally exclusive and exhaustive sets with a series
of discrete decision rules. This means that
there must be one appropriate class (stage) into
which each item (company) can be classied,
but there may also be only one correct class for
each item. An entity thus cannot be placed in
two classes simultaneously (mutual exclusiv-
ity). The applicability of environmental man-
agement classication schemes is consequently
questionable, as most companies cannot be
unambiguously placed in one stage. To cite
an example, a design department can inte-
grate the concept of design for environment,
whereas the marketing department simultane-
ously focuses on its core business only.
Unlike classication systems, typologies do
not provide decision rules for categorizing
organizations. Instead, they identify multiple
ideal types, each of which represents a unique
combination of the organizational attributes
that are believed to determine the relevant
outcome (Doty and Glick, 1994). The more
closely an organization resembles an ideal
type, the more effectively will it be described
22
by the typology. Concerning environmental
management, the applicability of a typology
model is therefore in principle higher than
that of a classication scheme. The generally
accepted idea of a growing (environmental)
effectiveness (performance), on which environ-
mental classication schemes are based, does
not hold for typologies. The perspective that
more than one ideal strategy can lead to an
optimal environmental performance may be
much closer to reality. This idea is for example
prevalent in the typology models in business
strategy, such as Porters (1980) generic strate-
gies (focus, overall cost leader and differenti-
ation) and the strategic typology of Miles and
Snow (1978) (prospectors, defenders, analysers
and reactors).
Most of the environmental management
models in Table 1 are linear classication
schemes, often partly based on intuition or a
limited number of case studies (see the next
section on empirical evidence). As indicated
above, the accuracy of these continuum mod-
els is questionable. It must be noted, however,
that several scholars who developed such con-
tinuum models (e.g. Hofstra et al., 1990; Shri-
vastava, 1995) also label their stages as ideal
types, thus trying to address the models main
drawback of rigidity. In this way, companies
do not need to be situated in one stage over-
all. These models then become an interme-
diate form between continuum and typology
models. The problem with this construction,
however, is the absence of an increasing envi-
ronmental performance through the various
stages of such models (as ideal types can
stand for more than one possible strategy),
whereas the authors still assume such a grad-
ual improvement. This is thus contradictory.
A few models are pure typology models
(see e.g. Steger, 1988; Lee and Green, 1994).
They are often based on a matrix structure in
which each combination of dening criteria is
possible. Finally, two of the models (Bhargava
and Welford, 1996; Ghobadian et al., 1998) are
neither continuum nor typology models. They
can be considered as a reaction to the rigidity
of continuum models in which the (rigid) lin-
earity is replaced by a non-linear point of view.
Related to the nature of a model is its ex-
ibility the extent to which an organization
is supposed to t exclusively in one stage
(Table 1, sixth column). Typologies are gen-
erally much more exible than continuum
models. Remarkable, however, are the contin-
uum models with a certain degree of exibility
(Ehrenfeld, 1998; GEMI, 1992; Hofstra et al.,
1990; KPMG/IVA, 1996; Meffert and Kirchge-
org, 1993; Shrivastava, 1995), which is theoret-
ically contradictory.
The seventh column shows how the mod-
els deal with the development over time. Most
models directly or indirectly suggest a devel-
opment in time that is unique for each indi-
vidual company, which is here designated as
relative. Some models hint at an absolute
development in time, by which they look much
more at the overall, general greening process
than at individual companies. A few models
indirectly suggest a combination of a relative
and absolute development in time. Only a
small minority of the models does not at all
refer to a development in time, which would
ideally correspond to typologies. However, a
closer look at the table shows that most of
the typology models do suggest such a trend.
This observation exemplies the discrepancy
between a theory and its practical application.
Dening criteria and empirical basis
The rigour of a model can also be assessed
by considering the criteria that were used to
delineate the stages. The eighth and ninth
columns in Table 1 list the number and nature
of models dening criteria. It must be noted
that almost half of the models have no
dening criteria at all; in the remainder, the
number varies between two and 16. Most
models without dening criteria have another
aim than the more detailed ones, that is a
broad identication of general trends versus
a detailed description of reality. The numbers
in brackets show the number of sub-criteria, as
23
the authors of some models further divide their
dening criteria. The nature of the dening
criteria indicates whether they are based on
internal processes, the business environment
(in the table called external for short) or a
combination of these two. Most models focus
on a combination or on the internal processes.
Related to the models objectives and the
degree of sophistication is the empirical evi-
dence on which they are based. The last col-
umn in Table 1 reveals that the majority of
the models are conceptual, based on practi-
cal experience or intuition. Slightly more than
40% follow from empirical research. In half of
them, the underlying data was obtained from
international research in a larger number of
countries, either worldwide or within the Euro-
pean Union. The remainder of the empirical
models are based on more limited comparative
or one-country studies.
With only one exception, the data originate
frommore than ve sectors of industry. Almost
half of the 21 empirical models were based on
research into more than 50 companies, while
the other half either included fewer than 50
companies or did not disclose the sample size
(three models). The methods used to collect
the data were equally divided over surveys,
interviews and case studies. All studies that
relied on surveys had a sample size of over
75 companies. There are, however, also models
with a large sample that collected data through
interviews, a prevalent method for smaller
samples. Case studies were usually used when
the research involved more limited numbers
of companies or when the sample size was
unclear. Reecting earlier observations about
the rigour and the nature of the models, most
case studies were based on own experience
or on existing literature.
CONCLUSIONS ON MODELS
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
On the basis of the inventory and anal-
ysis of environmental management models,
the following conclusions can be drawn. The
general need to enlarge insights into the green-
ing of business, and the complex web of factors
involved, has resulted in many models. Partic-
ularly the mid-1990s witnessed the publication
of a large number of typologies and stage
models, many of which were prescriptive and
intended to serve as tools for managers, poli-
cymakers and consultants. Phase-wise descrip-
tions of the process have become a generally
accepted, or at least convenient, method to
improve understanding and further the prac-
tice of environmental management. Typologies
help to identify the different reactions to envi-
ronmental challenges in a more general way,
usually without assuming an automatically
growing responsiveness over time.
In spite of their value for practical and
educational purposes, however, existing mod-
els cannot easily be applied to organizations
actual behaviour. This problem can be partly
addressed by further specifying, where neces-
sary, the criteria to suit particular purposes.
Such adaptations turn out to be easier for
typologies than for linear continuum models.
The actual application of existing continuum
models, particularly attractive when trying to
come to grips with the greening process, has
proved practically impossible. An attempt to
operationalize the model of Hunt and Auster
(1990) to eight Norwegian companies in the
food processing and printing industry led Hass
(1996, p. 66) to conclude that although the con-
ceptually based environmental management
typologies do seem to provide a rough under-
standing of the responses that rms are mak-
ing with respect to the natural environment,
the weaknesses in the models become evident
when operationalization is attempted. Schae-
fer and Harvey (1998), who empirically tested
two popular stage models (Hunt and Auster,
1990; Roome, 1992) in the UK water and elec-
tricity industries, conrmed the poor t with
business reality.
To address the aws of linear continuum
models, a few second-generation environ-
mental management models emerged in the
late 1990s. Examples include the typology
24
of Winn and Angell (2000), which focuses
on policy commitment and approach to
implementation, and that of Ghobadian et al.
(1998), who developed a spatial non-linear
model that includes both internal and external
aspects. However, this latter, comprehensive
model is still based on the idea of consecu-
tive stages, and seems again difcult to apply
because of its complexity. This illustrates the
general tension between a model that aims to
simplify complex reality, and the complex real-
ity itself. It reveals the dilemma of making a
model more complicated to be more adequate
on the one hand, and violating the idea of a
model by reducing its intelligibility and prac-
ticality, on the other.
The goal of environmental management
models is generally broad and conceptual,
which is also their main contribution. As a
result, however, they have a limited suitability
for specic situations, and insufciently reckon
with organizational and strategic complexities.
Moreover, what seems to be the models main
underlying deciency is that operationaliza-
tion is difcult because of their focus on envi-
ronmental management rather than environ-
mental performance. Management aspects, such
as environmental strategies, policies, commu-
nication and commitment, are frequently con-
sidered to be part of environmental perfor-
mance, and therefore incorporated as dening
criteria in environmental management models.
These environmental management aspects are
indeed very closely related to environmental
performance; it can even be argued that they
are included in an organizations environmen-
tal performance in the sense that management
ideally leads to the desired performance. In
practice, however, there is often a substantial
discrepancy. In addition, there is a theoretical
justication for separating outcomes from poli-
cies and measures, while recognizing the close
link between the two types of indicator.
Performance evaluation systems have also
evolved over the years, but rather separate
from environmental management modelling.
The next section will pay some attention to this
eld in order to analyse their potential value
for improving the insights into the greening of
business.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
Almost parallel to the development of envi-
ronmental management models, environmen-
tal performance evaluation systems started to
be developed in the late 1980s. One of the
rst systematic attempts to describe good envi-
ronmental performance was made in 1989 by
the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economics (CERES) in response to the Exxon
Valdez oil spill (Ilinitch et al., 1998). Existing
environmental management models could not
full the growing business need to obtain more
detailed insight into their environmental per-
formance and to benchmark against competi-
tors. This led to a request for environmental
performance evaluation systems.
Compared with environmental management
models, however, general performance evalu-
ation systems have been developed by practi-
tioners rather than academics. For consultants,
banks, business associations and environmen-
tal governmental and non-governmental orga-
nizations, systems primarily serve these stake-
holders own rating and benchmarking pur-
poses. As a result of this specic interest, there
is an inherent risk of a vicious circle: the sub-
jectivity in formulating the rankings can give
rise to a dangerous circularity, whereby rank-
ings are based partly upon reputation and
reputation is partly based on rankings (Ilin-
itch et al., 1998, p. 404). Moreover, performance
evaluation systems show a large diversity with
regard to the specic indicator(s) used to mea-
sure performance, the method of data collec-
tion and the sources and origin of the informa-
tion (Epstein, 1996; Bennett and James, 1999).
Academics have used specic environmen-
tal performance measures for research pur-
poses, particularly to investigate the relation-
ship with nancial performance, and usually
in the US, but this falls outside the scope
25
of this paper. Only a very limited number
has focused on environmental performance
measurement in a broad sense, usually to cat-
egorize existing rating systems and identify
the main components necessary to increase
comprehensiveness (Lober, 1996; Ilinitch et al.,
1998). These studies conrm a lack of clarity on
the concept and eld of environmental perfor-
mance. There is a lack of agreement on what,
how and where to measure. Ilinitch et al. (1998)
also noted that no single approach addresses
common dimensions of environmental perfor-
mance in a formal theoretical or a systematic
empirical way.
In recent years, however, converging ten-
dencies can be observed in both the theoretical
and the practical approaches to environmen-
tal performance evaluation. The developments
in both streams, which still remain largely
separate, will be briey indicated in the next
section.
The analysis of environmental performance
To help the clarication of the environmental
performance concept, Ilinitch et al. (1998) have
developed a framework to categorize the
large variety of possible indicators. They
identied four aspects in a two by two
corporate environmental performance matrix
(see Table 2). It distinguishes between internal
and external components on the one hand, and
process and outcome variables on the other.
The process dimensions refer to aspects such as
Table 2. A corporate environmental performance matrix.
Reproduced with permission from Elsevier Science
Internal External
Process Organizational
systems
Stakeholder
relations
Outcome Regulatory
compliance
Environmental
impacts
Reprinted from Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
volume 17, Ilinitich AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE,
Measuring corporate environmental performance, p 388.
Copyright 1998, with permission from Elsevier Science.
audits, number of environmental staff, mission
statements and communications. Outcomes
usually include more quantitative data on
toxic releases, spills, violations of regulatory
standards and penalties.
For some stakeholders, such as consumers
and employees, process measures seem easier
to understand than the outcome indicators
that rating agencies and regulators prefer.
Interpretation of outcome measures is, how-
ever, more difcult as they require back-
ground/contextual information, are usually
provided by the company itself and may thus
be subject to window-dressing. Moreover,
particularly outside the US, the collection of
outcome data frequently proves impossible in
the absence of legal requirements for toxic
emission registration and the provision of such
information to the public. The regulatory com-
pliance label that Ilinitch et al. give to the
internal outcome indicators partly reveals the
authors reliance on the US situation, indicating
a compliance-oriented focus of environmental
management.
The nature of environmental performance
variables becomes clearer in the distinction
between leading and lagging indicators, which
largely resembles respectively process and out-
come measures (cf. Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
Lagging indicators are measures of the results
or outcomes (e.g., reduction in material inten-
sity) that are attributable to improvements in
a companys business process, whereas lead-
ing indicators give information about inter-
nal practices or efforts that are expected to
improve future performance (e.g. use of lifecy-
cle design tools which help improve material
efciency) (Fiksel et al., 1999, p. 4). Compa-
nies usually report lagging indicators, which
are better available and understandable, but
present results from the past without predict-
ing or giving insight into future performance.
What leading indicators are, and to what
extent they improve environmental perfor-
mance is, however, difcult to assess because
this requires a longitudinal analysis.
26
Converging practices of performance evaluation
The practice of environmental performance
evaluation, traditionally consisting of rather
isolated efforts, has only recently started
to show more interrelationships (cf. Bennett
and James, 1999), in which they build on,
or partly use, existing knowledge. Recent
initiatives include the International Standard-
isation Organisations (ISO) 14031 standard,
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guide-
lines and the eco-efciency guide of the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD).
1
Their main characteristics will be
indicated below, linking them to the frame-
work in Table 2.
ISO14031, the 1999 standard on environmen-
tal performance evaluation, developed out of
the European Green Table (1997) that tried
to establish generic categories of environmen-
tal performance indicators. It distinguishes
between environmental performance indica-
tors and environmental condition indicators:
the context that is relevant for understand-
ing environmental performance. Environmen-
tal performance indicators are subdivided
into management performance indicators, and
operational performance indicators (inputs
and outputs). In view of its focus on the pro-
vision of internal information, ISO14031 does
not cover communication to stakeholders (see
Table 2), although the data can be used for
external disclosure.
This reporting component is addressed by
the GRI, a joint effort of a large number of
governmental and non-governmental organi-
zations, and business (associations), launched
in 1997 by CERES. The 2000 guidelines focus
on the collection and categorization of data
that is necessary for adequate stakeholder
1
Another interesting initiative is the Dow Jones Sustainability
Group Index (DJSGI), particularly noteworthy as it aims to com-
plement traditional US socially responsible investment ratings
with a focus on the broader concept of sustainability and on
the European situation (http://www.sustainability-index.com).
Because of its screening for investment purposes, the DJSGI
is different from ISO14031, GRI and WBCSD. For informa-
tion on the latter three, see respectively http://www.iso.ch,
http://www.globalreporting.org and http://www.wbcsd.ch.
communication on companies environmen-
tal, social and economic performance, and
thus covers Table 2 as a whole. For report-
ing purposes, a division is made between
vision, governance structure and management
systems, and performance indicators. With
regard to environmental performance indi-
cators, the most elaborate part, the guide-
lines distinguish between generally applica-
ble and organization-specic measures, which
consider sector and country characteristics.
The WBCSDhas built on this division, apply-
ing it to eco-efciency, which is the relation-
ship between product/service value (numer-
ator) and environmental inuence (denomi-
nator). It separates general indicators from
business/product-specic measures, offering
suggestions for the assessment of value and
the calculation of ratios (Verfaillie and Bid-
well, 2000). Although eco-efciency is a rather
specic concept, different from organiza-
tional environmental performance, the WBCSD
guide contributes to the standardization and
measurement of outcomes.
Using the insights from these three initia-
tives, Figure 1 identies the main components
of environmental performance evaluation.
Three elements are distinguished: environmen-
tal management indicators (EMIs), environ-
mental condition indicators (ECIs) and envi-
ronmental performance indicators (EPIs). The
performance indicators are subdivided into
operational indicators (specic actions related to
areas such as procurement, the production pro-
cess, and the use and disposal of products) and
impact indicators (outputs such as emissions,
water and energy consumption, and waste).
It should be noted that for the environmental
condition indicators, Figure 1 only gives some
examples, derived from ISO14031. This is due
to the fact that ECIs are particularly difcult to
standardize or operationalize. With this caveat,
the evaluation of environmental management
and performance is feasible, but the indicators
should be specied to suit the particular situa-
tion (cf. Mauser, 2001, for an application to the
Dutch dairy industry). Adaptations thus need
27
Environmental Management Indicators
(EMIs):
Includes management efforts to influence
an organisations environmental
performance, such as those with regard to:
Vision, strategy, policy

Organisational structure related to
environmental management
Management systems and related
documentation
Management commitment to
environmental issues
Communication to internal and external

stakeholders
Environmental Performance Indicators
(EPIs):
Environmental Operational Indicators;
involves specific actions, such as:
- Procurement measures
- Technical product/process measures
- Product/service use measures
Environmental Impact Indicators;
involves outputs, for example:
- Energy consumption
-
-
Water consumption
-
Greenhouse gas emissions
- Total waste
Materials consumption
Environmental Condition Indicators (ECIs)
Examples include:
At the local, national or international levels: thickness of ozone layer, average global
temperature, size of fish populations in oceans
At the local or regional levels: concentration of a specific contaminant in air, soil, groundwater
or surface water; population density or noise levels in a plants surroundings
Figure 1. Components for environmental performance evaluation
to be made that consider country, sector and
organizational peculiarities, and reckon with
the particular objectives for the performance
evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the preceding analysis, it can
be concluded that the eld of environmental
management has evolved from a mere reliance
on linear stage models to more elaborate con-
siderations on the determinants and compo-
nents of management and performance. This
reects a continued large interest from both
academics and practitioners in the greening of
business, and in the possibilities to stimulate
this process.
In the large variety of environmental man-
agement models presented in Table 1, linear
stage models and typologies can be useful
depending on the particular purpose and audi-
ence. To serve practical and educational inter-
ests, phase-wise descriptions sketch general
developments in business approaches to the
environment. Typologies offer opportunities
for identifying these different reactions with-
out necessarily assuming a growing respon-
siveness over time.
To apply environmental management mod-
els to organizations actual behaviour, how-
ever, more specic criteria will be needed. Such
adaptations turn out to be easier for typolo-
gies than for stage models, for which oper-
ationalization has proved practically impos-
sible. Although this does not undermine the
models general value, it points to their limita-
tions, particularly the lack of suitability for spe-
cic situations, and the attention for environ-
mental management rather than environmen-
tal performance. While environmental man-
agement and performance are closely linked,
there is both a practical and theoretical justi-
cation for considering them as different sets
of (related) indicators. Environmental perfor-
mance evaluation systems have also developed
over the years, parallel to, but rather separate
from, environmental management models.
Until recently, most performance systems
have served highly specic purposes, to
benchmark and rate companies for invest-
ment selection, or investigate the relation-
ship between environmental and nancial
28
performance, usually based on US data in view
of their better availability. This did not result
in much clarity on the concept and measure-
ment of environmental performance. Recent
developments have, however, led to the identi-
cation of different dimensions, especially the
division between process and outcome mea-
sures, or leading and lagging indicators, and
the internal and external components of envi-
ronmental performance (see Table 2). More-
over, international initiatives to standardize
measurement and reporting have shed light
on the practical application. This includes the
threefold distinction between environmental
management, environmental performance and
environmental condition indicators, the need
to split generally applicable and organization-
specic indicators and methods for calculating
appropriate ratios. Figure 1 identied the main
components related to such an evaluation.
For those who are interested in more spe-
cic assessments, the insights from the eld
of environmental performance supplement the
more general identication of trends in envi-
ronmental management. Whether for academic
or practitioner purposes, data collection con-
tinues to be a challenge, especially in the large
number of countries where companies are not
legally required to submit environmental data.
There are potentially promising steps result-
ing from recent initiatives to improve company
reporting on environmental practices, and the
continued worldwide interest in environmen-
tal management and performance evaluation.
Even if some information is available, however,
the reliability and the limited availability of
perhaps more useful data continues to require
careful consideration.
REFERENCES
Arthur D, Little. 1996a. Sustainable Industrial Develop-
ment: Sharing Responsibilities in a Competitive World.
VROM/EZ: The Hague.
Arthur D, Little. 1996b. Workshop Environmental Strategy.
Creating Business Advantage. Rotterdam.
Azzone G, Bertel` e U. 1994. Exploiting green strategies
for competitive advantage. Long Range Planning 27(6):
6981.
Bennett M, James P (eds). 1999. Sustainable Measures.
Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social
Performance. Greenleaf: Shefeld.
Berry MA, Rondinelli DA. 1998. Proactive corporate
environmental management: a new industrial revo-
lution. Academy of Management Executive 12(2): 3850.
Bhargava S, Welford R. 1996. Corporate strategy and the
environment: the theory. In Corporate Environmental
Management. Systems and Strategies, Welford R (ed.).
Earthscan: London; 1332.
Brockhoff K, Chakrabarti AK, Kirchgeorg M. 1999. Cor-
porate strategies in environmental management.
Research Technology Management JulyAugust: 2630.
Buitelaar W. 1995. Environment, sustainability and
industrial relations. P+ European Participation Monitor
2: 1218.
Burschel C. 1996. Umweltschutz als socialer Prozess: die
Organisation des Umweltschutzes und die Implemen-
tierung von Umwelttechnik im Betrieb. Westdeutscher:
Aachen.
Callens I, Wolters L. 1998. Factors of unsustainability:
identication, links and hierarchy. Business Strategy
and the Environment 7: 3242.
Cramer J, Jansen L. 1995. De drie soorten milieu-
innovaties vullen elkaar aan. Milieuforum 2: 1011.
Crosbie L, Knight K. 1995. Strategy for Sustainable
Business. McGraw-Hill: London.
De Vries W, Altenburg U. 1995. Milieumarketing. Stenfert
Kroese: Houten.
Dobers P, Stranneg ard L, Wolff R. 2000. Union-jacking
the research agenda. A study of the frontstage and
backstage of Business Strategy and the Environment
19921998. Business Strategy and the Environment 9:
4961.
Dodge J. 1997. Reassessing culture and strategy: Envi-
ronmental improvement, structure, leadership and
control. In Corporate Environmental Management 2. Cul-
ture and Organizations, Welford R (ed.). Earthscan:
London; 104126.
Doty DH, Glick WH. 1994. Typologies as a unique form
of theory building: toward improved understanding
and modeling. Academy of Management Review 19(2):
230251.
Egri CP, Pineld LT. 1996. Organizations and the
biosphere: ecologies and environments. In Handbook
of Organization Studies, Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR
(eds). Sage: London; 459483.
Ehrenfeld JR. 1998. Cultural structure and the challenge
of sustainability. In Better Environment Decisions, Sex-
ton K (ed.). Island Press: Washington, DC; 223244.
Elkington J. 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation:
winwinwin business strategies for sustainable
29
development. California Management Review 36(2):
90100.
Epstein MJ. 1996. Measuring Corporate Environmental
Performance. Irwin: Chicago, IL.
European Green Table. 1997. Environmental Performance
Indicators in Industry. Report 5: Practical Experiences
with Developing EPIs in 12 Companies. Norwegian
Confederation of Business and Industry: Oslo.
Fiksel J, McDaniel J, Mendenhall C. 1999. Measuring
progress toward sustainability principles, process and
best practices. In 1999 Greening of Industry Network
Conference Best Practice Proceeding. The Greening of
Industry Network: Chapell Hill [CD Rom].
Fischer K, Schot J (eds). 1993. Environmental Strategies for
Industry. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Florida R. 1996. Lean and green: the move to environ-
mentally conscious manufacturing. California Manage-
ment Review 39(1): 80105.
GEMI. 1992. Environmental Self-Assessment Program.
Global Environmental Management Initiative: Wash-
ington, DC.
Ghobadian A, Viney H, Liu J, James P. 1998. Extending
linear approaches to mapping corporate environmen-
tal behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment 7:
1323.
Greeno JL. 1991. Environmental excellence: meeting the
challenge. Arthur D. Little Prism Third Quarter: 1331.
Harrison NE. 2000. Constructing Sustainable Development.
State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Hart SL. 1997. Beyond greening: strategies for a
sustainable world. Harvard Business Review January-
February: 6676.
Hass JL. 1996. Environmental (green) management
typologies: an evaluation, operationalization and
empirical development. Business Strategy and the
Environment 5(1): 5968.
Hofstra NA, Tim ar JA, Verdonk HR, De Walle FB.
1990. Milieubedrijfsvoering, Problemen en Perspectieven.
Samsom Tjeenk Willink: Rotterdam.
Hunt CB, Auster ER. 1990. Pro-active environmental
management: avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Manage-
ment Review Winter: 718.
Hutchinson C. 1996. Integrating environmental policy
with business strategy. Long Range Planning 29(1):
1123.
Ilinitch AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE. 1998. Measur-
ing corporate environmental performance. Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy 17: 383408.
Kaplan RS, Norton DP. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard.
Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, MA.
Kolk A. 2000. Economics of Environmental Management.
Financial Times Prentice Hall: Harlow.
KPMG/IVA. 1996. Evaluatie bedrijfsmilieuzorgsystemen.
The Hague/Tilburg.
Lee BW, Green K. 1994. Towards commercial and
environmental excellence: a green portfolio matrix.
Business Strategy and the Environment 3(3): 19.
Levy, DL. 1997. Environmental management as political
sustainability. Organization and Environment 10(2):
126147.
Lober D. 1996. Evaluating the environmental perfor-
mance of corporations. The Journal of Managerial Issues
8(2): 184205.
Mauser A. 2001. The Greening of Business. Environmental
Management and Performance Evaluation: an Empirical
Study in the Dutch Dairy Industry. Eburon: Delft.
Meffert H, Kirchgeorg M. 1993. Marktorientiertes Umwelt-
management. Sch affer-Poeschel: Stuttgart.
Miles RE, Snow EE. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Struc-
ture, and Process. McGraw Hill: New York.
Molenkamp GC. 1995. De Verzakelijking van het Milieu:
Onomkeerbare Ontwikkelingen in het Bedrijfsleven.
KPMGWIMM: The Hague/Amsterdam.
M uller K, Koechlin D. 1992. Environmentally conscious
management. In Green Business Opportunities: the Prot
Potential, Koechlin D, M uller K (eds). Pitman: London;
166172.
M uller W. 1995. Der okologische Umbau der Industrie:
Beitr age zur socialwissenschaftlichen Umweltforschung.
Lit: M unster.
Newman JC, Breeden KM. 1993. Managing in the envi-
ronmental era: lessons from environmental leaders.
The Columbia Journal of World Business 27: 210221.
Petulla JM. 1987. Environmental Protection in the United
States. San Francisco Study Center: San Francisco.
Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Techniques for
Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press: New
York.
Post JE, Altman BW. 1994. Managing the environmental
change process: barriers and opportunities. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 7(4): 6481.
Rondinelli DA, Vastag G. 1996. International environ-
mental standards and corporate policies: an integra-
tive framework. California Management Review 39(1):
106122.
Roome N. 1992. Developing environmental management
strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 1:
1124.
Sanchez JC. 1993. The long and thorny way to an
organizational taxonomy. Organization Studies 14(1):
7392.
Scallon M, Sten MJ. 1996. Environmental positioning for
the future: a review of 36 companies in the pacic
Northwest region of the United States of America.
Greener Management International 13: 4965.
Schaefer A, Harvey B. 1998. Stage models of corporate
greening: a critical evaluation. Business Strategy and the
Environment 7: 109123.
Schot J. 1995. Strategie en milieu. In Milieumanagement:
van Kosten naar Baten. Braakhuis F, Gijtenbeek M,
30
Hafkamp W (eds). Samsom Tjeenk Willink: Alphen
aan de Rijn; 2546.
Schwenk CR. 1985. The use of participant recollection
in the modeling of organizational decision processes.
Academy of Management Review 10(3): 496503.
Shrivastava P. 1995. The role of corporations in achieving
ecological sustainability. Academy of Management
Review 20(4): 936960.
Shrivastava P, Hart S. 1995. Creating sustainable cor-
porations. Business Strategy and the Environment 4:
154165.
Simpson A. 1991. The Greening of Global Investment How
the Environment, Ethics and Politics are Reshaping
Strategies. The Economist: London.
Steger U. 1988. Umweltmanagement, Erfahrungen und
Instrumente einer Umweltorientierten Unternehemens-
strategie. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Stikker A. 1992. Sustainability and business manage-
ment. Business Strategy and the Environment 1(3):
18.
UNCTAD. 1993. Environmental Management in Transna-
tional Corporations. Research on the Benchmark Corporate
Environmental Survey. United Nations: New York.
UNEP. 1995a. Corporate quality/environmental man-
agement: the rst conference, Global Environmental
Management Initiative (1991). UNEP Industry and Envi-
ronment April-September: 7.
UNEP. 1995b. Environmental policy and industrial
innovation: strategies in Europe, the US and Japan.
UNEP Industry and Environment April-September: 118.
Veering J. 1995. Flexibele vergunning bewijst zich in de
praktijk. Milieumarkt December: 1213.
Verfaillie HA, Bidwell R. 2000. Measuring Eco-Efciency.
A Guide to Reporting Company Performance. World
Business Council for Sustainable Development:
Geneva.
Vermaak H. 1995. Strategie en cre eren voor groen
concurreren. Holland/Belgium Management Review 45:
8087.
Wicke L. 1991. Chancen der Betriebe durch offensives
Umweltschutz-Management. In Umwelt und

Okonomie:
Reader zur okologieorientierten Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
Seidel E, Strebel H (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden; 347370.
Winn MI, Angell AC. 2000. Towards a process model
of corporate greening. Organization Studies 21(6):
11191147.
Winsemius P, Mak JK. 1994. Milieu op de agenda.
Holland Management Review 40: 5663.
BIOGRAPHY
Ans Kolk is an associate professor at the
University of Amsterdam, Department of
Accountancy and Information Management,
Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. Tel.: 31 20 5254289. Fax: 31 20
5255281. Email address: akolk@fee.uva.nl
Anniek Mauser is a researcher at the University
of Amsterdam, Department of Accountancy
and Information Management, Roetersstraat
11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Since January 2002, she works for Unilevers
Global Sustainable Agriculture Initiative.
31

The Evolution of Environmental Management From Stage Models To Performance Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Evolution of Environmental Management From Stage Models To Performance Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 1431 (2002)

EM= environmental management; EMS = environmental management system.

Flex. = exibility; dev. = development; abs = absolute; rel = relative.

int = internal; ext = external.

Vision, strategy, policy

Communication to internal and external

You might also like