Katherine Daughtry

Uppsats för avläggande av masterexamen i naturvetenskap30 hp

Institutionen för biologi och miljövetenskapGöteborgs universitet

June 2014

Environmental Management Systems

A Review of Available Standards and aSurvey on Implementation in SwedishOrganisations

  II  

Abstract With the increasing importance of environmental and sustainable issues, environmental management systems (EMSs) have emerged as an effective tool for organisations to organise, plan, make decisions and evaluate progress in order to decrease their negative impact on the environment. The aim of this study is to gather information on the different EMS standards available and with the help of a questionnaire it will evaluate implementation in Swedish businesses. It will analyse how companies think and act in regards to implementing and maintaining a system: most importantly why they chose to implement an EMS and the specific standard, and the benefits and drawbacks. The largest number of companies that participated in the survey has an Environmental Diploma, and the second largest amount had an ISO 14001 certification. The primary reasons companies chose to implement the system were demands from suppliers or contractors and less time to implement the standard. Most of the difficulties were internal issues such as lack of time, lack of knowledge, organisational problems, and determining environmental goals. Perceived benefits of the system were primarily structure and environmental improvements over external factors like improved public image and customer relations.  Keywords: environmental management system, ISO 14001, EMAS, Environmental Diploma, survey

  III  

Sammanfattning Med den ökande betydelsen av miljö- och hållbarhetsfrågor, har miljöledningssystem (MLS) dykt upp som ett effektivt verktyg för organisationer att organisera, planera, fatta beslut och utvärdera framsteg för att minska sin negativa påverkan på miljön. Syftet med denna studie är att samla information om de olika EMS standarder som finns och med hjälp av en enkät kommer den att utvärdera genomförandet i svenska företag. Den kommer att analysera hur företag tänker och agerar i frågan kring implementering och underhållning av ett system: med vikten på varför de valde att genomföra ett miljöledningssystem och dess specifika standard, och dess fördelar och nackdelar. De flesta företag som deltog i undersökningen hade i första hand ett Miljödiplom och i andra hand ett ISO 14001. Den främsta orsaken till att företagen valde att implementera systemet var krav från leverantörer eller entreprenörer, och mindre tid lades på att genomföra standarden. De flesta svårigheter var interna frågor såsom brist på tid, brist på kunskap, organisatoriska problem, och bestämmande av miljömål. Faktorer som främst upplevdes som fördelar med systemet var struktur och miljöförbättringar över externa faktorer så som förbättrad offentlig image och kundrelationer. Nyckelord: miljöledningssystem, ISO 14001, EMAS, Miljödiplom, enkät  

  IV  

Table of Contents  ABSTRACT  .......................................................................................................................................  II  SAMMANFATTNING  ...................................................................................................................  III  ABBREVIATIONS  .........................................................................................................................  VI  1   INTRODUCTION  ......................................................................................................................  1  

1.1   BACKGROUND  .......................................................................................................................................  1  1.2   MILJÖBRON  ............................................................................................................................................  3  1.3   AIM OF THE STUDY  ..............................................................................................................................  3  

2   METHODOLOGY  .....................................................................................................................  3  2.1   LITERATURE REVIEW  ..........................................................................................................................  3  2.2   QUESTIONNAIRE  ...................................................................................................................................  4  

3   ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS  ..........................................................  4  3.1   PDCA: PLAN, DO, CHECK, ACT  .....................................................................................................  4  

3.1.1   Plan  ..................................................................................................................................................  4  3.1.2   Do  ....................................................................................................................................................  5  3.1.3   Check  ..............................................................................................................................................  5  3.1.4   Act  ...................................................................................................................................................  6  

4   STANDARDS  ..............................................................................................................................  6  4.1   ISO 14001  ..............................................................................................................................................  6  

4.1.1   Implementing ISO 14001  .........................................................................................................  7  4.2   EMAS  ...................................................................................................................................................  10  

4.2.1   Implementing EMAS  .............................................................................................................  11  4.3   ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMA (SVENSK MILJÖBAS AND MILJÖDIPLOM)  .........................  12  4.4   QUALITY STANDARDS  .....................................................................................................................  13  

4.4.1   ISO 9001  .....................................................................................................................................  13  4.4.2   OHSAS 18001  ..........................................................................................................................  13  

4.5   OTHER  ..................................................................................................................................................  14  4.5.1   Nordic Ecolabel (Svanen)  .....................................................................................................  14  

5   COMPARISON OF THE STANDARDS  ...........................................................................  15  5.1   DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EMAS AND ISO 14001  ...................................................................  15  5.2   COMPARISON WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMA  ..................................................................  18  

6   RESULTS OF THE SURVEY  ..............................................................................................  18  6.1   HAVE YOU IMPLEMENTED AN EMS AT YOUR COMPANY?  ..................................................  18  6.2   WHAT CERTIFICATIONS DO YOU HAVE?  ....................................................................................  19  6.3   WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT PARTICULAR CERTIFICATION STANDARD ABOVE OTHER STANDARDS AVAILABLE?  ..............................................................................................................  20  6.4   HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT THE EMS UNTIL CERTIFICATION?  .................  20  6.5   HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD THE EMS?  .....................................................................................  21  6.6   WHAT WAS THE INITIAL INVESTMENT COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE EMS?  ................  21  6.7   HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY FINANCIAL RETURN ON THE INITIAL INVESTMENT OF THE EMS?  ....................................................................................................................................................  22  6.8   DID YOU FACE ANY PROBLEMS DURING IMPLEMENTATION?  .............................................  23  6.9   WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?  .................................  24  6.10      HOW OFTEN DO YOU PERFORM BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDITS?  .................  24  6.11      HOW MOTIVATED AND INVOLVED WITH THE EMS DO YOU THINK EMPLOYEES ARE?  .....................................................................................................................................................  25  6.12   WHICH ARE YOUR MOST SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?  .............................  25  6.13   HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED SINCE IMPLEMENTING THE EMS?  ..............................................................................................  26  

  V  

6.14   HOW MANY TARGETS DO YOU HAVE?  ......................................................................................  28  6.15   WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE EMS?  ...................................................  28  6.16   WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE DRAWBACKS OF THE EMS?  ............................................  29  

7   DISCUSSION  ...........................................................................................................................  29  7.1   ABOUT THE COMPANIES  .................................................................................................................  29  7.2   BARRIERS AND MOTIVATIONS TO IMPLEMENTING AN EMS  ..............................................  30  7.3   CHOICE OF STANDARD  ....................................................................................................................  31  7.4   FINANCIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS  ................................................................................................  32  7.5   PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTATION  ...........................................................................................  32  7.6   FACTORS AND OUTCOMES OF EMS IMPLEMENTATION  ........................................................  33  

7.6.1   Public availability  ....................................................................................................................  33  7.6.2   Audits  ..........................................................................................................................................  33  7.6.3   Employee motivation and involvement  ...........................................................................  34  7.6.4   Environmental impacts and targets  .......................................................................................  34  

7.7   BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS  .........................................................................................................  35  7.8   ABOUT THE SURVEY  ........................................................................................................................  36  

8   CONCLUSION  ........................................................................................................................  37  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  .........................................................................................................  39  REFERENCES  ...............................................................................................................................  40  

JOURNAL ARTICLES  .....................................................................................................................................  40  WEB PAGES  ....................................................................................................................................................  43  

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH)  ...................................................................  45  APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE (SWEDISH)  ...................................................................  52      

  VI  

Abbreviations BSI British Standards Institution EC European Commission EEA European Environment Agency EMS Environmental Management System EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EU European Union ILO International Labour Organisation ISO International Organisation for Standardisation MLS Miljöledningssystem OH&S Occupational Health and Safety OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series SME Small and medium-sized enterprise

  1  

 

1 Introduction 1.1 Background Increasing concerns over pollution, resource depletion, hazardous waste, and other environmental issues have increased over the last decades and as a result, a number of environmental laws and regulations have been enacted to hold organizations more accountable for their environmental responsibilities (Rezaee and Elam 2000). The need for companies to effectively address environmental issues has increased (Santos-Reyes and Lawlor-Wright 2001) due to either external (e.g. government regulations) or internal reasons (e.g. company's policy) (Psomas et al. 2011). Environmental management systems (EMS) is an effective way to organise, plan, make decisions and evaluate progress in order to decrease a company’s negative impact on the environment. Different standards have been developed in order to enable well structured and comparable EMSs that aim to help organisations reduce energy consumption, waste and the use of ozone depleting substances and make more environmentally friendly choices in its purchasing in order to improve its environmental impact and prevention of pollution. All the EMSs include the concept of sustainable development by stressing the need for continuous improvement in order to protect the environment, not only for ourselves but also for future generations (Chavan 2005).

EMSs first appeared in North America in the 1970s and in the early 1990s several countries developed their own EMS standards, perhaps the most prominent being the British BS7750 (Psomas et al. 2011). They were eventually withdrawn in favour of ISO 14001, which was first implemented in 1996 and subsequently became the global EMS standard. EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) was also developed for the European Union (EU) member states. Some smaller national standards, such as Environmental Diploma (Miljödiplom), introduced in Sweden in 2005, were also later developed and are currently in use.

Organisations that apply for an EMS certification according to these standards build a system through which environmental protection can be integrated into daily management and long-term goals. Not only can adopting an EMS lead to a decrease in environmental impacts and the more sustainable use of natural resources, but it can also improve the economic performance of the organisation. However, organisations should keep in mind that an EMS is a voluntary system and tool and thus does not replace the existing regulations but provides guidance and flexibility in addressing both environmental and business issues (Zutshi and Sohal 2004).

Many studies have been conducted on the implementation of EMSs since their introduction, in particular on motivations, benefits and difficulties. Most of these studies focus on ISO 14001, while some also include EMAS. In Sweden specifically, Poksinska et al. (2003) carried out a study through a survey about implementing ISO 14000, including motives for implementation and perceived benefits. The study concluded that Swedish companies mainly use the standard to demonstrate their commitment to environmental protection and most benefits are also perceived in the improved relations with stakeholders and in marketing advantages. Emilsson and

  2  

Hjelm (2002) also carried out a study via survey about implementation of EMSs in Swedish local authorities, focusing on reasons for implementation, expectations and some environmentally related outcomes they have observed. The study showed that the chief reason for implementing EMSs was of organisational origin (such as bringing order to the environmental efforts), although EMS implementation is often not given high priority.

Similar studies have been carried out in Europe, such as the 2011 study by Psomas et al. on motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing ISO 14001 in Greece and Turk’s 2009 study on ISO 14000 application in Turkey, which were both made with the use of a survey. Psomas et al. conclude that the decision of the companies to be certified was mostly influenced by internal motives and even though they were not extremely high, the internal were more significant than the external benefits. Hillary (2004) focuses on implementation of ISO 14001 and EMAS in small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across Europe, seeking to shed some light on the barriers, opportunities and drivers for EMS adoption by the SME sector. It identifies a range of issues that influence the adoption of a formalised EMS, however finds that SMEs do find real benefits from adopting an EMS.

Other similar studies throughout the world include Gavronski et al. (2008), which presents a survey with Brazilian companies. The study identified four sources of motivation: reaction to pressures from the external stakeholders; pro=action in expectation of future business concerns; legal concerns; and internal influences. It also identified four dimensions that characterized the benefits of an ISO 14001 certification: operational changes; financial impacts; relationship with business stakeholders (customers, competitors, suppliers); and relationship with societal stakeholders (government, society and NGOs). Hui et al. (2001) used a survey to analyse EMS practices in Hong Kong, including factors companies have considered in implementing the EMS, benefits in implementing the EMS, the business activities that the companies carried out to reach the benefits and the business benefits attainable in the implementation of the EMS. The study results showed that most of the companies used in the survey had a positive attitude towards the implementation of the EMS and believed it could effectively strengthen their competitiveness in business.

Despite the existence of studies like these there is still a great need for research providing evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of EMSs (Psomas et al. 2011). Debates about the value of EMSs and in particular ISO 14001 and its ability to meet its intentions have been going on since the early 1990s and continue today (Ann et al. 2006). According to Lopez-Rodriguez (2009) a deeper understanding of the reasons, organisational functions and outcomes is needed, as these may vary over time and between countries. Additionally, there is a lack of studies focused on country specific standards; no literature studies could be found on Sweden’s national standard Environmental Diploma. Although many studies focus on motivations, benefits and drawbacks, most focus on ISO 14001. Fewer studies seek to evaluate differences between ISO 14001, EMAS and smaller national standards like Environmental Diploma. A deeper knowledge by companies of the EMSs is necessary, in order for the business to be both efficient and not harmful to the environment (Psomas et al. 2011).

  3  

1.2 Miljöbron Miljöbron is a non-profit organisation that serves as a link between companies and university students with a focus on sustainable topics. Their mission is to aid companies in gaining knowledge of sustainable business and also provide work experience and contacts for the students. The Västra Götaland branch of Miljöbron has local offices in Göteborg, Trollhättan, Borås, operating in the south and western part of Sweden. Many of the companies that work with Miljöbron seek help in some area of environmental management systems. These companies took part in the present study.

1.3 Aim of the study The aim of the study is to gather information on the different EMS standards available and make comparisons in order to collect information that will be useful in advising companies seeking to implement an EMS. Additionally, it will use a survey to evaluate the implementation of EMSs and compare different standards that are in use at companies that have previously worked with Miljöbron. It will analyse how companies that have worked with an EMS think and act in regards to implementing and maintaining a system oriented towards structuring environmental work and how they perceive the outcomes of the system. The survey first determines which companies that worked with Miljöbron on EMSs have gone through with implementing a system. More specific questions the survey aims to address are:

• If organisations did not implement an EMS, why did they choose not to? • If organisations did implement an EMS, why did they choose a particular

standard? • What were the financial costs and did organisations perceive a return on the

investment? • Were there any problems organisations encountered while implementing the

EMS? • How did organisations address requirements such as public availability,

audits, employee involvement, environmental impacts and targets? Did the organisations fulfil the minimum requirements or go above the suggestions of the standard? Do organisations believe these requirements have led to actual improvements in performance?

• What are the perceived benefits and drawbacks of implementing a system? The first part of the paper gives a general overview of EMSs and specifics of different standards including ISO 14001, EMAS, and Environmental Diploma. Some comparisons are also made between these standards. In the second part, the results of the survey are presented, followed by a discussion on the survey and previous studies. Finally, the conclusion is presented.

2 Methodology 2.1 Literature review A literature review was conducted to compile information on different EMS standards and review previous studies. A search was conducted using Scopus and Web of

  4  

Knowledge with keywords “environmental management system”, “ISO 14001”, “EMAS”, and “implementation”. Although many scientific articles exist with topics on EMS, it should also be noted that much information exists on organisational websites like the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the European Commission (EC).

2.2 Questionnaire The study was made with the help of a questionnaire that contained questions regarding background information, the implementation of the EMS, and outcomes of implementing the EMS. Background questions asked about the number of employees, the type of business and what certifications they have obtained. Questions about implementation contained asked why they implemented the EMS, why the company selected a particular standard, how long did it take, what was the cost, what problems were there, etc. Questions regarding the evaluation and outcomes of the EMS asked about employee motivation, public availability, environmental targets, the reduction of environmental impacts, and what the perceived benefits and drawbacks were. A full copy of the questionnaire in both English and Swedish is available in Appendix A: Questionnaire (English) and Appendix B: Questionnaire (Swedish). Using the Miljöbron database, businesses were contacted to perform the questionnaire in an online survey. A list of companies that worked with Miljöbron on EMS topics was compiled for the years 2010 to 2013, equating to 157 companies. An email was sent to the contact person listed in the Miljöbron database telling them about the survey and giving a link to where they could fill out the survey on the Miljöbron website. Emails were sent using a Miljöbron company email and the survey placed on the Miljöbron website in order to promote a higher response rate from the companies. Additionally, all communications and the survey were in Swedish to eliminate companies that would not participate due to a language barrier. Many contact persons were no longer working at the company so alternative emails were found, however alternative emails could not be located for 4 of the companies. The companies were given two weeks to fill out the survey, after which a reminder email was sent out to those who had not completed it. Out of a total of 157 companies that were contacted, 72 (46%) ultimately responded to the survey. All of the data and questions were then analysed and discussed to evaluate trends in implementation and compare the different standards in use.

3 Environmental Management Systems 3.1 PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, Act PDCA is a four-step management method used in business for the control and continuous improvement of processes and products. It is often incorporated into EMS standards and can be viewed as the four major steps to achieving an EMS.

3.1.1 Plan Step one consists of establishing the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the organisation's environmental policy. The policy is the foundation of the EMS and is an important tool to show the most significant aims of

  5  

the companies’ environmental work. The companies are free to design the policy, however some requirements are outlined for the different standards. These include a commitment to follow appropriate laws and regulations, a commitment to continuous improvement and a commitment to improve specific environmental aspects that are significant to the company or organisation. During the planning step the company or organisation’s impacts on the environment should be determined and assessed in order to define which environmental aspects are the most significant. The significant environmental aspects are then used to create measurable improvement objectives and targets with set times. Programmes are then created based on the environmental objectives and also the significant environmental aspects. Another important part of the planning stage is determining which legal requirements affect the business and an evaluation of the organisation’s compliance. Legal requirements are very important in order to avoid fines or even potential imprisonment. Organisations should also not overlook future regulations that have not yet come into effect. Although the environmental policy is frequently listed as the first step, an environmental review to determine environmental aspects, their significance and legal compliance may be conducted before completing the policy in order to have a better-defined and relevant policy.

3.1.2 Do After the planning stage the next step is to implement the system. This step is most often led by the employee responsible for the environmental work at the company, with the support of directors and managers, and often assisted by consultants. It is at this point that the structure of roles is set and responsibilities are defined. Top management should ensure its commitment and responsibility for the effectiveness of the system. Training is offered to employees in order to ensure awareness of the EMS and of impacts on the environment that may result from their work. The means of communication and documentation are set, as well as evaluating control of documents, operational control, and emergency preparedness and response.

3.1.3 Check The next step is to monitor and measure processes against environmental policy, objectives, targets, legal and other requirements, and report the results. This step is used to review if everything is running as it should be and goals are being met. It is a routine check up of the system to make sure it is working properly and also to ensure compliance with new procedures, routines and government regulations. Measures of environmental impacts should be taken to see that objectives and targets are being reached on time, legal compliance should be evaluated, non-conformances should be identified and internal audits should be carried out to ensure the EMS is working in the intended way. If any problems or non-compliances are found corrective and preventative measures should be carried out.

  6  

3.1.4 Act Once the EMS is in place it is important to take actions to continually improve the performance of the system. Top management is responsible for reviewing the effectiveness of the EMS and implementing improvements. The EMS should be updated continuously, often each year. Once objectives and targets are achieved, the EMS should be updated to set new objectives and targets. The environmental policy should also be kept updated to reflect any changes to the organisation’s aims and significant environmental aspects, and to consistently improve its environmental goals.

4 Standards Numerous standards exist that an EMS can be based upon and certified or registered to. The two most common are ISO 14001 are EMAS. In Sweden, the national standard Environmental Diploma is also frequently implemented.

4.1 ISO 14001 ISO 14001 is an international standard that sets out the criteria for an environmental management system and can be certified to. The ISO 14001 standard is intended for application by a broad range of organisations (Poksinska et al. 2003). It is flexible enough to be adapted to organisations of all sizes and in all industries (Rezaee and Elam 2000), whatever its type of activity and the geographical, social and cultural circumstances in which it functions (Fortunski 2008). The ISO 14001 standard is meant to be applicable anywhere in the world and the total number of organisations with certifications worldwide has increased every year since its introduction, reaching 301,647 in 2013 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: ISO 14001 worldwide totals 1999-2013 (ISO 2015b).

In Sweden, the number of certification increased to a maximum of 4,633 in 2010 but the numbers have decreased to 3,690 in 2013 (Table 1).

  7  

Table 1: Number of ISO 14001 certifications in Sweden (ISO 2015b).

Year 1999 2003 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Sweden 851 2330 3800 4478 4193 4622 4049 3885 3690

4.1.1 Implementing ISO 14001 The ISO 14001 standard uses an environmental management system model based on PDCA. It utilises five key principles; environmental policy, planning, implementation and operation, checking and management review, all while focusing on continual improvement (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Environmental management system model based on PDCA (ISO 2015a).

In other words the ISO 14001 standard describes the organisational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for preparing, applying, reviewing and maintaining a company's environmental policy (Marimon et al. 2009).

4.1.1.1 Environmental policy

The first step outlined by ISO 14001 is creating an environmental policy, which should be defined by top management. It also stipulates further aspects of the policy that top management should ensure: 1. That the policy is appropriate to the nature, scale and environmental impacts of its

activities, products and services, 2. That it includes a commitment to continual improvement and prevention of

pollution, 3. That it includes a commitment to comply with applicable legal requirements and

with other requirements to which the organisation subscribes which relate to its environmental aspects,

  8  

4. That it provides the framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives and targets,

5. It is documented, implemented and maintained, 6. It is communicated to all persons working for or on behalf of the organisation, and 7. It is available to the public.

4.1.1.2 Planning

Environmental aspects The planning portion of ISO 14001 includes determining the impacts on the environment resulting from production and purchased products and services, as well as the products and services from the company’s operations. According to ISO 14001 an environmental impact is any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s activities, products or services. Environmental impacts could be for example: air pollution, water pollution, resource depletion, or noise. The environmental impacts are then assessed based on this information to determine which environmental aspects are significant.

Legal and other requirements It is also a requirement to determine the legal statutes and ordinances that affect the business or organisation and to keep up-to-date on any new statutes and requirements. Legal and other requirements need to be identified and assessed on a regular basis to ensure continued compliance. Objectives, targets and programme(s) The significant environmental aspects are used to create measurable and relevant improvement objectives and targets with fixed times. In order to ensure objectives and targets are achieved, the organisation must implement and maintain one or more environmental programmes based on the environmental objectives and targets, and also the significant environmental aspects. These programmes should determine responsibilities, means, and a time frame by which the targets and objectives are to be reached. The programmes should be made for activities that with result in improvements and updated whenever necessary.

4.1.1.3 Implementation and operation Resources, roles, responsibility and authority The section “Structure and Responsibility”, explains how an EMS needs to be structured and how to define roles, responsibility and authority. Top management should appoint one or more management representatives to be responsible for the EMS and provide sufficient resources for implementation in order to achieve the intended results. Top management should ensure its explicit responsibility for the effectiveness of the system. Accordingly, roles, and responsibilities need to be documented and communicated.

  9  

Competence, training and awareness ISO 14001 requires all staff and personnel involved in the EMS to be trained on the contents of the system and on the impacts on the environment that may be caused by the work of the employees. Communication Procedures for how information is to be communicated, both internally and externally must be specified. Documentation The contents of the EMS should be described by whatever medium is deemed suitable. This documentation can either be on paper or in the form of a computer file. Direction on related documentation should also be provided whenever appropriate.

Control of documents A document control system needs to be established to ensure that valid information is available to all relevant personnel in the intended place, the information is up-to-date and understood and no relevant information is lost. Operational control The establishment of an operational control system is required in order to ensure that all activities and operations are managed in accordance with the contents and objectives of the environmental policy. This also applies to all products used in the business, as well as purchases from suppliers and contractors. Emergency preparedness and response Procedures for the identification of potential accidents and response to accidents must be implemented in order to prevent the risk of accidents and the impacts on the environment that accidents and emergency situations may cause.

4.1.1.4 Checking The section “Checking and Corrective Action” explains how an already implemented EMS can be maintained and improved.

Monitoring and measurement A system needs to be established to monitor the key characteristics of an organisation’s operations and activities and to measure the impacts on the environment at appropriate time intervals. To obtain accurate measurements it is important to ensure that monitoring equipment is suitable for its purpose and that it measures correctly. Evaluation of compliance Compliance with relevant environmental legislation and regulations should also be regularly evaluated, and procedures for evaluating this compliance must be established and maintained.

  10  

Nonconformity, corrective action and preventive action Based on the system of measuring and monitoring, procedures concerning non-conformance and corrective and preventive action have to be established and maintained. Any non-conformances, as well as basic causes, must be identified and improvements should be implemented. Any information on implemented changes must be communicated to the relevant personnel and the effects of the changes are should be observed. Control of records All actions related to the EMS have to be recorded to demonstrate conformance with ISO 14001. Procedures for the identification, maintenance and disposition of environmental records must be established and maintained. Internal audit To ensure that the EMS is working in the intended way and there is continuous improvement, systematic and continual reviews need to be conducted. The results of the audits must then be reported to the organisation’s top management.

4.1.1.5 Management review

Top management then has to, at intervals it determines itself, review the effectiveness, suitability and objective fulfilment of the EMS and implement necessary improvements. To carry out this evaluation, top management needs to be provided with all necessary information, including data collected on the performance of the EMS. Usually the necessary information is collected and provided by the person responsible for the EMS.

4.2 EMAS EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) is a voluntary management scheme that aims to promote continuous improvements in environmental performance of organisations and the provision of environmental information to the public. It is a tool for organisations to evaluate, report and improve their environmental performance. EMAS became operative in April 1995 but was restricted to industrial sites until March 2001, when it became open to private and public organisations of all sectors. The version of EMAS after the March 2001 revision is called EMAS II. One of the most important changes from EMAS 1995 is that EMAS II was updated to be fully compatible with ISO 14001. All of the requirements of ISO 14001 became integrated in EMAS II. EMAS II also lifted the restriction on the business sector, allowing any type of organisation to participate in EMAS. Only private and public organisations in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Sphere (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) were able to participate in EMAS until 2011, when it opened up for global application.

The number of registered organisations has grown over the years but still remains much lower than the number of ISO 14001 registrations (Figure 3).

  11  

Figure 3: Number of EMAS registered organisations and sites in the EU 2003-2010

(EEA 2013).

4.2.1 Implementing EMAS To achieve EMAS certification an organisation has to:

1. Develop an environmental policy. 2. Make an initial environmental review. 3. Develop an environmental programme. 4. Establish an EMS. 5. Carry out an internal environmental audit. 6. Review once more. 7. Develop an environmental statement. 8. Get validation and register.

One difference with EMAS is that it is a government regulation, not an international standard. The member state’s governments must organise the registration process of sites within their territory and designate a Competent Body. In Sweden the Competent Body is Miljöstyrningsrådet. The body is an independent and impartial institution or organisation responsible for the accreditation and supervision of environmental verifiers. Environmental verifiers are EMAS experts that must be independent from both the organisation being verified and the organisation’s auditors and consultants.

This qualified third party checks the EMS and statement to verify if the organisation is in compliance with EMAS requirements. In particular environmental verifiers check that an organisation:

• Is in legal compliance. • Has carried out an initial environmental review, if applicable. • Has a fully operational EMS that is audited in a systematic, objective and

periodic way. • Has an environmental statement in accordance with the EMAS regulation. • Has provided data and information that is reliable, credible and correct.

  12  

If the requirements are met then the system and statement are validated and the site can be registered. Once the organisation is registered it receives a declaration of participation that can be used show its participation in EMAS.

4.3 Environmental Diploma (Svensk Miljöbas and Miljödiplom)

Environmental Diploma (Miljödiplom) is a Swedish based certification, achieved in accordance to the Svensk Miljöbas standard, that companies may chose to implement instead or in addition to ISO 14001 and EMAS. Svensk Miljöbas is the national EMS standard in Sweden, which was designed for smaller businesses and other organisations. This system attaches great importance to what the business is performing in terms of actual environmental improvements and environmental education for employees. The first version of the standard was adopted in December 2005, the second in November 2010, and the third and current version in November 2013 (Svensk Miljöbas 2015b). Currently, there are around 650 companies and organisations with an Environmental Diploma under Svensk Miljöbas (Svensk Miljöbas 2015a). To achieve the Environmental Diploma organisations must map the business’ environmental impacts, plan and implement environmental improvements, train employees, and monitor and improve environmental performance. Specific checklists exist for different types of businesses describing what criteria the activities must meet. In order to receive the Diploma a company must meet 100% of the mandatory requirements and at least 75% of the practical action points in the checklist. The Diploma is valid for 1 year, after which time the company must reregister. There are 10 mandatory requirements to receive the Environmental Diploma on the checklists for standard businesses, manufacturing and hotel, restaurant and food companies (Göteborgs stad 2015): 1. Basic Terms: The organisation must show that it complies with applicable

environmental and other relevant legislation and have no complaints on its business.

2. It must appoint at least one environmental coordinator, with defined responsibilities and authority.

3. Have a current environmental review where the main environmental impacts of relevant application rates and ratios are specified.

4. Have a documented account of how the company’s waste is sorted. 5. Have a list of all the chemicals used. For each chemical, have a MSDS. 6. Have a documented environmental policy that reflects the intentions and controls

environmental work. 7. Have adopted an environmental plan with relevant and monitorable targets for

future years. 8. Have a written purchase procedure towards eco-friendly and ethical purchasing. 9. Employees must receive basic environmental training. New employees are

trained within a year. 10. Regularly inform all employees on the company's environmental and participate

in the company’s internal work on environmental improvements and inform other stakeholders.

  13  

There is one additional requirement on the checklist for kindergartens and schools: The environmental goals and plans are anchored in business management and reporting of environmental performance takes place annually to designated authority in the municipality. Businesses must reregister after one year and fulfil extra requirements, including a new map of environmental impacts, questions to the suppliers, additional education and a yearly report presenting environmental indicators.

4.4 Quality standards Organisations increasingly recognise the benefits of integrated management systems that incorporate aspects such as quality. Standards like ISO 9001 and OHSAS 18001 can be employed in conjunction with other standards that focus on environment like ISO 14001 and EMAS. In fact, a study by To et al. (2012) shows that companies implementing multiple management systems can have better corporate performance, product quality, and marketing edges than the others.

4.4.1 ISO 9001 ISO 9001:2000 is an international standard on quality management that supports process based integrated management systems to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements. In this system business processes must be described, reviewed, evaluated and continuously improved.

According to ISO 9001:2000 an organisation is required to:

• Identify processes necessary for quality management. • Define succession and interaction of these processes. • Define criteria and required methods to ensure effective execution and control

of these processes. • Ensure availability of information required for execution and control of these

processes. • Measure, control and analyse these processes and to take measures to achieve

the anticipated targets and continuous improvement.

ISO 9001 is closely linked to ISO 14001, with many similar elements such as documentation, document control, communication and continual improvement. This allows organisations with certifications in one of the two standards to implement the other standard without too much effort to meet the requirements.

4.4.2 OHSAS 18001 OHSAS 18001 is an Occupation Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) for occupational health and safety (OH&S) management systems. The aim is to enable organisations to control OH&S risks and to improve performance through proactive and preventative practices to identify hazards and evaluate work related risks. Representatives from national standards bodies, academic bodies, accreditation bodies, certification bodies, and occupational health and safety institutions form the OHSAS Project Group (ILO 2008) The UK National Standards Body, BSI Group,

  14  

serves as the secretariat.

The OHSAS Project Group published the OHSAS 18000 Series in April 1999, which consists of OHSAS 18001 and OHSAS 18002. OSHSAS 18001 provides requirements for OH&S management systems and OHSAS 18002 gives guidelines for implementation of OHSAS 18001. In 2007, OHSAS 18001 was updated and adopted as a British standard. One of the most important changes was that it was improved to become more compatible with both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 (BSI Group 2007).

4.5 Other 4.5.1 Nordic Ecolabel (Svanen) The Nordic Ecolabel (Svanen) is a voluntary certification that was introduced by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 1989. It is the official ecolabel in the Nordic countries and is locally implemented by the governments of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland. It has over 10,000 licensed products in the Nordic market and criteria have been developed for over 60 types of products and services in Sweden alone. Services that may apply for the Nordic ecolabel include stores, vehicle washing, photo printing, cleaning services, textile services, printing, hotels and restaurants. There are currently 738 licensed services in Sweden (Svanen 2015c). A list of different criteria that must be met in order to achieve a Nordic Ecolabel license is available depending on the product or service. For example, in order for a hotel, restaurant or conference facility to be awarded a Nordic Ecolabel license the business must satisfy the following (Svanen 2015b):

• Basic information about the business must be submitted. The report on energy consumption, water consumption, amount of unsorted waste, chemicals, purchasing and number of guests must relate to the past 12 months or the past year. In some requirements Nordic Ecolabelling can accept an estimation of an annual consumption based on statistics from a representative month/week.

• A limit value requirement for energy must be fulfilled. • Another 1 of 2 limit value requirements (water or waste) must be fulfilled. • All other compulsory requirements for the specific business must be fulfilled. • At least 35% of the total points for the specific business must be achieved;

restaurants must achieve at least 5 points under “Food”. • Nordic Ecolabelling must conduct an on-site inspection to check compliance

with the requirements. The Nordic Ecolabel also requires five mandatory procedures to be established. Additional requirements on information to employees and guests, documentation, and internal and external control of the environmental work must also be fulfilled. If a valid license is obtained in one Nordic country it is automatically valid in the entire region. In Sweden the company Ecolabelling Sweden, which is owned by the Swedish government, serves as an independent third party to control products and services. It has responsibility for criteria development, control visits, licensing and marketing. A total lifecycle analysis is used for all products and services and criteria are determined in an open process with experts from the business world, environmental organisations

  15  

and authorities. Criteria are first publicized for review and comments and then are accepted by the Nordic Ecolabelling Board, which makes the final decision on which criteria will be implemented (Svanen 2015a).

5 Comparison of the standards 5.1 Differences between EMAS and ISO 14001 The main difference between EMAS and ISO 14001 is that EMAS has a stronger focus on distribution of information to the public, external communication and responsibility outside of the organisation, and on environmental performance. A summary of the differences is listed in Table 2. However, additional differences can be noted and the following gives a more in depth overview of the differences between ISO 14001 and EMAS (EC 2015): Initial review. EMAS requires a verified initial environmental review, while ISO recommends but does not require an environmental review. Environmental core indicators. EMAS includes the use of environmental core indicators that describe the performance of the organisation in key environmental areas and are part of the environmental statement. ISO does not include core indicators. Table 2: Differences between EMAS and ISO 14001.

EMAS ISO14001 Responsible organisation

European Council ISO, TC/SC

Preliminary environmental review

Verified initial review No review

External communication and verification

Environmental policy, objectives, EMS and details of organisation’s performance are made available to the public.

Only environmental policy made available to the public.

Audits Frequency and methodology of audits of the EMS and of environmental performance are specified.

Frequency or methodologies of audits of the EMS are not specified.

Contractors and suppliers

Required influence over contractors and suppliers.

Relevant procedures are communicated to contractors and suppliers.

Commitments and requirements

Employee involvement, continuous improvement of environmental performance and compliance with legislation.

Commitment of continual improvement of the EMS.

Certification and registration

The organisation is verified by an accredited environmental verifier, validated and registered with a Competent Body.

The organisation is certified by an Accredited Certification Body.

  16  

Environmental aspects. EMAS specifies that the organisation must be able to show that the EMS and the audit procedures address the actual environmental performance of the organisation in regards to the direct and indirect aspects identified in the environmental review. Additionally, EMAS requires the establishment of criteria for assessing the significance of the environmental aspects, while ISO only requires a procedure that helps identify environmental aspects. Legal compliance. EMAS requires the organisation to show that they have identified the implications of legal requirements relating to the environment, provide for legal compliance and have procedures in place that enable the organisation to meet the requirements. ISO does not require the organisation to demonstrate legal compliance, only to show a commitment to comply. Also, EMAS requires a compliance audit, while ISO does not. Public availability. EMAS requires that the environmental policy, programme(s), EMS and details of the organisations’ performance are made available to the public as part of the environmental statement. ISO only requires that the environmental policy be made available to the public. Continuous improvement. EMAS has stricter requirements on the improvement of environmental performance of the organisation, since it demands annual improvement and also states that the environmental verifier must check that continuous improvement of the organisation’s environmental performance has taken place. ISO also requires improvement but without any defined frequency. Employee involvement. EMAS places emphasis on active involvement of employees and their representatives, while ISO does not address employee involvement. Internal environmental audits. EMAS audits include a system audit (evaluation of EMS), a performance audit (evaluation of environmental performance) and an environmental compliance audit (evaluation of legal compliance). ISO only includes a system audit against the requirements of the standard. Frequency of audits. For EMAS the frequency of the audit cycle must be at intervals of no longer than three years, while there is no specification in ISO 14001.

Auditor. EMAS requires the auditor to be independent, while ISO only advises the auditor to be independent. Management review. The management review in EMAS is more extensive and requires an evaluation of the environmental performance of the organisation. The management review is based on a performance audit. ISO requires an environmental performance review by top management, but not by means of a performance audit. Registration with a public authority. EMAS must be registered with a Competent Body after it is verified and validated, while ISO is simply certified and does not require any registration.

  17  

A comparison between the different steps required for registration of ISO 14001 and EMAS can be seen in Figure 4. Step 1 (initial environmental review) is not required as long as the environmental aspects as set out in Annex VI of the EMAS regulation are fully considered in the certified EMS.

For the majority of organisations there is no difference between implementing an EMS according to ISO 14001 or EMAS, or even both together depending on the organisational objectives. However, EMAS is often viewed by industry as too strict

and more costly to implement, while ISO 14001 is viewed as having more flexibility. On the other hand, EMAS has a major advantage when it comes to communicating with stakeholders using the environmental statement.

After an organisation conforms to one standard it can lead to the implementation of other standards. For example, once an organisation has implemented ISO 14001, it can later satisfy the requirements of EMAS or other management system standards like ISO 9001 or OHSAS 18001.

ISO 14001 is in more widespread use than EMAS. The ISO 14000 series of standards is a set of voluntary schemes that was developed to meet to the needs of a large variety of interest groups worldwide. The documents in the series are intended to be applicable in all countries throughout the world, regardless of the type of government, and promote environmental protection in light of socio-economic concerns. Since ISO relies on voluntary acceptance by all interested parties it must maintain a balance between the needs and expectations of each of these parties.

EMAS, on the other hand, is a regulation designed to meet the needs and expectations of governments, citizens and consumers in the EU member states and European Economic Area. Due to the legal status of EMAS within Member States it must maintain a more prescriptive approach to environmental management issues (EC 2015).

Initial  Environmental  Review  

Optional  as  long  as  all  those  elements  listed  in  Annex  VII  of  the  Regulation  are  covered  in  the  EMS  

Environmental  Policy  Provision  for  legal  compliance  

Implementation  Employee  involvement  

Compliance  of  suppliers  and  contractors  

Planning  Includes  all  elements  covered  in  environmental  review  Registers  of  environmental  effects  and  legislation  

Compatibility  of  scope  

Checking  and  Corrective  Action  Audit  cycle  of  3  years  or  less  

Coverage  of  EMS  and  environmental  performance  

Management  Review  

CertiGication  Approved  accreditation  scheme  

Environmental  Statement  Environmental  statement  that  meets  the  requirements  

of  Annex  III  

Validation  of  Environmental  Statement  Externally  validated  annually  and  accessible  to  the  

public  

KEY  

Figure 4: Comparison between steps required for registration between ISO 14001 and EMAS (EC 2015).

ISO  14001  EMAS  

  18  

5.2 Comparison with Environmental Diploma In Sweden, companies may chose to implement Environmental Diploma rather than ISO 14001 or EMAS. Environmental Diploma is based on the basic elements of ISO 14001 and EMAS; however, it has lower requirements when it comes to documentation, number of mandatory procedures, etc. Therefore, many small to medium sized companies find it to be the best option since fewer resources are needed to meet the requirements. For companies that find it difficult to pay for ISO 14001 and EMAS, Environmental Diploma can be an affordable option as the starting fee and the annual fee is lower (Svensk Miljöbas 2015c). Table 3 gives a summary of the differences of Environmental Diploma compared to ISO 14001 and EMAS. Although differences exist between Environmental Diploma and the other standards, since it is based upon ISO 14001 and EMAS the similarities can also help the business if it choses to move towards an ISO 14001 certification or EMAS registration. Table 3: Differences between Environmental Diploma and ISO 14001/EMAS.

6 Results of the survey As previously mentioned, businesses that previously worked with Miljöbron on EMSs were contacted to perform the questionnaire in an online survey. Out of a total of 157 companies that were contacted, 72 (46%) ultimately responded to the survey. Most of the companies that responded to the survey can be considered small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The survey first determines which companies that worked with Miljöbron have gone through with implementing an EMS. The results of all survey questions are subsequently presented.  

6.1 Have you implemented an EMS at your company? Of the companies that responded, 50 (69%) chose to implement an environmental management system, while 22 (31%) have not implemented an EMS (Figure 5).

Differences of Environmental Diploma compared to ISO 14001/EMAS

Swedish national standard vs. international or EU-based standard

Designed for small businesses and organisations

Lower requirements for documentation

Lower number of mandatory procedures

Lower starting fee

Lower annual fee

  19  

Figure 5: Number and percentage of companies that chose to implement an EMS.

Many of the companies that have not implemented an EMS stated that they are still working on obtaining certification or are in the final stages. A few have completed the initial investigation and are still making the decision on inclusion of the EMS. Other reasons given are lack of time, lack of prioritization and follow up by management and the board and no one driving the issue. Some companies stated that they believe it is too expensive for their economy at the moment and have used a large portion of money after beginning work. Others feel that they have many other requirements giving the same effect, one specifically utilises quality management FR2000, which includes the environment. For municipalities that have begun work on certification, some are very large and therefore only partially certified in some small businesses. Smaller companies reported that it was difficult due to their size but would be interested in implementing a system if they had more employees. One company also reported that they are located in many countries, and have not been able to agree on a system.

6.2 What certifications do you have? Of the companies that completed the survey, the majority (50%) have certifications in Environmental Diploma. The second highest percentage (22%) of the companies are certified in ISO 14001, most having integrated systems also certified in ISO 9001. Only one company reported that they are certified in EMAS (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Number and type of certifications companies achieved.

50;  69%  

22;  31%  

Yes  

No  

11  

1  

2  

3  

9  

11  

25  

0   5   10   15   20   25   30  

EMS  but  no  certiVicates  

EMAS  

OHSAS  18001  

Svanen  

ISO  9001  

ISO  14001  

Environmental  Diploma  

  20  

An equal amount (22%) of the companies also reported that they had an EMS but did not have any certifications. Of the companies that have an EMS but no certifications, two remarked that they are hoping to become certified in ISO 14001 very soon and one remarked that they would soon achieve the Environmental Diploma.

6.3 Why did you choose that particular certification standard above other standards available?

The primary reasons companies chose the certification standard above other standards were demands from suppliers or contractors, less time to implement the standard and lower cost (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Reasons for selecting certification standard.

Several of the companies that chose Environmental Diploma also stated that they felt their company was small and did not have the resources to achieve an ISO certification. Additional reasons provided for choosing Environmental Diploma were that it works well in Gothenburg, the company belonged to the city and the demands of the customers decided the level.

6.4 How long did it take to implement the EMS until certification?

The majority of the companies took 6 months to 1 year (45%) or 3 to 6 months (25%) to implement the EMS and achieve certification (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Time from implementation to certification.

18  

19  

7  

9  

19  

12  

0   2   4   6   8   10   12   14   16   18   20  

Lower  cost  

Less  time  to  implement  

Less  requirements  for  certiVication  

More  international  recognition  

Demands  from  suppliers  or  contractors  

More  knowledge  about  that  standard  

4;  8%  

12;  25%  

22;  45%  

5;  10%  

6;  12%  

Less  than  3  months  3-­‐6  months  6  months  to  1  year  1-­‐2  years  More  than  2  years  

  21  

If the time taken to implement the EMS is examined for each standard, it can be seen that most of the companies with an Environmental Diploma took less than one year to become certified. The majority of companies certified in ISO 14001 took longer than six months to become certified, several even taking more than two years (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Time from implementation to certification for individual standards.

6.5 How long have you had the EMS? Most of the companies that participated in the survey have had the EMS for more than 4 years (35%) or 2-4 years (33%) (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Amount of time companies have had an EMS.

6.6 What was the initial investment cost of implementing the EMS?

The initial investment cost of implementing the EMS was less than 50,000 SEK for 24 (49%) of the companies and 50,000 to 100,000 SEK for 14 (29%). Six companies (12%) paid 100,000 to 250,000 SEK but only 5 companies paid more than 250,000 SEK (Figure 11).

0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  

Less  than  3  months  

3  to  6  months  

6  months  to  1  year  

1  to  2  years  

More  than  2  years  

Environmental  Diploma  

ISO  14001  

Svanen  

EMAS  

3;  6%   2;  4%  3;  6%  

8;  16%  

16;  33%  

17;  35%  

Less  than  3  months  3-­‐6  months  6  months  to  1  year  1-­‐2  years  2-­‐4  years  More  than  4  years  

  22  

Figure 11: Initial investment cost of EMS, including cost of consults, auditing, and registration.

If initial investment costs are viewed for each individual standard, it is quite clear costs for Environmental Diploma are lowest, most companies reporting costs under 50,000 SEK (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Investment costs for individual standards.

6.7 Have you received any financial return on the initial investment of the EMS?

About half (51%) of the companies reported that they do not know or have not observed any financial return on the initial investment of the EMS. 18 (37%) reported that they have not seen any financial return and 6 (12%) reported that they have observed a financial return (Figure 13).

24;  49%  14;  29%  

6;  12%  2;  4%  

1;  2%  2;  4%  

Less  than  50  000  SEK  50  000  to  100  000  SEK  100  000  SEK  to  250  000  SEK  250  000  SEK  to  500  000  SEK  500  000  SEK  to  1  million  SEK  More  than  1  million  SEK  

0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  16  

Less  than  50  000  SEK  

50  000  to  100  000  SEK  

100  000  to  250  000  SEK  

250  000  to  500  000  SEK  

500  000  to  1  million  SEK  

Environmental  Diploma  

ISO  14001  

Svanen  

EMAS  

EMS  but  no  certiVicates  

  23  

Figure 13: Amount of companies that have observed a financial return on initial investment of the EMS.

Of the companies certified in Environmental Diploma that cited that they have seen a financial return, reasons given were that they have had an increase in revenue due to being able to respond to the invitation to local governments, being able to participate in public procurement or receiving an advantage in contacts with prospects and clients. One of the municipalities reported that some of the companies observed a financial return while others do not. One company certified in ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 initially observed lower costs for waste, diesel and electricity. Some reported that they have not yet seen a financial return since the EMS had not been implemented for long.

6.8 Did you face any problems during implementation? 35 (71%) of the respondents said they did not face any problems during implementation of the EMS, while 14 (29%) reported that they did have problems (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Number and percentage of companies facing problems during implementation of EMS.

Companies certified in Environmental Diploma found that they had difficulties with a lack of time, allocating time, the municipality’s lack of knowledge and many organisational problems. One company also found it was difficult to find more environmentally friendly materials to replace the current materials being used, such as hazardous glues. One company certified in ISO 14001 stated they had difficulties finding suitable environmental goals, especially business travels and that they still have difficulties

6;  12%  

18;  37%  25;  51%  

Yes    

No  

I  don't  know/have  not  observed  

14;  29%  

35;  71%  

Yes  

No  

  24  

with that. Another stated that it’s hard to find good statistical ways to follow up on the environmental aspects and that they are still looking for better ways to measure. Companies with an EMS but no certificates remarked that they felt everything new is strange and it is difficult implementing new procedures, as well as a lack of time to reflect.

6.9 What information do you make available to the public? Most of the companies (90%) make their environmental policy available to the public. 33% also publicise their environmental objects, however only 12% publish details of performance and only 2 companies publish targets (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Information made available to public.

Additional remarks provided by companies reveal that some have their environmental policy on the company web page, but all the other alternatives are available upon request. One municipality also remarked that it is different depending on which participating companies are asked.

6.10 How often do you perform both internal and external audits?

The majority of companies (74%) perform internal and external audits once per year (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Frequency of internal and external audits.

44  

16  

2  

6  

0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50  

Environmental  policy  

Objectives  

Targets  

Details  of  performance  

3;  6%  

7;  14%  

36;  74%  

1;  2%   2;  4%  

4  times  per  year  or  more  2-­‐3  times  per  year  1  time  per  year  1  time  per  2  years  1  time  per  2  years  1  time  per  4  years  or  less  

  25  

6.11 How motivated and involved with the EMS do you think employees are?

About half of the respondents (52%) feel that their employees are moderately motivated and involved with the EMS and the majority (88%) believe they at least moderately motivated or even more so (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Motivation and involvement of employees with EMS.

Some companies made additional remarks that it depends on the issue and it is also important to remind them and refresh their memory now and then, to get them more motivated.

6.12 Which are your most significant environmental impacts?

The most common significant environmental aspects are waste, transport, energy (electricity), chemicals and consumables/purchasing (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Most significant environmental aspects.

0  

20%  

52%  

18%  

8%  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

Not  at  all   Somewhat   Moderately   Much   Very  much  

4  2  

6  16  

32  5  

2  18  

31  8  

25  

0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35  

Other    Risk  for  accidents  

Suppliers  Consumables/purchasing  

Waste  Water  

Refrigerants  Chemicals  Transport  

Energy:  lighting  Energy:  electricity  

  26  

6.13 How much do you think your environmental impacts have been reduced since implementing the EMS?

Equal parts of the companies (32%) believe that their environmental impacts from energy for electricity and heating have improved some or moderately, while 16% believe that it has not improved at all. 36% of the companies think that the impact of energy for lighting has improved some, 30% think it has improved moderately and 14% think it has not improved at all (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Improvement in environmental impacts of energy.

The opinion on improvement in chemicals was relatively spread out. 28% reported that chemicals has improved moderately, 20% think there has been some improvement, 18% think there has been much improvement and 16% believe there has been no improvement at all. Around half of the companies reported that they don’t think their impact from refrigerants has improved (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Improvement in environmental impacts of chemicals and refrigerants. Almost half of the companies reported they do not think their water use has significantly improved. 38% of the companies reported that they think their impact from waste has moderately improved and 26% that there has been some improvement (Figure 21).

14%  

36%  30%  

8%  2%  

8%  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

Energy:  lighting  

46%  

4%   6%   6%  0  

36%  

0  5  10  15  20  25  

Refrigerants  

16%  

32%   32%  

10%  4%   2%  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

Energy:  electricity    

16%  20%  

28%  

18%  

8%   8%  

0  

5  

10  

15  

Chemicals  

  27  

Figure 21: Improvement in environmental impacts of water and waste.

Equal percentages (32%) of companies replied that there has been some or moderate improvement in consumables/purchasing, while 22% reported there has been no improvement at all. Most of the companies believe the environmental impacts of suppliers have improved some (30%), moderately (26%) or not at all (26%) (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Improvement in environmental impacts of consumables/purchasing and suppliers.

A large portion (42%) of respondents believe that there has been some improvement in the impacts of transport, while 24% believe there has been moderate improvement and 20% believe there hasn’t been any improvement at all. 28% of the companies think that there has been no improvement in accident risk, 26% think there has been some improvement and 20% believe there has been moderate improvement (Figure 23).

12%  

26%  

38%  

12%   8%  2%  

0  5  10  15  20  

Waste  

26%   30%   26%  

4%   0  

12%  

0  5  10  15  20  

Suppliers  

46%  

14%   12%   10%  0  

16%  

0  5  10  15  20  25  

Water  

22%  32%   32%  

6%   4%   4%  

0  5  10  15  20  

Consumables/purchasing  

  28  

Figure 23: Improvement in environmental impacts of transport and accident risk.

6.14 How many targets do you have? Companies have a large range of targets: 15 (31%) of the companies have 3 or less targets, 11 (23%) have 4 targets and 7 (14%) have 5 targets (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Number of targets companies have.

6.15 What do you think are the benefits of the EMS? One of the most common benefits companies found was in the structure of the EMS, which “gives a systematic way of working which leads to less cost and less environmental impacts”. Many commented on the control of the company's environmental impacts and potential for reducing them. By having more review of operations, financial and environmental benefits companies not only gain more control but also make the work more visual for the whole organization. This structure also allows companies to visualize their impact on the environment. This has led to increased awareness and interest, giving confirmation that “every thing we do, no matter how small we think it is, makes a difference”. There has also been more awareness of better alternatives such as replacements to better products and more savings on energy. Companies are kept more alert on resource drains and have a clear focus on qualitative development of the company both externally and internally.

28%   26%  20%  

6%  2%  

16%  

0  

5  

10  

15  

Accident  Risk  

15;  31%  

11;  23%  7;  14%  3;  6%  

6;  12%  

3;  6%  4;  8%  

How  many  targets  do  you  have?  

3  or  less  

4  

5  

6  

7-­‐8  

9-­‐10  

More  than  10  

20%  

42%  

24%  

8%  0   4%  

0  5  10  15  20  25  

Transport  

  29  

Education and knowledge exchange were common benefits, and in particular, internal communication about what is expected of employees and that all employees have something to relate to. Several companies also found that their EMS has added credibility and value in relation to both stakeholders and customers. The EMS has allowed for increased communication with customers and provided better knowledge and commitment to environmental issues. In addition, some find that an added benefit is the ability to positively influence other companies.

6.16 What do you think are the drawbacks of the EMS? Many of the companies (31%) felt that there were no drawbacks of their EMS. Of those that did, a large number reported that they felt the main drawback was that it is very time consuming. Many felt it takes a lot of work and energy away from the primary goals of their business and too much time was spent on requirements, updates, audits, progress toward goals, and monitoring of compliance. Companies especially feel the effects of too much time being spent on documentation and administration. Many commented that there was a lot of unnecessary paperwork and administration and some found difficulty translating the documentation into practice. One company also commented that they felt issues with time could be improved with better IT support. One of the most common drawbacks was also the cost. Companies felt it was too expensive and difficult to understand what client’s value. Some also found it hard to find measurability of cost benefits and difficulties in measuring the economic benefits of environmental work lead to less involvement. Some also found issues with the bureaucracy of the standards. One company commented that “some partial requirements of the standard are a bit "stiff" - they have with them just because they have to, they have no effect on the company's environmental impacts.” One also commented “the standard ISO 14001 (along with 9001 too) can be very bureaucratic and hard to apply on small or medium sized companies.” Issue was also found with the inflexibility of the system. A few also raised the issue of education and engagement. One felt that their system had no disadvantages but more information and education in society is needed. Others found difficulty in the engagement of employees and felt the requirement of educating all personnel is not paying back. A couple also found problems with the inability to follow up and felt that if management does not see the benefits, it is difficult to get an effective system.

7 Discussion 7.1 About the companies Most of the companies (84%) that responded to the survey have had their EMS for over one year. Of those, 39% have had their EMS for two to four years and 42% for more than four years, so the majority of respondents have had experience in implementing an EMS for a fair amount of time.

  30  

Aside from a few municipalities, most of the companies were also small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs make up the vast majority of businesses in Europe; however, the environmental impact of small firms is not known either at national or regional levels. ISO 14001 and EMAS both intend to be relevant and applicable to small and medium-sized firms but their uptake by SMEs has been inconsistent (Hillary 2004).

7.2 Barriers and motivations to implementing an EMS The majority of the companies that responded decided to implement an EMS, or were still in the process of implementing a system, after seeking help from Miljöbron. Of the companies that chose not to proceed with implementation the main reasons given were lack of time, lack of money and resources, lack of prioritization and follow up by management and no one driving the issue. In a study on the implementation of ISO 14000 in Sweden (Poksinska et al. 2003), it was found that the CEO or top management initiated the main drive for certification in most cases. The fact that several companies stated they did not implement an EMS due to a lack of effort by management only confirms the importance of top management’s drive to implement a system. Emilsson and Hjelm (2002) confirm that there is a lack of prioritization to implement EMSs in Swedish local authorities, supporting the findings of the present study. The Poksinska et al. (2003) study also found that the most significant motive for the Swedish organisations for implementing ISO 14001 was “corporate image”. The other top valued motives were marketing advantage, customer pressure, relations with communities, and relations with authorities. Organisations may use EMS certifications as a way to enhance relationships with consumer groups, communities, and environmentally conscious investors or as a way of distinguishing themselves from their competitors by creating an environmentally friendly image. Hui et al. (2001) similarly found organisations believed implementing an EMS could strengthen their competitiveness in business. Hillary (2004) emphasised that customers in particular are the key driver for the adoption of EMSs and have influence far beyond any of the other stakeholders. Gavronski et al. (2008) identified four sources of motivation: reaction to pressures from the external stakeholders; pro-action in expectation of future business concerns; legal concerns; and internal influences. Morrow and Rondinelli (2002) also found that for companies operating in international markets, ISO 14001 or EMAS certification is an indicator of environmental responsibility and is often seen as a way of developing competitive advantage. Among the SMEs that were studied primary motivations were the desire to improve documentation, ensure regulatory compliance, and increase the efficiency of their operations.

SMEs face internal and external barriers when seeking to implement an EMS but internal barriers initially have the more significant role in impeding progress, according to Hillary’s (2004) study. Negative company culture towards the environment and the disassociation between positive environmental attitudes of personnel and taking action can act as a barrier to EMS adoption. SMEs are also very sceptical of the benefits of making environmental improvements. Especially for smaller organisations, low awareness and the absence of pressure from customers and

  31  

insufficient other drivers mean that few efforts are made to address environmental issues (Hillary 2004).

7.3 Choice of standard It is no surprise that the largest percentage of organisations that completed the survey have an Environmental Diploma since it is the Swedish national standard. ISO 14001 had the next highest percentage (22%), while only one company is registered with EMAS. Since ISO 14001 is an international standard but has stricter requirements than Environmental Diploma, it follows that this would be the next highest portion of the companies. Only one company chose to register with EMAS; this may be due to the fact that it has the strictest requirements and is not as internationally oriented as ISO 14001. A significant amount (22%) of the companies also reported that they had an EMS but did not have any certifications. Although some remarked that they were still working to certification, it is somewhat surprising how many chose not to obtain any certifications, since certifications are often used as a way of promoting an environmentally friendly image. Perhaps the organisations wished to improve their environmental work but did not have enough money or resources to pay the fees for an actual certification and allocate time to fulfilling requirements. Since many of the responding organisations are SMEs, the lack of time and resources would especially be a limitation for them. The two main reasons companies chose the certification standard above other standards were demands from suppliers or contractors and less time to implement the standard. Companies that stated they chose their standard due to demands from suppliers or contractors were evenly divided among ISO 14001, Environmental Diploma and no certificates. In the 2003 study by Poksinska et al. companies were asked about the attitude regarding the pressure exercised on their suppliers to obtain ISO 14001 or ISO 9000 certifications. Of the organizations, 51% stated that they absolutely require their key suppliers to have ISO 9000 certification and 30% stated that for ISO 14000. Responding companies who chose their standard due to less time to implement were primarily certified in Environmental Diploma, along with some that have an EMS but no certificates. This is to be expected since Environmental Diploma has lower requirements and thus takes less time to implement. Additionally, companies that chose to implement an EMS but not obtain any certifications do not require additional time to meet the requirements of a specific standard. This is confirmed by the companies, which were queried about the about of time taken to implement the EMS and achieve certification. As expected companies with an Environmental Diploma achieved certification in the least amount of time since there are fewer requirements. Companies certified in ISO 14001 took longer on average to implement their system since there are a greater number of requirements to fulfil. The next highest response to why companies chose to implement a specific standard was lower cost. Companies that gave lower cost as a reason were mostly certified in Environmental Diploma, and a lesser amount had an EMS but no certificates. Of

  32  

course this also follows logically since Environmental Diploma has lower fees and companies that chose to not obtain any certifications may have done so to avoid costs. The other, less significant, reasons given were more knowledge about the standard, more international recognition and less requirements for certification. The larger portion of the companies that stated they chose the standard because they had more knowledge about it were certified in ISO 14001 and a few had an Environmental Diploma. It is surprising that more companies with an Environmental Diploma did not select their standard based on more knowledge since it is the national standard in Sweden. Of the companies that stated they felt they would receive more international recognition, the majority were certified in ISO 14001. This of course is to be expected since ISO is the most internationally oriented of all the standards. Although it was the lowest factor in selecting a EMS standard, as expected, companies that selected their EMS based on less requirements for certification had an Environmental Diploma or and EMS but no certificates.

7.4 Financial costs and benefits The initial investment cost of implementing the EMS was less than 50,000 SEK for about half (49%) of the companies. As expected, businesses with an Environmental Diploma or Nordic Ecolabel paid the least. Organisations certified in ISO 14001 were interestingly spread out in their estimated investment cost; this could be due to how they estimate indirect costs as internal working hours. Admittedly, companies have given an estimate of their cost and there is no way to confirm the exact amount they have paid to implement their system. The majority (88%) of the companies reported that they do not know or have not received any financial return on the initial investment of the EMS. Only 12% of the companies reported that they have observed a financial return. Long-term financial returns may exceed investment costs and short-term paybacks might be seen within one to two years. Since many of the companies that responded have had their EMS for over one year or two years, one would expect more of the companies to have seen a return on investment. However, several authors highlight the inherent difficulties in determining the costs and benefits of implementing the standard and alternatively conclude that the costs are generally outweighed by the benefits (Bronson and Noble 2006, Ann et al. 2006, Schylander and Martinuzzi 2007). The fact that 37% of the companies stated that they did not see a return on investment and 51% did not know or have not observed a return may support this conclusion. On the other hand, it is possible that many of the companies that reported they do not know or have not observed a return have in fact received a return on investment but have not been tracking quantifiable payback.

7.5 Problems with implementation The majority of the participating companies in the survey did not face large problems with implementation of their EMS. Companies certified in Environmental Diploma found that they had difficulties with a lack of time, allocating time, lack of knowledge and organisational problems. Companies certified in ISO 14001 stated they had difficulties finding suitable environmental goals and ways to measure environmental aspects.

  33  

Similarly, when asked about difficulties in implementation the ISO 14001‐certified Swedish companies studied by Poksinska et al. (2003) stated that the identification of environmental aspects is the most important factor with respect to the required effort needed to implement the standard. These results were also confirmed in a similar study in Greece (Psomas et al. 2011). In a study (Turk 2009) on ISO 14001-certified Turkish companies the main difficulties encountered concerned mostly top management commitment. More specifically, the main difficulties the Turkish companies faced were the following: company management was not open to research and criticism, the registration process was too lengthy, the volume of documentation and paperwork had been increased and the ISO 14001 EMS had increased expenses. Although none of the ISO-certified companies in the present survey gave similar reasons when asked about problems they faced, companies with an Environmental Diploma also cited issues with lack of time. Companies that did not chose to implement an EMS mentioned similar problems with top management. Responding companies did also mention issues with expenses and the volume of documentation when queried about the drawbacks of their EMS, which is also mentioned later. Hillary (2004) concludes that the main issue in SMEs is the lack of human resources, rather than financial ones, that are difficult to secure and maintain for EMS implementation. The process of implementation is often interrupted and resources are frequently diverted to core business activities. Some studies indicate that SMEs, once on the route to certified EMSs, face inconsistency and high charges in the certification system and poor quality advice from consultants (Hillary 2004).

7.6 Factors and outcomes of EMS implementation 7.6.1 Public availability Almost all of the companies (90%) make their environmental policy available to the public. Of the organisations that did not make it available, three had an Environmental Diploma and two had an EMS but no certificates. Of course the organisations with an ISO 14001 certification or EMAS registration make their policy public since it is a mandatory requirement. However, Environmental Diploma only requires organisations to have a documented environmental policy but does not specify public availability. Still many or the organisations with an Environmental Diploma or with an EMS but no certifications chose to make their policy available to the public. Additionally, some companies made goals, targets and details or performance public although there was no stipulation for them to do so. This is perhaps a reflection of an aim to promote an environmentally friendly image in order to gain marketing advantage with consumers and investors, as previously discussed.

7.6.2 Audits The majority of companies (74%) perform internal and external audits once per year. For EMAS the frequency of the audit cycle must be at intervals of no longer than three years, while there is no specification in ISO 14001 or in Environmental Diploma, although organisations must reregister after one year. This means that many of the companies chose to perform audits more frequently than recommended or stipulated by any of the standards.

  34  

7.6.3 Employee motivation and involvement Environmental Diploma and EMAS both place emphasis on active involvement of employees and their representatives, while ISO does not address employee involvement. Overall organisations report that their employees are motivated and involved: the majority (88%) report that they believe there employees are at least moderately involved. There was no trend in how companies responded based on the standard they implemented; companies certified in ISO 14001 did not appear to believe employees were any less involved despite ISO 14001 placing less emphasis on it. Employees’ active involvement in environmental issues may significantly contribute to a company's chance for increased environmental performance. Employees who feel empowered to make changes for environmental efficiencies may provide opportunities for improvements such as reduction of waste and decreasing other environmental impacts. These improved environmental efficiencies should also, either indirectly or directly, increase customer satisfaction. While top management should provide a framework and communicate the importance of employee motivation in environmental improvement, managers and supervisors should also actively involve employees at all levels towards fulfilling environmental improvement goals. Empowerment of employees, clear communication, and continual feedback and review can lead to environmental enhancements (Govindarajulu and Daily 2004).

7.6.4 Environmental impacts and targets Just because an organization has an EMS does not guarantee improvements in environmental performance. Moreover, many case studies and surveys show that it is difficult to attribute environmental improvements directly to the adoption and certification of EMS (Morrow and Rondinelli 2002).

It should also be noted that some debate exists over whether ISO 14001 can be considered an environmental performance standard. Many argue that its implementation does not establish absolute requirements for environmental performance (Yin and Ma 2009, Rowland-Jones et al. 2005), nor specify environmental performance targets (Liyin et al. 2006). Therefore it does not lead to strict requirements regarding the environmental impact of a company's activities (Fortunski 2008), and improved environmental performance beyond meeting regulations is not guaranteed (Yin and Ma 2009). Companies that have an EMS but no certifications also may have issues with guaranteeing environmental performance. Some studies have found that firms having gone through EMS certification experience a greater impact on performance than do firms that have not certified their EMS (Melnyck et al. 2002).

Taking a closer look at the most common significant environmental aspects among respondents: waste, transport and energy (electricity), it is clear that not all organisations have seen an improvement in their environmental performance for these aspects. However, the vast majority of companies have in fact reported improvements. The only exceptions to this is refrigerants, which is anticipated due to the difficulties in purchasing new equipment, and water, which is overall not a big issue in Sweden.

  35  

The number of targets companies have is distributed across a large range. However, a large number (69%) have 4 or more targets, 32% have 6 or more targets and 26% have 7 or more. In general many of the companies are ambitious when it comes to the amount of targets. Although this may be viewed as a positive, on the other hand, having a large number of targets can be overwhelming and may lead to less environmental performance improvements. To increase the chance of success, organisations should focus on a small number of core objectives, targets, and programmes that are updated as necessary. Objectives, targets, and programmes drive performance and should also be clearly linked to business planning and budgeting processes, with an effective top management commitment in order to be successful (Searcy 2012).

7.7 Benefits and drawbacks One of the largest benefits companies perceived was the structure of the EMS, which gives control of the company's environmental impacts and potential for reducing them by allowing them to visualise their impact. In turn, this has led to increased awareness and interest. Education and knowledge exchange were common benefits, and in particular, internal communication. To a lesser extent, companies also discussed that their EMS has added credibility and value in relation to both stakeholders and customers, as well as the ability to positively influence other companies. The Psomas et al. (2011) study in Greece found that the most significant benefit derived from implementation was improving the processing of the company’s waste, followed by an improved relationship with society due to better environmental performance and improvement of the company’s position in the market. The benefits were seen initially in the internal environment and consequently in the external environment of the companies. Implementing the ISO 14001 standard helped them to achieve better environmental performance, which resulted in the improvement of the companies' relationship with society and ultimately the improvement of their position in the market. Psomas et al. determined that comparing the internal and external benefits of the companies, the internal benefits were more significant than the external ones. Companies in the current study comment similarly, with emphasis placed on structure leading to improvement in environmental performance and a secondary benefit of an improved relationship with customers and position over other companies. The findings from the study of Turk (2009) in Turkish companies are in line with those of the Psomas et al. (2011) study as well as the present study. The most significant advantages of obtaining the ISO 14001 certificate were what can be considered internal benefits: the improvement of environmental awareness, improvement of standardisation in environmental management, minimization of negative impacts on the environment and its assistance in establishing a system for sustainable environmental development. Contrary to the Psomas et al. (2011) and Turk (2009) studies, as well as the present study, Poksinska et al. (2003) found the most significant benefits perceived by Swedish companies were those of external benefits. The most important benefit

  36  

related by responding companies was the improvement of their corporate image. Significant benefits were also achieved in improvement of internal procedures, improvement of relations with authorities and communities. The internal benefit of environmental improvement was of lower significance. Companies studied by Morrow and Rondinelli (2002) reported improvements in regulatory compliance and legal certainty, improved documentation, improvements in employee awareness, and some degree of improvement in efficiency as the result of implementing and certifying their EMSs. Gavronski et al. (2008) identified four dimensions that characterized the benefits of an ISO 14001 certification: operational changes; financial impacts; relationship with business stakeholders (customers, competitors, suppliers); and relationship with societal stakeholders (government, society and NGOs).

Many of the companies felt that there were no drawbacks of their EMS. According to Hillary (2004), there are fewer drawbacks than benefits and studies give them less coverage. Additionally, some studies are uncritical of practical experience working with EMSs and may underrepresent drawbacks, though there may in reality not be that many. Many of the companies that did report negative aspects of their EMS felt the main drawback was that too much time was spent on requirements, updates, audits, progress toward goals, monitoring of compliance, documentation and administration. One of the most common drawbacks was also the cost. To a lesser extent, some companies found issues with the bureaucracy of the standards. As mentioned previously, Turk’s (2009) study on ISO 14001-certified Turkish companies also encountered difficulties with the length of the registration process, the volume of documentation and paperwork and increased expenses.

7.8 About the survey As is often the case with online surveys, the response rate was not especially high and an increased response rate might have yielded more useful results. Given the subjective nature of the survey, the responses of the company representatives may not always be reliable. Additionally, since organisations chose to implement a variety of standards (and only one organisation is registered with EMAS), generalisations about the response group could be made but it was not always possible or reliable to compare responses for individual standards. Although the survey was not always useful in highlighting differences between ISO 14001, Environmental Diploma and EMAS it still can serve as a useful tool in gathering information on how Swedish organisations perceive environmental management systems and chose to implement them. Organisations that responded to the survey were also diverse and heterogeneous in respect to their sector and business activities. Studies that seek to investigate the SME sector and draw conclusions about it are to some extent, comparing not just apples and pears, but the whole fruit bowl (Hillary 2004). This is one of the limitations in the present study. It is perhaps more effective for research to consider parts of the sector either as sub-groups by size, i.e. micro, small and medium, or by industrial sector (Hillary 2004).

Since the sample of companies for the survey was taken from the Miljöbron database it is of course biased in the sense that it does not necessarily represent an average

  37  

Swedish company. Again, the survey still serves as useful tool in the description of how companies have chosen to implement an EMS and the attitude towards their own EMS and the standards in general; it just is not necessarily valid for all companies in Sweden.

8 Conclusion Summarising the findings from the current study, the majority of the companies that responded decided to implement an EMS, or were still in the process of implementing a system. Those that chose not to proceed with implementation did so due lack of time, lack of money and resources, and lack of prioritisation and follow up by management. After reviewing previous studies it is clear that the main drive for certification often comes internally, from top management. This lack of effort and prioritisation by management is one of the main barriers to implementing an EMS. Studies also show that one of the main motivating factors for organisations to implement an EMS is an improved image in order to develop competitive advantage, so an absence of pressure from customers can also contribute to a lack of effort to address environmental issues. The largest percentage of organisations that completed the survey chose to implement Environmental Diploma and the next highest percentage chose to implement ISO 14001. This is likely due to the fact that Environmental Diploma is the Swedish national standard and more pressures may exist from local suppliers since most of the organisations are SMEs and do not have international dealings. The lower cost and less requirements of Environmental Diploma are also beneficial for SMEs. Indeed in the survey the two main reasons companies gave for implementing the standard were demands from suppliers or contractors and less time to implement the standard. When implementing an EMS, companies found that they had difficulties with lacking and allocating time, lack of knowledge and organisational problems. Similar studies (Turk 2009, Hillary 2004) support that a lack of time and difficulties in allocating time and resources are common issues in implementation. Companies certified in ISO 14001 specifically had difficulties finding suitable environmental goals and ways to measure environmental aspects, which were also confirmed as difficulties in previous studies (Poksinska et al. 2003, Psomas et al. 2011). At any rate, many companies are now choosing to pursue EMS certifications, and in particular Environmental Diploma. It could be beneficial for the companies to get more support about how to measure environmental performance and how to formulate good targets. Many of the organisations that responded to the survey went above requirements for public availability and auditing, suggesting a positive commitment to the EMS. Perhaps as a result of this positive commitment, employee motivation and resulting environmental improvements were mostly perceived as good and most companies related positive benefits from both structure and environmental improvements. Companies placed emphasis on structure leading to improvement in environmental performance but also discussed the secondary benefit of improved relationships with customers and position over other companies. This is in line with Psomas et al. (2011) and Turk (2009) studies, however in contrast to Poksinska et al. (2003) that

  38  

concluded Swedish companies use ISO 14001-certification as merely an image‐building and public relations tool. In respect to the present study, the main limitations are the subjectivity of the responses collected, the small size of the sample of the participating companies and their limited diversity in regards to their sector and size. Future studies can use these limitations as suggestions for further research. Much more research needs to be done providing evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of EMSs (Psomas et al. 2011) and also to determine whether or not the motivations for adopting and certifying EMSs are fulfilled by the benefits and impacts of doing so (Morrow and Rondinelli 2002). Future studies may also focus on smaller national standards like Environmental Diploma and motivations in implementing a specific EMS standard in respect to others. In general, companies seem to both perceive benefits and experience positive impacts from implementing environmental management systems, yet a deeper knowledge by companies of the EMSs is necessary in order to increase efficiency and further limit environmental impacts.

  39  

Acknowledgements This thesis was conducted in the spring 2015 term in cooperation with Miljöbron. The work includes 30 credits in the Master's program in environmental science at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Biology and Environmental Science. I would like to thank everyone at the University of Gothenburg who helped in support of this thesis, in particular my supervisor Lennart Bornmalm, as well as Dan Strömberg for his advice on improvements. I especially would like to thank Christin Carlsson and Miljöbron, who made this thesis possible, providing contacts for the survey as well as valuable advice. I would also like to thank all of the companies and organisations that took the time to take part in the survey.

  40  

References Journal Articles

Ann, G.E., Zailani, S. and Wahid, N.A. (2006). A study on the impact of environmental management system (EMS) certification towards firms' performance in Malaysia. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 73‐93.

Bronson, J. and Noble, B. (2006). Measuring the effectiveness of parks Canada's

environmental management system: a case study of Riding Mountain National Park. Canadian Geographer/Le Gégraphe Canadien, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 101‐13.

Chavan, M. (2005). An appraisal of environment management systems: a competitive

advantage for small businesses. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 444‐63.

Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O. (2002). Implementation of standardised environmental

management systems in Swedish local authorities: reasons, expectations and some outcomes. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 5, Iss. 6, pp. 443-448. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901102000904 [22 May 2015]

Fortunski, B. (2008). Does the environmental management standard ISO 14001

stimulate sustainable development? An example from the energy sector in Poland. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 204‐12.

Gavronski, I., Ferrer, G., Paiva, E.L. (2008). ISO 14001 certification in Brazil:

motivations and benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 87-94. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652 60600415X [21 May 2015]

Govindarajulu, N., Daily, B.F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental

improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104, Iss. 4, pp.364-372. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/full/10. 1108/02635570410530775 [24 May 2015]

Hillary, R. (2004) Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise.

Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, Iss. 6, pp. 561-569. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652603001549 [20 May 2015]

Hui, I.K., Chan, A.H.S, Pun, K.F. (2001). A study of the Environmental Management

System implementation practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 269-276. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095 9652600000615 [19 May 2015]

  41  

Liyin, S., Hong, Y. and Griffith, A. (2006). Improving environmental performance by means of empowerment of contractors. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 242-57.

Lopez‐Rodriguez, S. (2009). Environmental engagement, organizational capability

and firm performance. Corporate Governance, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 400‐8. Marimon, F., Heras, I. and Casadesus, M. (2009). ISO 9000 and ISO 14000

standards: a projection model for the decline phase. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1‐21.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of

environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, pp. 329-351. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027269630 2001092 [24 May 2015]

Rowland‐Jones, R., Pryde, M. and Cresser, M. (2005). An evaluation of current

environmental management systems as indicators of environmental performance. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 211‐19.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of

environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, pp. 329-351. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696302001 092 [3 April 2015]

Morrow, D., Rondinelli, D. (2002). Adopting Corporate Environmental Management

Systems: Motivations and Results of ISO 14001 and EMAS Certification. European Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 159-171.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J., Jörgen, Eklund, J. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 in

Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 Iss. 5, pp. 585-606. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/full/10.1108/02656710310476543 [3 April 2015]

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, Vol. 22 Iss. 4, pp.502-521. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/ full/10.1108/14777831111136090 [5 April 2015]

Rezaee, Z. and Elam, R. (2000). Emerging ISO 14000 environmental standards: a

step‐by‐step implementation guide. Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1/2, pp. 60‐7.

  42  

Santos‐Reyes, D.E. and Lawlor‐Wright, T. (2001). A design for the environment methodology to support an environmental management system. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 323‐32.

Searcy, C., Morali, O., Karapetrovic, S., Wichuk, K., McCartney, D., McLeod, S.,

Fraser, D. (2012). Challenges in implementing a functional ISO 14001 environmental management system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 Iss. 7, pp. 779-796. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/full/10.1108/02656711211258526 [20 May 2015]

Schylander, E. and Martinuzzi, A. (2007). ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future

challenges: a national study in Austria. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 133‐47.

Steger, U. (2000). Environmental management systems: empirical evidence and

further perspectives. European Management Journal, Vol. 18, Iss. 1, pp. 23-37. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237399000 663 [3 April 2015]

To, W.M., Lee, P.K.C., Yu, B.T.W. (2012). Benefits of implementing management

system standards: A case study of certified companies in the Pearl River Delta, China. The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 Iss: 1, pp. 17 -28. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/full/10.1108/17542731211191195 [19 May 2015]

Turk, A.M. (2009). ISO 14000 environmental management system in construction: an

examination of its application in Turkey. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 713‐33. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1080/14783360903036996 [8 April 2015]

Yin, H. and Ma, C. (2009). International integration: a hope for a greener China?.

International Marketing Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 348‐67. Zobel, T. (2015). ISO 14001 adoption and industrial waste generation: The case of

Swedish manufacturing firms. Waste Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 107-113. Retrieved from http://wmr.sagepub.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/content/33/2/107.full [19 May 2015]

Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2004). Adoption and maintenance of environmental

management systems. Critical success factors. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 399‐419.

  43  

Web Pages

BSI Group. (2007). BSI Press release July 2007: Health and safety management systems specification OHSAS 18001 is now a British Standard BS OHSAS 18001:2007. Retrieved from http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2007/7/Health-and-safety-management-systems-specification-OHSAS-18001-is-now-a-British-Standard-BS-OHSAS-18001-2007/ [10 April 2015]

BSI Group. (2015). BS OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Management.

Retrieved from http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/ohsas-18001-occupational-health-and-safety/ [10 April 2015]

EC. (2015) EMAS Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/emas/tools/faq_en.htm#Section11Question3 [13 February 2015]

EEA. (2013). Number of organisations with registered environmental management systems according to EMAS and ISO 14001. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/number-of-organisations-with-registered [2 February 2015]

Göteborgs stad. (2015). Checklistor. Retrieved from http://goteborg.se/wps/portal/

foretag/hallbartforetagande/miljodiplomering/checklistor [19 February 2015] ILO. (2008). Seventh Supplementary Report: Possible collaboration between the

International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in the field of occupational safety and health management systems (OSH–MS). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_091362.pdf [17 April 2015]

ISO. (2015a). ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems – Requirements

with guidance for use. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail? csnumber=31807 [4 February 2015]

ISO. (2015b). ISO survey 2013. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/

standards/certification/isosurvey.htm?certificate=ISO%209001&countrycode=SE#countrypick [2 February 2015]

Svanen. (2015a). Our two Ecolabels- The Nordic Ecolabel and the EU Ecolabel.

Retrieved from http://www.svanen.se/en/About-us/The-swan-and-the-EU-Ecolabel/ [14 May 2015]

Svanen. (2015b). Nordic Ecolabel criteria. Retrieved from http://www.svanen.se/en/

Criteria/Nordic-Ecolabel-criteria/ [14 May 2015] Svanen. (2015c). Nordic Ecolabelled services. Retrieved from http://www.svanen.se/

en/Find-products/Nordic-Ecolabelled-services/ [14 May 2015] Svensk Miljöbas. (2015a). Hem: Välkommen till Svensk Miljöbas!. Retrieved from

http://svenskmiljobas.se/index.html [23 February 2015]

  44  

Svensk Miljöbas. (2015b). Kravstandarden Svensk Miljöbas. Retrieved from

http://svenskmiljobas.se/krav.html [23 February 2015] Svensk Miljöbas. (2015c). Miljödiplomering: Vill ni miljödiplomera er verksamhet?.

Retrieved from http://svenskmiljobas.se/miljodiplomering.html [23 February 2015]

  45  

Appendix A: Questionnaire (English) Survey on environmental management This survey focuses on how companies use environmental management systems and different certification standards. All questions are in Swedish but if possible write comments in English to assist in later analysis. The acronym EMS is used for environmental management system throughout the survey. Thanks for your participation!

1. What is you company name?

__________________________________________________________________ Please note: Your answers will remain anonymous. This will only be used to see which companies have completed the questionnaire.

2. Have you implemented an environmental management system (EMS) at your

company?

¢ Yes ¢ No

If no, why not?

Comments:

  46  

3. What certifications do you have?

Check all that apply: ☐ ISO 14001 ☐ ISO 9001 ☐ EMAS ☐ Environmental Diploma (Miljödiplom ☐ OHSAS 18001 ☐ Have an environmental management system but not certified ☐ Other, please specify:

_______________________________________________________________

Comments:

4. Why did you choose that particular certification standard above other

standards available?

Check all that apply: ☐ Lower cost ☐ Less time to implement ☐ Less requirements for certification ☐ More international recognition ☐ Demands from suppliers or contractors ☐ More knowledge about that standard

Please motivate your answer and/or provide additional reasons. Additional remarks:

  47  

5. How long did it take to implement the EMS until certification?

¢ Less than 3 months ¢ 3 to 6 months ¢ 6 months to 1 year ¢ 1-2 years ¢ More than 2 years

6. How long have you had the EMS?

¢ Less than 3 months ¢ 3 to 6 months ¢ 6 months to 1 year ¢ 1-2 years ¢ 2-4 years ¢ More than 4 years

7. What was the initial investment cost of implementing the EMS?

Includes cost of consults, auditing, and registration.

¢ Less than 50 000 SEK ¢ 50 000 to 100 000 SEK ¢ 100 000 SEK to 250 000 SEK ¢ 250 000 SEK to 500 000 SEK ¢ 500 000 SEK to 1 million SEK ¢ More than 1 million SEK

8. Have you received any financial return on the initial investment of the EMS?

¢ Yes ¢ No ¢ Not sure/Haven’t noticed If yes, motivate your answer (e.g. lower cost for waste handling). Comments:

  48  

9. Did you face any problems during implementation?

¢ Yes ¢ No

If yes, what were they and how did you solve these problems?

Comments:

10. What information do you make available to the public?

Check all that apply: ☐ Environmental policy ☐ Objectives ☐ Targets ☐ Details of performance Comments:

11. How often do you perform both internal and external audits?

¢ 4 times per year or more ¢ 2-3 times per year ¢ 1 time per year ¢ 1 time per 2 years ¢ 1 time per 3 years ¢ 1 time per 4 years or less

  49  

12. How motivated and involved with the EMS do you think employees are?

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Much Very much ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Comments:

13. Which are your most significant environmental impacts?

Check all that apply: ☐ Energy: electricity ☐ Energy: lighting ☐ Transport ☐ Chemicals ☐ Refrigerants ☐ Water ☐ Waste ☐ Consumables/purchasing ☐ Suppliers ☐ Risk of accidents ☐ Other, what:

__________________________________________________________________

  50  

14. How much do you think your environmental impacts have been reduced since implementing the EMS?

Environmental

aspect Not at

all Some Moderate Much Very

much N/A

Energy: electricity

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Energy: lighting

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Transport

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Chemicals

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Refrigerants

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Water

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Waste

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Consumables/ purchasing

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Suppliers

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Risk of accidents

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

”Other” from question 13

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

15. How many targets do you have?

¢ Less than 3 ¢ 3 ¢ 4 ¢ 5 ¢ 6 ¢ 7-8 ¢ 9-10 ¢ More than 10

  51  

16. What do you think are the benefits of the EMS?

Comments:

17. What do you think are the drawbacks of the EMS?

Comments:

  52  

Appendix B: Questionnaire (Swedish) Enkät om miljöledning Den här enkäten är inriktad på hur miljöledningssystem och certifieringsstandarderna använts hos företagen. Alla frågor är på svenska, men om möjligt skriv kommentarer på engelska för att förenkla senare analys. Förkortningen MLS används för miljöledningssystem i hela enkäten. Tack för er medverkan! 1. Vad är företagets namn?

__________________________________________________________________ Observera: Dina svar kommer att förbli anonyma. Detta kommer endast att användas för att se vilka företag som har besvarat frågeformuläret.

2. Har ni implementerat ett miljöledningssystem (MLS) på ert företag?

¢ Ja ¢ Nej Om nej, varför inte?

Kommentar (på engelska):

  53  

3. Vilka certifieringar har ni?

Flera alternativ möjliga: ☐ ISO 14001 ☐ ISO 9001 ☐ EMAS ☐ Miljödiplom ☐ OHSAS 18001 ☐ Har ett miljöledningssystem men inte certifierat ☐ Annat, vad:

_______________________________________________________________

Kommentar (på engelska):

4. Varför valde ni just den certifieringsstandard över andra standarder som

finns?

Flera alternativ möjliga: ☐ Lägre kostnad ☐ Mindre tid att genomföra ☐ Mindre krav på certifiering ☐ Mer internationellt erkännande ☐ Krav från leverantörer eller entreprenörer (Offentlig upphandling ☐ Mer kunskap om den standarden

Motivera ert svar och/eller ge ytterligare skäl. Ytterligare kommentarer (på engelska):

  54  

5. Hur lång tid tog det att implementera MLS tills certifieringen?

¢ Mindre än 3 månader ¢ 3-6 månader ¢ 6 månader till 1 år ¢ 1-2 år ¢ Mer än 2 år

6. Hur länge har ni haft MLS?

¢ Mindre än 3 månader ¢ 3-6 månader ¢ 6 månader till 1 år ¢ 1-2 år ¢ 2-4 år ¢ Mer än 4 år

7. Vad var den initiala investeringskostnaden för att implementera MLS?

Inkluderar kostnader för konsulterande, revision, och registrering. ¢ Mindre än 50 000 SEK ¢ 50 000 till 100 000 SEK ¢ 100 000 SEK till 250 000 SEK ¢ 250 000 SEK till 500 000 SEK ¢ 500 000 SEK till 1 miljon SEK ¢ Mer än 1 miljon SEK

8. Har ni fått någon ekonomisk avkastning på den ursprungliga investeringen av MLS?

¢ Ja ¢ Nej ¢ Jag vet inte/ har inte observerats Om ja, motivera ert svar (t.ex. lägre kostnader för avfallshantering). Kommentar (på engelska):

  55  

9. Mötte ni några problem under implementerandet? ¢ Ja ¢ Nej Om ja, vad var de och hur löste ni dessa problem?

Kommentar (på engelska):

10. Vilken information har ni tillgänglig för allmänheten?

Flera alternativ möjliga: ☐ Miljöpolicy ☐ Övergripande mål ☐ Delmål ☐ Detaljer av prestanda Kommentar (på engelska):

11. Hur ofta brukar ni utföra både interna och externa revisioner?

¢ 4 gånger per år eller mer ¢ 2-3 gånger per år ¢ 1 gång per år ¢ 1 gång per 2 år ¢ 1 gång per 3 år ¢ 1 gång per 4 år eller mindre

  56  

12. Hur motiverade och engagerade med MLS tror ni de anställda är?

Inte alls Något Måttligt Mycket Väldigt mycket

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Kommentar (på engelska):

13. Vilka är era mest betydande miljöaspekter?

Flera alternativ möjliga: ☐ Energi: elektricitet ☐ Energi: belysning ☐ Transport ☐ Kemikalier ☐ Köldmedium ☐ Vatten ☐ Avfall ☐ Förbruknings varor/inköp ☐ Leverantörer ☐ Olycksrisk ☐ Annat, vad:

_______________________________________________________________

  57  

14. Hur mycket tror ni att era miljöaspekter har minskat sedan genomföra MLS?

Miljöaspekter Inte alls Något Måttligt Mycket Väldigt mycket

N/A

Energi: elektricitet

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Energi: belysning

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Transport

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Kemikalier

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Köldmedium

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Vatten

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Avfall

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Förbruknings varor/inköp

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Leverantörer

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Olycksrisk

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

”Annat” från fråga 13

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

15. Hur många delmål har ni?

¢ Mindre än 3 ¢ 3 ¢ 4 ¢ 5 ¢ 6 ¢ 7-8 ¢ 9-10 ¢ Mer än 10

  58  

17. Vad tycker ni är fördelarna med MLS?

Kommentar (på engelska):

18. Vad tycker ni är nackdelarna med MLS?

Kommentar (på engelska):