jclp1601(published)

This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copyis furnished to the author for non-commercial research and

education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution,sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

The diffusion of environmental management in Greece throughrationalist approaches: driver or product of globalisation?

M.G. Kassolis*

Department of Civil Works Technology, Faculty of Technological Applications, Technological Educational Institution (T.E.I.) of Athens,Ag. Spiridonos 28, 12210 Athens, Greece

Received 9 September 2006; received in revised form 12 February 2007; accepted 17 February 2007

Available online 18 April 2007

Abstract

Globalisation trends in economy and governance have resulted in a change in policy instruments towards harmonised initiatives, which areconsidered to a great extent pivotal for countries to engage with. ISO14001 is seen as constitutive of these wider concepts and is the focus here inexplaining their diffusion in national contexts.

This article questions the extent to where the adoption of ISO14001 in Greece is motivated by environmental sustainability or processes ofeconomic globalisation. It indicates that in order to facilitate progress towards sustainability through environmental management, proper insti-tutional arrangements and a legal framework must be established and executed by the government and society at large.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ISO14001; Economic globalisation; Ecological modernisation; Sustainable development

1. Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that processes that minimise re-source use, reduce waste and prevent pollution are to providebenefits to both the environment and the market as trends ofglobalisation indicate. Introduction of such processes hasbeen translated into the environmental sphere through princi-pal theories of ecological modernisation and sustainable devel-opment discourses that portray environmental protection notas an impediment to capital accumulation but as a potentialsource of further accumulation. ISO14001 is a form of processthat rests on a belief that the solution of problems is throughthe compatibility and universality of available managementtechniques and the homogenisation of regulatory style.

EU’s legislative regime for the environment is becoming allthe more demanding for some member states to comply withthe objectives of sustainable development and adapt their

own policies to new integrated policies promoting environ-mental protection. In EU in 2001, ISO14001 was incorporatedas part of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)regulation and is illustrated as an evidence of a commitmentto sustainable development.

This article is based on a Ph.D. research of the environ-mental policy arena in Greece where compliance is voluntaryand incentive-based rather than mandatory. It has employedan intensive, qualitative approach, in order to have a rangeof actors reflect on their views and recent experiences withISO14001. Previous research work in the field of environ-mental management has generally consisted of extensive sur-vey-based investigations. As such, it is still a relatively newarena for research and there are still implications at differentspatial levels.

A key issue in understanding the ‘‘diffusion’’ of such a no-tionally global policy instrument, concerns the social aspectsof environmental management. This diffusion begs questionsabout its relationship to globalisation in the environmentalsphere, given the criticism developed in environmental protec-tion, public policy and trade.

* Samarinas 3, 10443 Athens, Greece. Tel./fax: þ30 210 5129549.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.006

Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1886e1893www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro


Linked to the broad framework of drivers and pressures thecentral concern of this article is to address whether the newsystem of harmonised regulation, driven by economic global-isation and sustainability discourses, inherently benefits envi-ronmental policy through differentiated national contexts.

There are reasons to say that when controversial global en-vironmental management practices have reached a country’spolicy agenda, actions seem to create implications. This isespecially true where deregulation is favoured to facilitate eco-nomic globalisation.

2. Economic globalisation and convergence ofenvironmental regulation

A number of scholars [4,19,30,36,39] content that global-isation in economic processes of production and consumption,and the undermining of the state’s autonomy, have led to moremultilayered and privatised governance, which seems to in-creasingly extend beyond national boundaries.

The emergence of an international political regulatoryagenda begun to develop since 1980s, that leads to the rela-tively rapid diffusion of policy problems and supposed solu-tions. Much of current international environmental regulationis being created through private international agreementsthat set process standards and define environmental manage-ment practices throughout the world [16]. A key feature inall of the above trends therefore is a transformation of patternsof governance, specifically a decline in hierarchical forms ofintervention and a rise of other forms of governance, such asself-regulation. Whatever assessment one holds of the trend,contemporary governance has clearly broadened beyond offi-cial agencies and instruments.

The internationalisation of processes of regulation, appar-ently lead to homogenised procedures in policy and manage-ment tools [17,36].

Tendencies of economic homogenisation and standardisa-tion, Mol [20] maintains, are explained by looking at two di-mensions of the relationship between globalisation processesand the environment. First, the way in which the changing in-stitutions of modernity (by processes of globalisation) affectenvironmental deterioration and limit adequate environmentalmanagement. Second, the synchronisation of globalisation andits institutional transformations, on the one hand, with pro-cesses of ecological modernisation and environmental reformon the other.

These tendencies are seen as the driving force behind theharmonisation of national environmental regimes, pushingalso for global environmental regimes and to form progressiveimplementing agencies of environmental management and au-dit schemes. A prominent example is the voluntary environ-mental management guidelines forged by the Geneva-basedInternational Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), a world-wide federation of national standards-setting bodies [7,17].The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is a non-governmental organisation that has published over 10,000standards covering pretty well all areas of technology. In par-ticular, ISO14001 can be viewed within this picture as they

emphasise the new demand on regulatory style. The develop-ment and universal application of such instruments is seen tohave profound implications for the nature of governance, asit requires balancing the advantages of national diversitywith the need for uniform rules.

Tendencies of environmental convergence therefore existand are pushed by international standards, regulations, codesof conducts and civil pressure [20]. The uniformity in this par-ticular area of policy tools has been favoured in Europe be-cause lack of harmonisation between standards impliesincreased transaction costs of firms, thereby impeding interna-tional trade [2,26].

As Welford [40] puts it, governments in line with themove towards the globalised free market economy havecreated an international environment of deregulation, becausefree markets unrestrained by governments are supposed to re-sult in higher economic growth. In general, countries that im-pose tough standards on their producers want to ensure thatneighbouring countries do the same. During the last fewdecades, the need for higher environmental standards [12]is seen to have prospered in developed countries at bothEuropean and international levels. In EU it is argued thatthe general rationale for creating common EU policies andharmonising standards is to level the economic playingfield [36].

However, the resulting legal structure, of the governancefor the environment is becoming exceedingly complex. Oneof the complexities, for ISO series standing in internationallaw and practice is that ISO14001 may easily become a newform of protectionism and not only a market requirementbut also a market creation [19,26]. Important questions areraised therefore about the increasing interdependence of envi-ronmental standards and their contribution to environmentalpolicy.

2.1. The ecological modernisation frame

The theoretical basis of the pattern above draws from the-ories on ecological transformation of consumption and globalprocesses (i.e. ecological modernisation), which stress that en-vironmental protection, and long-term economic developmentshould be seen as mutually compatible.

Scholars [9,13,20,21,23,33,38] identify ecological modern-isation as an enormously influential theory: particularly as asociological theory of development (a theory of social change)but also a theory used to justify a certain range of policies.Ecological modernisation has been put forward in referenceto ecological criteria, procedures and norms that are gainingeconomical, socio-cultural and political rationalities.

But how and to what extent does ISO14001 fit into thewider context of ecological modernisation and EU?

Firstly, ecological modernisation advocates economic re-forms, which would reconcile demands for economic devel-opment with needs for environmental protection. This is theobject of sustainable development that seeks to transformthe perception of the policy problem, so that a clean envi-ronment and economic feasibility are no longer seen as

1887M.G. Kassolis / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1886e1893


being in conflict in the way that policy development in the1970s conceptualised them [3,38]. It is within this contextof international co-operation and mutual participation thatsustainable development and various tools of regulationevolved.

Secondly, ecological modernisation stresses the need forpolitical reforms that would shift environmental policy-makingaway from the design of bureaucratic control mechanisms andtowards the development of more participative processes thatfocus on the anticipation and prevention of environmentalproblems rather than reaction and clean-up.

Thirdly, ecological modernisation identifies a potential forre-orienting technological innovation towards solving environ-mental problems, rather than creating them.

According to Janicke and Jacob [13] environment-friendlytechnologies have to a certain degree become a dimension ofthe process of technological innovation and share some char-acteristics. Primarily, the environmental issue has to a certaindegree become important in the competition for innovationbetween the highly developed countries. There is a movefrom the resource e and pollution e intensive economicsectors towards the more information e and knowledge eintensive ones.

It is also argued [13] that the innovation and diffusion ofenvironmental technologies and their support through nationalenvironmental policies bear the potential of a far-reachingecological modernisation. Environment-related innovationand diffusion processes are to a large degree politically deter-mined and therefore markets for environmental innovationsare usually government-regulated or government-supportedmarkets.

As such is the use of clean techniques (i.e. environmentalmanagement systems) which derive their meaning from theproduction sphere and are advocated by a number of commen-tators in the environmental management literature [5,8,9,12,14,15,19,22,31,35,40].

They argue that an environmental management system(EMS) is broadly defined as a transparent, systematic processthat is considered to integrate environmental considerationsinto the design and/or application of a product or process inorder to anticipate and avoid or reduce its impact on the envi-ronment, whilst enhancing its competitive advantage, imageand participation in global markets.

Much of this literature claims that the promotion of EMSscan have advantages. It focuses on moves towards consider-ation of market opportunities, cost reductions, increasedcompetitiveness, relief from regulatory obligations, efficiencysavings, employee motivation, supply-chain performance,trusting relationships with all stakeholders, reputation forhaving a good environmental record and, last but not least, en-vironmental performance through a standardised approach. Inparticular ISO14001 is claimed to contribute to concepts likesustainable development, and may influence corporate envi-ronmental setting and ecological transparency and other polit-ical and cultural factors (i.e. internal organisation, shareholderglobal demands and publication of environmental impacts(although not required)).

In EU in 2001, The Committee of European Standards(CEN) decided that the European Commission should adopta proposal for the revision of the Eco-Management and AuditScheme (EMAS),1 allowing organisations to use ISO14001 asa building block for EMAS accreditation.

The incorporation of ISO14001 in the EMAS regulation isestablishing it as part of the EU policy framework. Thismeans, in effect, that companies or organisations alreadyfulfilling ISO standards would need only to address certainsupplementary elements to become accredited to EMAS,thus complying with EU requirements. The European coun-tries are seen to favour ISO standards that can be used withinthe EMAS regulation.

In relation to the business ‘‘environmental concerns’’ it iscrucial to highlight the extent to which companies indifferent sectors of industry and commerce have adopted en-vironmental management principles. There are analogousimplications regarding failure of transformation and hollowadoption for the role of sustainable development in nationalframeworks. So far the literature has shown that firstly, thepath of sustainable development is far from the actions ofschemes run by market initiatives. Environmental manage-ment is claimed to vary and have systemic implications inthe operation of the broad domain of environmental policy.Thus, global trends toward-common managerial practicesare contested given that such initiatives are considered tobe used to weaken the economic impact of new environmen-tal legislation on sectors or countries that would otherwise beaffected.

Part of the problem relates to the established pattern ofprocedures regarding universal principles of sustainable devel-opment. This concept is criticised as being merely an environ-mental programme designed by a relatively small group ofpolicy makers, where the prevailing assumption tends to bethat limited weight is given to the impact of institutional re-forms on the environment.

2.2. Changing business response

Ecological concerns are seen now as a strategic dimensionof business operation, with firms interacting extensively totackle the problems caused by environmental degradation.

But, how far do economic globalisation and intensifiedcompetition increase the diffusion of common environmentalpractices?

Some European businesses realise that their economic suc-cess is dependent on how EU regulation enables them to exer-cise leadership and first-mover advantages in the globalmarket. The idea of competition being improved by environ-mental legislation has usually been associated with the ‘PorterHypothesis’ which suggests that strict environmental regula-tions can induce efficiency and encourage innovations thathelp improve competitiveness [24,25].

1 EMAS was established in 1993 aiming at promoting continuous improve-

ments in the environmental performance of industrial activities.

1888 M.G. Kassolis / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1886e1893


Porter and Van der Linde [24,25] claimed that lasting suc-cess can come from policies that promise to involve innova-tion-based solutions that promote both environmentalism andindustrial competitiveness. Approaches like self-regulationare considered to have a central role to play in integrating en-vironmental concerns into economic decision-making, be-cause they establish a price for all emissions and can help tointernalise the external costs of resource consumption or pol-lution. It is further emphasised that properly designed environ-mental regulation could act as a trigger to innovation that willin turn make companies more competitive.

Prior to these scholars, Ashford et al. [1] demonstrated thatstringent regulation could cause dramatic changes in technol-ogy, often by new firms or entrants displacing the dominanttechnologies. These changes go beyond traditional end-of-pipe pollution control, and result in more fundamental changesin the production process encompassing pollution prevention/cleaner production.

Ashford et al. [1] argued that while ‘Porter’s Hypothesis’talked about mostly modest or incremental innovation in re-ducing pollution, they in turn, suggested a strong form of thePorter Hypothesis that may bring about more significant,even radical, technological change, which is often accompa-nied by savings in energy, water and material resources, aswell as reducing pollution at source. The replacement ofdominant technologies by new entrants, rather than incre-mental change by existing technology providers, could stim-ulate significant innovation.

As such, ISO14001 relies on the idea that certification canprovide uniform assurances of environmental probity to buyersand consumers, thus facilitating trade while driving improve-ments through market incentives. This shift in attitude towardsenvironmental management is profound where firms are dis-playing their logos on organisational documents and market-ing campaigns; many of today’s organisations now displaytheir environmental performance through the adoption ofISO14001.

Economic growth, therefore, has tended to act as a powerfulconstraint on environmental initiatives and as a determinant ofpolicy style, in particular moves towards «deregulation». Thisturns the choice of environmental standards into a serious pol-icy issue. The environmental regulatory agenda, Vogel [37]considers, is a highly fluid one where market incentives canserve to promote the strengthening, dilution and diffusion ofregulatory standards, as have transnational trade blocs. Inmuch of southern Europe, for example, the EC is the most im-portant cause of any additional resources they have devoted toimproving environmental quality. The increasing popularity ofISO standards across the world is considered an evidence ofthis dynamic.

In brief, the following key issues are formulated from theabove wider concepts. First, social, political processes increas-ingly operate at supranational scale. Second, linked to en-vironmental problems and key discourses, the sustainabledevelopment and ecological modernisation together have theeffect of increasing business involvement and promotinghomogeneity.

3. Economic globalisation vs. environmentalpolicy in Greece

Historically, Greece is commonly viewed as a latecomer onthe environmental scene, in terms of granting serious attentionto environmental policy. Full membership of the EU (1981)was marked with more conscious efforts, in order to harmonisepolicies with other member states that took a more extensiveform of measures on environmental matters. At that time, en-vironmental degradation in southern Europe started to becomea rather pressing issue, mainly because of massive economicdevelopment [18,27,28,34].

By the early 1990s the emergence of sustainable develop-ment and the EU’s efforts to harmonise environmental policiesbetween member states were strengthened by a number of pro-grammes and Treaties.2 The development of various tools ispart of ecological modernisation and sustainable developmentframe. The country’s policies seem compatible with the objectof sustainable development, since it advocates economic re-forms, which reconcile demands for economic developmentwith needs for environmental protection.

Evidence suggests that Greece has already moved on withthe issue of indicators of sustainable development, which al-lows it to monitor progress on the policies and in general tomake forecasts about sustainable practices. Greece is buildinginstitutions for an ecological modernisation framework, be-cause it is at the stage where it is bound by EU legislation.EU pressurises for integration in every environmentally perti-nent sector with meeting groups and committees.

The pressure towards Greece from the EU is immense, withgreat political and economic cost in cases of non-compliance.There are a number of cases where Greece has not imple-mented EU environment directives and is gravely fined ona daily basis.

There is an increasing trend to building on current capacityfor environmental management, through the development ofresearch and information bodies and the employment of highlyqualified experts and scientists. Environmental issues now arediscussed not only at Ministry level (Ministry of Public Worksand Environment (YPEHODE) e along sectoral lines) butthrough committees at interministerial level, which basicallyis an indication of the efforts to reform. Through certain indi-cators, government may foresee its direction on an annualbasis. Already some environmental issues go through cross-sectorial practices. For example, there were long and inter-ministerial preparations for the Greek ‘‘after Rio’’ report atthe Johannesburg Summit (September 2002).

Evidence is also supported by pertinent policy literature.Official documents such as the national reports to the Councilfor Sustainable Development (CSD) and to parliament tend tohighlight the establishment of new schemes/directives (i.e. En-vironmental Impact Assessment, Eco-Management-and-Audit

2 Sustainable development redressed the balance between economic devel-

opment and environment and was strengthened in the ratification of the Single

European Act in 1987, the 5th Environmental Action Plan later in 1992, the

Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999.



Scheme, etc.) as indispensable evidence of the country’s com-mitment to sustainable development. Apart from the manda-tory regulations that were set out by government to complywith European and world scales, the Greek government hasemphasised the importance of the market place and itswillingness to introduce voluntary regulations. Greece has en-couraged the application of voluntary action in recent environ-mental policies [39].

Undoubtedly, the interaction between legislative changeand business practice is a growing feature in Greece, froma low historical base. ISO14001, as a non-regulatory approachand alternative environmental management strategy plays anessential role. Pertinent literature [8,11] shows that ISO14001illustrates compatibility with Greece’s objective for develop-ment plans and rapid economic growth. It is shown that envi-ronmental management standards are presented as tools tobetter reconcile corporate economic and ecological goals,but that willingness from member states to adopt ISO14001is partly to facilitate economic activities. Less-economicallydeveloped countries are increasingly trying to harmonise theirenvironmental standards because they are finding environ-mental threats a pressure to economic success and the environ-mental management systems’ logo a competitive issue.

Yet, it is widely acknowledged [6,10,18,28,34,39] that thepersistence of the Greek state’s priority to rapid economicgrowth is the major impediment to the country’s progress onenvironmental matters and has its origin in the post-war pe-riod, which was a period characterised by unregulated and un-restricted development.

It became apparent that the pressures to converge policiesamong member states were largely with an eye to removingtrade barriers. Environmental regulation started to proliferateand the issue of environmental policy implementation becamemore prominent, for failures were now seen as a potential bar-rier to free trade [3].

As a result, the Greek government’s response to all the stan-dard concepts current in EU and international circles pointedto adopt sustainable development although it had traditionallyviewed environmental protection of lesser importance.

These efforts in Greece are evident through the modifica-tion of a 1984 presidential decree on development (P.D. 84/84). The modification of this presidential decree, as an amend-ment, made particular reference to an article for the environ-mental management practices as part of the developmentimprovements in Athens. It is an Environment Plan to promotesustainable practices to industry, within prospective develop-ment plans in the greater Athens. According to this decreemodification, all companies operating in Athens, industrialzones must implement an environmental management schemeeither according to the EMAS regulation or to the ISO14001standard if they wish to remain within these industrial zones.The choice is based on the scale of environmental impact ofthe company.

Within Greece, ISO14001 adoption is seen as part of anenormous EU effort to motivate business to understand theirpotential economic benefits through a series of steps takenwith the 3rd Structural Funds Programme. EMAS regulation

and consequently ISO14001 have been easily integrated intothe national framework of environmental management poli-cies, as there is no need to transpose regulation.

The Environment Plan is part of the financial help of theEU 3rd Structural Funds Programme and through the GreekMinistry of Development. It is considered a very ambitiousframework law, involving practices that are now consideredessential elements of the Greek regulatory industrial frame-work, and a great effort towards environmental industrialplanning.

A great number of Greek businesses felt able to participatein the adoption of EMAS or ISO14001, although most of theenterprises expressed interest in ISO14001.

Certification of ISO14001 is seen as more convenient, sinceit can be provided not only through Hellenic Organisation forStandardisation (ELOT) but also by international independentauditing companies (commonly consultancies), which co-operate with corresponding establishments in Europe (i.e.Bureau Veritas Quality International (BVQI), Lloyds Register,Det Norske Veritas, Austrian TUV, Bagern TUV, etc.).

This has meant a crucial change for environmental manage-ment practices in Greece. Yet, environmental managementschemes are developed, as a creeping form of coercion, turn-ing ISO14001 into a prerequisite in the domestic market. Par-adoxically, however, it is shown that ISO14001 does not countmuch in terms of its environmental dimension in Greece, be-cause awareness, interest and knowledge in environmentalmanagement are low, as the next sections argues.

Indeed, this research argues that the EU has been by far themost significant factor behind Greek environmental policy inthe past decade and more, whilst pressures of growth and com-petitiveness have overshadowed the imperative for Greece toharmonise environmental standards. In the last 10 years, thecapacity of Greek governments has been almost exclusivelyjudged on the grounds of how quickly they absorb Communityfunds apparently for economic growth. Integration of environ-mental considerations into sectoral policies (i.e. industrial) isdesirable only to the extent that it does not slow these absorp-tion rates.

3.1. Ecological modernisation building in Greece

Crucial in the diffusion of tools like ISO14001 in Greece isto identify the impediments to sustainable development prac-tices. These are strategic, structural and procedural.

First of all, lack of conceptual perception and weakly organ-ised effort towards ‘‘sustainable development’’ are consideredimpediments in implementing environmental management.This partly reflects problem perception. While the notion of sus-tainable development has worked as an umbrella to host variousschemes and initiatives (i.e. ISO14001), it is still vague to themajority of the public and business. This is evident through a se-ries of issues.

As pertinent literature indicates there is no clear Greektranslation of sustainable development [6], but rather a diverseset of meanings, which have an impact at least at the concep-tual level.



Similarly, evidence demonstrates that sustainable develop-ment is not well known to the public and there are differentdomestic labels but also a host of views regarding its interpre-tation and the means of achieving it. Views range from beingvalue-oriented, emphasising citizen/consumer responsibilityand the role of environmental education, to more radicalones emphasising diversity, self-reliance, democracy and fair-ness. The average Greek citizen has never heard of ‘‘sustain-able development’’ (Viosimi, Aiforiki, Ypostiriksimi), letalone the concepts they embody, their goals, or the implica-tions of a sustainable development strategy. At a verbal level,sustainable development is like a slogan! At an action level, itis uncertain.

It is shown further that non-governmental organisations(NGO’s) and companies that campaign for the same purpose,i.e. promotion of a particular scheme, on many occasionshave no common language as tools like ISO14001 are not reallyknown to the public. There are quite a few bodies (mainly stem-ming from academia) that have participated actively in the pro-motion of urban environmental management and ISO14001.The protection of the urban environment and measures for min-imising environmental impacts (such as for example, a strategybased on sustainable development) are vague concepts to all ac-tors. Consequently, there is a general lack in specific content asto how sustainable development and environmental manage-ment practices are to be attained or who is responsible forachieving them. Thus they remain on the margin.

Second, besides the novelty of the concept, a lack of organ-ised effort to inform the public on such issues points to ex-tremely low levels of awareness. Far from the state initiativesand rhythms of achieving targets, it is claimed that there isa dearth in an organised, social interest for environmental mat-ters. Actions are fragmentary and on certain occasions doubtful.Although stricter procedures in particular stages of environ-mental management have been enacted, practices are generallylagging behind and vague. There has been limited developmenton this subject from socio-economic, productive and educa-tional dimensions, and little sign of a sustainable industrialstrategy.

The reason why these issues have not progressed is becauseof the Greek governments’ lack of industrial planning. Mea-sures from Greek government are considered superficial andnot really distinguished for professional and detailed knowl-edge of environmental management. This is evident throughthe Environment Plan which belonging now to the wider reg-ulatory framework. That is there are no criteria in how the bestmethods for the development of environmental managementsystems should be chosen, and which investment choiceshould be done. The economic and political climate in thecountry, together with the administrative weaknesses (i.e.compartmentalisation and sectoral fragmentation), providemajor blockages to a ‘‘sustainable development’’ process.

Third, there is clear indication that low priority and lack ofpolitical will to implement sustainable development and envi-ronmental management practices are important factors. Perti-nent literature shows that the institutional picture forenvironmental sustainability that has emerged in Greece

reflects many of the more general deficiencies of the state ap-paratus [28]. The Greek response to the Rio declaration hasbeen heavily criticised because of its rhetorical nature, aimedamong other things at pleasing partner governments in the EU,and arguing that less-developed countries require externalfinancial assistance to rehabilitate the environment. Mobilisa-tion of the national governments to support the introduction ofa sustainable development plan remains problematic as Greeceis argued to have never elaborated a national plan for sustain-ability and so far has no intention to do so [6].

In addition, evidence addresses that significant actions, pol-icies and tools have not materialised because the institutionalcontext has not set out clearly with the necessary chain of reg-ulatory framework.

The article highlights two issues that seem to build willand priority for environmental protection. First, there has tobe institutional definition and second, legitimate competition.For the time being, there is lack of a sustained, functioninginstitutional framework for environmental improvement. InGreece, most of the development projects are unprogrammedor with programmes that are not clear either in terms of tar-gets or in terms of timetable and environmental impacts.Structural and procedural problems in Greece are closely re-lated to strategic ones. The drive for convergence with wealth-ier member states has overridden any other priority. Thisinteraction shows some tension between the pull of nationalfeatures, on the one hand, and, on the other, the challengeof international trends and the institutional and policy imper-atives of the EU.

The need for the Greek government therefore to put a greatdeal of effort into fundamentally reforming the institutionalbasis is becoming all the more important.

To conclude, this article contents that resolving the institu-tional dimension of the problem in Greece is critical as thereis a need to clarify the political and socio-economic constructsof the policy context. It also suggests that particular actions atthree different levels may support the building of the institu-tional frame in Greece. The first is policy, namely general direc-tions that are not indispensably consumed in the periodicallyelected apparatus. Indeed, when this trend integrates clearlywithin the EU framework then the implementation stage willproceed quickly in Greece.

The second is institutional tools, that is laws and actions ofthe legislative or the administrative apparatus that allow spe-cialisation in approach. The third level concerns the proce-dures that have been set to monitor policies at the spatiallevel. Environmental management practices starts at the levelof the state and specialises at regional level where strategic as-sessment of the environmental impacts is taking place. Toolsand policy programmes therefore are two important dimen-sions for such a policy framework.

4. Conclusions and perspectives

In Greece one has to take into account geography and leg-islation but also, administrative practices, the needs and the



participation of the public, the economic realities, along withthe technical possibilities.

Economic globalisation and market pressures are widelyutilised within writings in the adoption of environmental man-agement, typically to signify the importance of economicimperatives in taking up schemes for environmental manage-ment. Much of the research in the field of globalisation andenvironmental policy has pointed to the susceptibility of thedomestic market and industry to diverse transnational pres-sures. However, this article is based on a study that looks be-yond such abstract forces and illustrates that the pressuresdriving companies towards ISO14001 come not only from spe-cific institutional actors and from elements in society at large,but from economic actors. EU pressures and Greek govern-ment has lead to an ever-greater role for initiatives likeISO14001 which has influenced further Greece’s regulatoryframework.

This central argument is based on two interrelated factors,highlighted at national level, which explain why and underwhich conditions environmental management standards areformed and diffused.

First, the research provides some insights into EU policy-making, and the stress placed on shifting towards such regula-tion within the EU’s 5th Action Framework. Findings showthat it is global market forces and EU efforts through the3rd Structural Funds Programme (3rd SFP) to incorporatethe ISO14001 system in the national regulatory framework.

ISO14001 is institutionalised as part of the EnvironmentPlan of Athens, and it has been imported into local conflictmanagement contexts as a resolution tool for immediate localcommunities and government, yet some would see it as a wayof deregulation. Processes of economic globalisation in all ac-tivities seem to have launched ISO14001 as a matter of pres-tige in Greece, and generally a model management of highstandards that provides a paradigm for companies to follow.

This article critiques these trends and argues for environ-mental management engaging with competitiveness and mar-ket pressures. There are analogous implications regardingfailure of transformation and hollow adoption for the role ofsustainable development in national frameworks. It may be ar-gued that an obvious tension exists between the rationalist ap-proaches to environmental policy adopted by the EU againstthe embedded nature of national contexts. In certain nationalcontexts wider trends towards voluntaristic, business-led envi-ronmental governance are unlikely to drive sustainability.

So far the literature has shown that, the path of sustainable de-velopment is far removed from the actions of schemes run bymarket initiatives. There are fears that ISO14001 facilitates eco-nomic interests that may override the wider interests of publicpolicy. Such a path may respect only economic interests, reject-ing environmental protection, public goods and other importantvalues. Moreover, these trends provide a (weak) substitute fordomestic, government regulatory action. For example, lack ofgovernment monitoring and building of infrastructure point topractices of ‘‘informal institutionalisation’’.

The expanding standardisation techniques and their modeof regulation in the Greek context therefore cannot adequately

fill this gap, and indeed exemplify weaknesses in the nationalregulatory context.

We suggest that in order to facilitate progress towardssustainability through environmental management, proper in-stitutional arrangements and a legal framework must be estab-lished and executed by the government and society at large.Market forces alone seem to fail to promote the anticipatedchanges in environmental policy or to enable and stimulatethese changes.

ISO14001 as a standardised policy scheme therefore offersto practitioners insights into a new framework for understand-ing environmental management approaches. By utilising thisconceptual framework a new dimension of effectiveness,strengths and weaknesses stresses how such instruments canbe developed effectively.

Although the findings are context-specific to the role ofISO14001, the abilities of various actors to influence and par-ticipate in such arrangements can be generalised.

It is possible to find contexts for the dominant scheme(ISO14001), and to abstract from the Greek context, butthe pressures operating on key actors e operating in increas-ingly international markets e clearly have more generalimplications.

References

[1] Ashford NA, Ayers C, Stone RF. Using regulation to change the market

for innovation. Harvard Environmental Law Review 1985;9(2):419e66.

[2] Altham WJ, Guerin TF. Environmental self-regulation and sustainable

economic growth: the seamless web framework. Eco-Management and

Auditing 1999;6(2):61e75.

[3] Barnes PM, Barnes IG. Environmental policy in the European Union.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 1999.

[4] Bennet P. Environmental governance and private actors: enrolling in-

surers in international maritime regulation. Political Geography 2000;19:

875e99.

[5] Boiral O, Sala J-M. Environmental management: should industry adopt

IS0 14001? Business Horizons 1998;41(1):57e64.

[6] Fousekis P, Lekakis J. Adjusting to a changing reality: the Greek

response. In: O’Riordan T, Voisey H, editors. The transition to sustain-

ability, the politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan; 1998.

p. 214e27.

[7] French H. Coping with ecological globalization. In: Brown LR,

Flavin C, French H, editors. State of the World. London: Earthscan;

2000. p. 184e202.

[8] Georgiadou M, Tsiotras G. Environmental management systems: a new

challenge for Greek industry. International Journal of Quality and Reli-

ability Management 1998;15(3):286e302.

[9] Gouldson A, Murphy J. Regulatory realities: the implementation and

impact of industrial environmental regulation. London: Earthscan; 1998.

[10] Hanf K, Jansen A. Governance and environment in Western Europe,

politics, policy and administration. Essex: Longman; 1998.

[11] Heinelt H, Malek T, Smith R, Toller AE. European union environment

policy and new forms of governance, a study of the implementation of

the environmental impact assessment directive and the eco-management

and audit scheme regulation in three member states. Hants: Ashgate;

2001.

[12] Hillary R, Thorsen N. Regulatory and self-regulatory measures as routes

to promote cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 1999;

7:1e11.

[13] Janicke M, Jacob K. Lead markets for environmental innovations: a new

role for the nation state. Global environmental politics 2004;4(1):29e46.



[14] Jorgensen TH. Environmental management systems and organisational

change. Eco-Management and Auditing 2000;7:60e6.

[15] Kirkland L, Thompson D. Challenges in designing, implementing and

operating an environmental management system. Business Strategy and

the Environment 1999;8(2):128e43.

[16] Knill C, Lenschow A. Modes of regulation in the governance of the

European Union: towards a comprehensive evaluation. European Integra-

tion online Papers (EIoP) 2003;7(1), <http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2003-

001a.htm>.

[17] Knill C, Lehmkuhl D. Private actors and the state: internationalisation

and changing patterns of governance. Governance: an International Jour-

nal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 2002;15(1):41e63.

[18] Kousis M. Environment and the state in the EU periphery: the case of

Greece. In: Baker S, Milton K, Yearley ST, editors. Protecting the periph-

ery, environmental policy in peripheral regions of the European Union.

Essex: Frank Cass; 1994.

[19] Krut R, Gleckman H. ISO 14001: a missed opportunity for sustainable

global industrial development. London: Earthscan; 1998.

[20] Mol APJ. Globalisation and environment: between apocalypse-blind-

ness and ecological modernization. In: Spaargaren G, Mol APJ,

Buttel FH, editors. Environment and global modernity. London: Sage;

2000. p. 121e50.

[21] Mol A, Sonnenfeld A. Ecological modernisation around the word: an

introduction. Environmental Politics 2000;9(1):3e14.

[22] Moxen J, Strachan PA. ISO 14001: a case of cultural myopia. Eco-

Management and Auditing 2000;7:82e90.

[23] Neale A. Organising environmental self-regulation: liberal governmen-

tality and the pursuit of ecological modernisation in Europe. Environ-

mental Politics 1997;6(4):1e24.

[24] Porter M, van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment ecompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1995;

9(4):97e118.

[25] Porter M, van der Linde C. Green an competitive: ending the stalemate.

Harvard Business Review 1995 September/October.

[26] Prakash A. A new insitutionalist perspective on ISO14000 and responsi-

ble care. Business Strategy and the Environment 1999;8:322e35.

[27] Pridham G. Environmental policies and problems of European legisla-

tion in Southern Europe. South European Society & Politics 1996;1(1):

47e73.

[28] Pridham G. National environmental policy-making in the European

framework: Spain, Greece and Italy in comparison. In: Jordan A, editor.

Environmental policy in the European Union: actors, institutions and pro-

cesses. London: Earthscan; 2002. p. 81e99.

[30] Scholte JA. Globalization: a critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave;

2000.

[31] Sinding K. Environmental management beyond the boundaries of the

firm: definitions and constraints. Business Strategy and the Environment

2000;9:79e91.

[33] Spaargaren G, Mol A, Buttel F. Environment and global modernity.

London: Sage; 2000.

[34] Spanou C. Greece: administrative symbols and policy realities. In:

Hanf K, Jansen A-I, editors. Governance and environment in Western

Europe: politics, policy and administration. Essex: Longman; 1998.

p. 110e30.

[35] Strachan PA. Is the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) regu-

lation an effective strategic marketing tool for implementing industrial

organisation? Eco-Management and Auditing 1999;6:45e51.

[36] Vig NJ, Axelrod RS. The global environment, institutions, law, and

policy. London: Earthscan; 1999.

[37] Vogel D. Trading up and governing across: transnational governance and

environmental protection. Journal of European Public Policy 1997;4(4):

556e71.

[38] Weale A. Ecological modernisation and the integration of European en-

vironmental policy. In: Liefferink JD, Lowe P, Mol APJ, editors. Euro-

pean integration and environmental policy. London: Belhaven Press;

1993.

[39] Weale A, Pridham G, Cini M, Konstadakopoulos D, Porter M, Flynn B.

Environmental governance in Europe, an ever closer ecological Union?

Oxford: University Press; 2000.

[40] Welford R. Corporate environmental management 3, towards sustainable

development. London: Earthscan; 2000.

Maria Kassolis is a lecturer e research associate at the Civil Works Technol-

ogy Department, School of Technological Applications, at Technological

Educational Institution (T.E.I.) of Athens, Greece. Her research interests lie

in issues related to sustainable development, implementation of environmental

management (e.g. schemes, standards) and environmental policy. She is a mem-

ber of the Research Group S.O.C.R.A.T.E.S., T.E.I. (Society for Organisations

of Cartography, Remote sensing and Applications using Technology on Earth

and Space). She has a Ph.D. from the School of City and Regional Planning,

Cardiff University, UK and a M.Sc. in Construction Management, UK.


jclp1601(published)

Documents