13th international conference of the greening of industry july 2-5, 2006 cardiff - wales an...

13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES

An Attitudinal-Discursive Approach to Sustainability:

The Case of Argentina’s Polluting Firms

Vazquez, D.A. – Royal Holloway, University of LondonListon-Heyes, C. – Royal Holloway, University of London

An important stream of literature investigate human factors in the

determination of corporate

environmental performance.

Empirical Evidence mixed, Values difficult to assess

Discourse analysis could be used to unveil the paradigms

that help explain why an individual or group of

individuals (e.g. a firm) behave in the way they do

INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY

Gaining a greater understanding of managers’ values, attitudes and intentions will help explain corporate behaviour

Theoretical approaches, no empirical link to corporate behaviour

Are managers´ values, beliefs and attitudes at the heart of genuine improvements in a firm’s environmental performance (i.e. its action)?

To develop a behavioural model of corporate environmental performance that focuses on the interactions between managers’ values and environmental behavioural intentions taking into account the context in which these intentions are formed


AIM


The Value-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action (VAICA) Model is an attempt at synthesising developments in the field of behavioural research, environmental economics and discourse analysis

It reflects discourse theories by recognising that actions are guided by paradigms which reflect each individual’s system of values and beliefs

It uses behavioural theories by assuming that an individual’s values will first need to be converted into attitudes and behavioural intentions before they materialise into a specific behaviour and that this process will be affected by the individual’s governance principles and locus of control

VAICA MODEL (Values-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action)

INTRODUCTION RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY

VAICA MODEL (Values-Attitudes-Intention-Context-Action)

Core Values, Beliefs andAttitudes

Principles of Governance

Behavioural Intentions

EnvironmentalDiscourse

EnvironmentalActions

Locus of Control

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

INTERPHASECORE VALUES INTENDED ACTION/BEHAVIOUR ACTION/BEHAVIOUR

This paper examines the translation of core environmental values, beliefs and attitudes into behavioural intentions, i.e. Phases 1-3.

Context Factors:•Obstacles•Drivers•Demographics•Market Forces

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION RESULTS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY

HYPOTHESIS :

H1: Basic assumptions, values, and beliefs (i.e. the core environmental mindset) can explain variations in intended environmental behaviour (EMI)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

H2: Policy variables will impact upon the core environmental mindset by amplifying or dampening intentions to behave in an environmentally friendly manner.

H3: Internal and external pressures to behave for or against the environment will amplify or dampen the effects of core environmental values and impact upon managers’ intended environmental behaviour.

SECTOR: Polluting Firms in Buenos Aires Province

Sample Frame: 4000 prioritary polluters

Sample:536 firms

Collection of Data: 1. Government/IDB Support 2. Pre-testing: Focus Groups3. Pilot Surveys4. Face-to-face delivery by municipalities’ surveyors5. Training & financial incentives to surveyors

Response Rate: 76 % (March to September, 2005)Random checks to companies were made to verify the responses submitted by the surveyors


THE SURVEY :


Questionnaire 1: Firm’s environmental practicesManager in charge of environmental affairs

300 questions, 60 minutes to complete

Questionnaire 2: Managers’ environmental valuesSenior manager empowered to take strategic

decisions on environmental issues atcompany level

98 questions, 20 minutes to complete

TWO QUESTIONNAIRES

THE SURVEY :


Core Values, Beliefs andAttitudes

Principles of Governance

Behavioural Intentions

EMI

EnvironmentalDiscourse

EnvironmentalActions

Locus of Control

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

INTERPHASECORE VALUES INTENDED ACTION/BEHAVIOUR ACTION/BEHAVIOUR

This paper examines the translation of core environmental values, beliefs and attitudes into behavioural intentions, i.e. Phases 1-3.

Context Factors:

•Obstacles

•Drivers

•Demographics

•Market Forces

OWN, EXP, SIZE, SUPCH

3

1iNATHUM

4

1iETHICS

3

1iAGENCY

6

1iLOC

21

1iGVP

6

1iOBS

4

1iPRS

6

1iDEM

7

1iIND

THE ESTIMATED VAICA MODEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR

INTENDED BEHAVIOUR (EMI)


CORE VALUESPOLICY VARIABLES CONTEXT VARIABLES

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

18

15

14

12111098

7

10 iiiiii ETHICSbNATHUMbSUPCHbSIZEbEXPbOWNbINDbbEMI

70

63

62

58

57

52

51

29

28

22

21

19iiiiiiiiiiii DEMbPRSbOBSbGVPbLOCbAGENCYb

REGRESSION EQUATION:


A hierarchical regression model was built in five distinct stages

MODEL 1: Control variables

MODEL 2: Stage 1 +environmental values (H1)

MODEL 3: Stage 2 + policy variables (H2)

MODEL 4: Stage 3 + pressures and obstacles (H3)

MODEL 5: Stage 4 + demographic variables

70

63

62

58

57

52

51

29

28

22

21

19iiiiiiiiiiii DEMbPRSbOBSbGVPbLOCbAGENCYb

21

19

18

15

14

12111098

7

10 iiiiiiii AGENCYbETHICSbNATHUMbSUPCHbSIZEbEXPbOWNbINDbbEMI

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

REGRESSION


MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4 MODEL 5

Firm Characteristics + Core Values + Policy Level + Obstacles and Drivers + Social/individual.

Demographics

R 0.557 0.639 0.718 0.74 0.75

Adjusted R2 0.295 0.383 0.465 0.489 0.498

Change in R 0,311** 0,409** 0,516** 0,553** 0,56**

F 20,16** 15,87** 10,16** 9,28** 8,67**

SUMMARY STATISTISTICS REGRESSION MODELS 1-5


Location: Firms located in areas where household have a higher number of dependents (children, pensioners) will tend to invest more heavily in environmental management systems (Higher EMI).

Ownership and Size: High EMI firms will tend to be larger with headquarters overseas.

Supply Chain: Firms that are located towards the start of the supply chain are associated with higher environmental investments levels

Firms with high EMI index will also tend to be proactive on health and

safety issues and will routinely participate in CSR projects

Firms with higher levels of stakeholder integration will also have more developed environmental management systems

RESULTS: Firms’ characteristics


•Ethics: Firms with managers who care about the environment (on ethical, profits, or legal grounds) tend to have more developed environmental management systems than firms populated by managers who treat the environment either as a replenishable resource or as a minor priority dominated by either social concerns (e.g. poverty).

•Obstacles: The representative managers at these firms also typically agree that the Argentinean market environment does not provide the incentives to be more proactive and hampers firms’ attempts at doing so.

•Governance: At the same time, they do not endorse the notion that we are experiencing the symptoms of an environmental crisis requiring systematic changes in the way we conduct our business activities.

•Locus of Control: Firms which managers feel empowered to act (authority, resources, ability to improve) will have higher EMS

RESULTS: Managers

The explanatory power of our analysis in documenting variations in the scale and scope of environmental management across firms (fluctuating around 50%) is promising.

Environmental performance is preceded by environmental intentions reflecting corporate environmental values that have been amplified/dampened by context factors

Core environmental values and policy level variables are key determinants of environmental behavioural intentions

Policy level variables, notably managers’ locus of control (i.e. the extent to which they feel empowered to act in matters of the environment) and the principles of governance they adhere to (i.e. how should Nature be managed) will amplify or dampen pro-environment core value thereby affecting the translation of values into intentions to behave

Stakeholder pressures, particularly those applied by suppliers and buyers in the firm’s vertical chain will substantially influence a firm’s EMI lending support to the ‘cascade effect’ associated with environmental standards


CONCLUSIONS

Policy variables can be manipulated and any insight on how they impact upon environmental behaviour is potentially useful

Education programmes that explicitly target the inter-phase values-intentions may become efficient regulatory tool

Raising managers’ awareness on environmental aspects is necessary but not sufficient to improve performance. Managers should feel they are empowered to act and can make a difference with their actions

Supply chain related pressures will be particularly important in a developing country like Argentina who is primarily concerned with securing access to markets in

Europe and the US..


IMPLICATIONS

13th International Conference of The Greening of Industry July 2-5, 2006 CARDIFF - WALES

An Attitudinal-Discursive Approach to Sustainability:

The Case of Argentina’s Polluting Firms THANKS!

Vazquez, D.A. – Royal Holloway, University of LondonListon-Heyes, C. – Royal Holloway, University of London


Streamlined Regression ModelCoefficients t Sig. Collinearity Dependent Variable: EMS

Variable information B Error Beta Tol. FIV

Constant -.091 .217 -.421 .674

National or International owner? OWN -.558 .129 -.184 -4.329 .000 .748 1.337

Size of the firm SIZE .205 .066 .137 3.106 .002 .689 1.452

Supply chain requirement SUPCH .627 .086 .288 7.325 .000 .870 1.149

Utilitarian Ethics ETHi=F4_UTIL .084 .038 .083 2.227 .027 .965 1.036

Non-utilitarian Ethics ETHi=F1_ETH .275 .044 .278 6.199 .000 .669 1.495

‘My firm has no resources to improve the environment’

LOCi =V223D

-.138 .029 -.188 -4.684 .000 .840 1.190

‘No environmental crisis only isolated problems’

GVPi =V224I

.097 .030 .125 3.298 .001 .935 1.070

‘Trade-off between economic and environmental performance’

GVPi =V227D

.105 .036 .125 2.956 .003 .756 1.323

Env. Performance: Pressures Internal requirements

PRSi=PRS_INT

.184 .041 .172 4.463 .000 .912 1.097

Model Summary R = 0.710; R 2 = 0.504; Adjusted R 2 = 0.492; S.E.E = 0.728

Table 1: Environmental Management Index (EMI) – Component Indicators

Var. Indicators Variable values Mean (S.D)

Final Weights

PE Green label 0: no green labels 1: green labels

0.18 (0.38)

0.00

PA* Environmental Plan 0: no environmental plan 1: environmental plan

0.47 (0.49)

0.32

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

0: no approved EIA; 1: in process 2: approved EIA

0.56 (0.42)

0.00

ISO* Environmental Management System

0: no EMS 1: EMS

0.17 (0.38)

0.28

CAP* Environmental training

0: no environmental training 1: environmental training

0.31 (0.46)

0.31

AUD* Environmental Audits

Variable ranging from 0-1 where 0: no assessment; 1: monthly assessments

0.30 (0.14)

0.28

SIN Environmental synergies

Variable ranging from 0-1 where 0: no synergies; 1:synergies in processes, inputs and outputs

0.13 (0.21)

0.00

DIV Environmental disclosure

0: no disclosure; 0.25: if < once a year; 0.5: if once a year; 0.75: if twice a year; 1: if > once a month

0.05 (0.21)

0.00

NGO Collaboration with env. NGOs

0: no collaboration 1: collaboration

0.05 (0.21)

0.00

INV Investment in env. R&D

0: no investment 1: investment

0.11 (0.25)

0.00

POL* Environmental Policy 0: not implemented 1: implemented

0.44 (0.49)

0.26

*PA, ISO, CAP, AUD, POL are retained in the final computations of the EMI.

Table 2: Environmental Core Values Var.Group Var.Name Construct Mean S. D

FAC1_H Anthropocentric: Nature is robust and under human dominance 0 1

FAC2_B Sustain-centric: Nature is a fine balance and definite limits 0 1 NATHUM

FAC3_N Nature-centric: Nature is fragile and technology is destructive 0 1

F1_ETH "Non utilitarian ethics" 0 1

F2_NORM "Normative ethics" 0 1

F3_IND "Personal commitment- free will ": 0 1 ETHICS

F4_UTIL "Utilitarian ethics" 0 1

FAG_SOC Social partnership 0 1

FAG_GOV State empowered 0 1 AGENCY

FAG_FIRM Firms empowered 0 1

V221i Advances in technology will eventually solve problems related to environmental degradation

2,50 1,21 ROLE OF TECHNO. V225i The most efficient way to prevent pollution is to develop awareness in

society and responsible behaviours. 4,40 0,95

Table 3: Policy Variables-Locus of Control

Variable Description Mean S.D.

V223A I do not have enough knowledge to influence my firm’s environmental decisions 2.7038 1.27406 V223B I do not have enough authority to influence my firm’s environmental decisions. 2.1925 1.25507 V223C Improvements in my firm’s environmental performance will not impact upon the

environment. 3.0895 1.39933

V223D My firm has no resources to improve the environment. 2.7877 1.36433 V223E My firm cannot improve environmental performance and remain competitive. 2.5179 1.33900

Table 4: Policy Variables-Governance Principles

Variable Description Mean S.D V222I Our responsibility to future generations is to guarantee sustained growth. 2.6278 1.27011 V222J Our responsibility to future generations is to preserve the environment as it is. 4.4325 0.87340 V222K Our responsibility to future generations is to ensure that our activities´ do not damage the

environment. 4.4901 0.84122

V224A Adherence to the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’. 4.3512 00.98380 V224B Users of public natural resources should pay for them. 3.9643 1.13621 V224C Environmental damage should be scientifically proved before restricting an activity. 4.0476 1.10201 V224D Adherence to the ‘Precautionary Principle’: An activity cannot be performed if there are no

proofs that it doesn’t damage the environment. 4.0198 1.02047

V224E Inefficient users of natural resources are as accountable as polluters. 3.9365 1.15065

V224F The price of products using energy intensive process should be raised. 3.3976 1.29085 V224G Environmental Protection is not urgent. 2.3016 1.38018 V224H Environmental damage has been largely overestimated. 2.8845 1.30964

V224I There is no environmental crisis but isolated problems. 2.3698 1.27746 V221j Some level of environmental damage is unavoidable if we want to secure economic growth. 2.3433 1.20107 V224K Economic growth will allow future generations to solve environmental problems. 2.7361 1.34645 V224L We need to revise inequalities between developed and developing countries before we

tackle environmental problems. 2.2798 1.17085

V227G There are no explicit relationship between firm profits and the environment. 3.6052 1.18509 V227F Environmental protection is essential to the survival of our firm. 2.8869 1.27567

Q# Managerial Perceptions of External Obstacles

1 2 3 External Obstacles: Extracted Components Interpreted

141n Lack of government incentives (tax breaks and subsidies)

.818 .380 .407

141j Lack of an environmental culture in Argentinean society

.818 .385 .401

141o High rates of non compliance .818 .383 .406 141l Economic crisis makes environmental

concerns a low social priority .817 .384 .406

141p Lack of support from industry associations .814 .381 .414 114i Lack of government resources for

environmental training at the firm .744 .491 .237

Component 1:

‘Environmental Culture and Incentives to Perform’ (Dominant Promethean Society)

EXT_CULT

141m Excessive and overlapping governmental regulation

.352 .878 .225

141r Inefficiency and non-availability of national technologies

.354 .818 .347

141k Inappropriate and costly environmental standards for Argentina

.299 .810 .304

141q Excessive cost of imported technologies .468 .753 .279

Component 2: ‘Economic and regulatory restrictions’

(‘Dominant Foreign Environmental-Problem-Solving (EPS) Paradigm in Local Regulations)’

EXT_ECON

141e Lack of information about environmental standards

.442 .200 .825

141d Government bureaucracy .225 .461 .821 141g Lack of information about implementation

of clean technologies .572 .246 .749

141h Lack of access to environmental consultants

.575 .245 .746

141f Lack of information about end-of-pipe technologies

.318 .522 .745

Component 3:

‘Lack of Information and Support About Environmental Issues’

EXT_INFO

Q# Managerial Perceptions of Internal Obstacles 1 2 3 Internal Obstacles: Extracted Components Interpreted

142b Lack of internal information about implementation clean technologies

.797 .273 .210

142h Lack of awareness of the environmental impact of processes/emissions

.788 .262 .183

142c Lack of training at management level .760 .225 .277 142d Lack of training of employees .745 .188 .220 142a Lack of internal knowledge about

environmental technologies .735 .314 .207

142e Lack of prioritisation of the environment by firm’s executives

.718 .169 .311

142j Inability to identify and punish non-compliance .708 .402 .135 142i Lack of environmental impact measurements .646 .507 .101

Component 1: ‘Lack of Awareness and Trained Human

Resources’

INT_AW

142l Pressures to meet environmental standards within shorter time scales

.302 .772 .127

142k High costs and long time scale associated with cleaner performances

.246 .758 .297

142m Lack of resources for end-of-pipe technologies .374 .579 .366

Component 2: ‘Perception of the Environment as an

Additional Cost and/or Burden’

INT_BURD 142n Other priorities dominate the firm’s agenda and

budgets .143 .171 .795

142g Lack of economic resources .225 .401 .691

142f Lack of time .445 .085 .598

Component 3: ‘Low Priority Assigned to Environmental

Issues’ INT_LOWP

Q# Drivers of Environmental Performance 1 2 3 4 Components Interpreted

214p To gain a competitive advantage over rival firms .860 .112 .211 .100

214n To gain product differentiation .817 .054 .213 .217 214q To avoid being left behind by rival firms .812 .204 .264 .022 214o To improve corporate reputation .808 .212 .105 .211 214m To improve product quality .661 .030 .133 .519 214l To improve efficiency/productivity .643 .086 .044 .529 214r To avoid bad publicity from the media .585 .435 .124 .204

Component 1: ‘Opportunities to improve

competitiveness’ or

‘Pollution prevention pays’

PRS_OP

214c To avoid judicial closures .096 .884 .143 .160 214d To reduce legal liabilities on managers .088 .837 .171 .206 214a To avoid non-compliance fines .134 .787 .024 .110

214e To avoid complaints and boycotts from the community

.067 .665 .157 .375

214b To avoid potentially more stringent regulations

.223 .585 .135 .279

Component 2: ‘Threats from formal and informal

regulations’

PRS_REG

214g To satisfy the requirements of foreign customers (e.g. bids)

.152 .164 .861 .008

214f To satisfy the requirements of national customers (e.g. bids)

.144 .234 .826 .023

214i To gain access to new markets .413 .103 .605 .400

214h To satisfy customer preferences (e.g. green consumers)

.295 .034 .592 .404

Component 3: ‘Supply chain requirements’

PRS_SCH

214k To avoid health and safety –related risks .334 .261 .003 .726

214j To comply with the company’s internal policy

.210 .244 .194 .660

Component 4: ‘Internal organisational stakeholders

requirements ’ PRS_INT

13th international conference of the greening of industry july 2-5, 2006 cardiff - wales an...

Documents