environmental performance indicators: a study on iso 14001 certified companies

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certifiedcompanies

Lucila M.S. Campos a, *, Daiane Aparecida de Melo Heizen b, Miguel Angel Verdinelli c,Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel a

a Federal University of Santa Catarina, Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Campus Trindade, 88.040-900, Florianopolis, SC, Brazilb Federal Institute of Santa Catarina, Getúlio Vargas Avenue, 830, Centro, 89.251-000, Jaragu�a do Sul, SC, Brazilc Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Uruguay Street, 458, Centro, 88.302-202, Itajaí, SC, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 July 2014Received in revised form12 December 2014Accepted 5 March 2015Available online xxx

Keywords:Environmental performance indicatorsEnvironmental management systemEMSISO 14001Survey research

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.M.S. Ca

(D.A. de Melo Heizen), [email protected] (M.A. Verdi(P.A. Cauchick Miguel).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.0190959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Campos,Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http:/

a b s t r a c t

Environmental management system has become one of the main tools used by companies to handle theenvironmental aspects and the impacts that their activities have on the environment. In this context, thiswork aims to demonstrate the results of a survey that identifies a set of indicators of environmentalperformance to continuously manage and improve the environmental and performance management ofISO 14001 certified companies in the Southern region of Brazil. This research is descriptive as well asquantitative and adopted two methods for factor analysis, the analysis of multiple correspondences andthe principal components analysis as well as a method of classification, the cluster analysis. Severalcompanies monitor the environmental and performance management of the industrial pulp and paper/furniture/wood and textile sectors using indicators of environmental performance. As expected, orga-nizations from the services sector do not use such indicators. The results from cluster analysis alsoshowed that legal and other requirements and environmental aspects are the both more representativerequirements. Finally, there is a great concern for companies to meet the legal requirements as well asthe conservation of environmental resources.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of the 1980s, environmental concerns havebeen incorporated into the strategic and operational decisionstaken by companies. Pollution caused by operation activities isviewed as an undesirable consequence that is no longer endorsedby many organizations. While many businesses have traditionallyresisted changes brought about by government legislation andpressure from the public, many firms, through reluctant adoptionor willing change, have found that a pro-environment stance canenhance a number of goals (Inman, 2002).

As a consequence, the importance of managing environmentalactivities to prevent negative aspects and impacts on the environ-ment has been highlighted. Among the diverse environmentalmanagement practices that firms have implemented in recent years

mpos), [email protected]), [email protected]

L.M.S., et al., Environmental/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

in this direction (e.g. cleaner production, eco-efficiency and lifecycle assessment), the environmental management systems (EMS)have been the focus of much attention (Campos, 2012).

In the past two decades there have been a number of studiesdevoted to EMS and its diffusion. Some research has focused onmotivations for the standard's implementation (Morrow andRondinelli, 2002; Bansal and Hunter, 2003; Gonz�alez-Benito andGonz�alez-Benito, 2005; Chan and Wong, 2006; Boiral, 2007;Gavronski et al., 2008; Prajogo et al., 2012), while others haveconcentrated on the effects that these systems have on firms'environmental, operational and financial performance (Klassen andMcLaughlin, 1996; Melnyk et al., 2003). Studies have also empha-sized that improvements in the organization's environmental per-formance are beneficial (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Bonifantand Ratcliff, 1994; Link and Naveh, 2006; Lopez-Gamero et al.,2010). These benefits are not only for the environment but also forthe company's overall performance.

One particular research area that has drawn a lot of attention isthe diffusion of ISO 14001 (To and Lee, 2014). A significant body ofliterature on this research area has been available, offering insights

performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies,015.03.019

mailto:[email protected]




www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.019



L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e112

into ‘how’ ISO 14001 diffuses at the country level (Casadesus et al.,2008; Delmas, 2002; Lagodimos et al., 2007; Qi et al., 2011;Trierweiller et al., 2013), regional level (Delmas, 2002), and globallevel (Albuquerque et al., 2007; Corbett and Kirsch, 2001; Nishitani,2010; Viadiu et al., 2006).

A second phase focused in studies devoted to the developmentof frameworks and methods to support EMS decision-making,namely the evaluation and selection of different EMS alternatives.To this end, different approaches have been proposed, such asmulticriteria techniques (Hui et al., 2001; Petroni, 2001;Sambasivan and Fei, 2008), hybrid models combining mathemat-ical programming, and other methods (Tsai and Chou, 2009; Celik,2009). All of them are based on different sets of technical andeconomic criteria in order to support decision-making (Guerrero-Baena et al., 2014).

Even though research on EMS has an extensive literature, thereis still lack of in-depth investigation of internal dynamics inmaintaining ISO 14001 environmental management system(Balzarova and Castka, 2008). The deployment of an EMS does notassure the effectiveness of environmental management (Rondinelliand Vastag, 2000; Melnyk et al., 2003; Campos, 2012). Thecontinuous monitoring of critical points of the system is alsonecessary, and these points are generally particular to each type oforganization. Some studies (e.g. Poksinska et al., 2003; Balzarovaand Castka, 2008) advocate that indicators of environmental per-formance are not directly linked to the maintenance of EMS.However, companies that do not use a set of EMS performanceindicators may not be managing their own environmental system(Henri and Journeault, 2008; Nawrocka and Parker, 2009). Thus,they must continuously assess the environmental performance toassure success either in developed or developing nations.

The academic community has witnessed a strong interest in theBRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa context. Thisjustifies Brazil as focused of the present study. The country isconsidered one of the most promising developing nations,responsible for approximately 30% of Latin America's gross do-mestic product (GDP). BRICS0 countries in general have beenimproving the number of companies certified by ISO 14001 from1999 until 2010 (ISO, 2010) an, Brazil is the country with the mostcompanies under the environmental management system ISO14001 (2004) in Latin America. According to the same database(ISO, 2010), the number of certifications has grown year by year inthe country (from 1999 to 2010). Likewise, the interested inresearch related to ISO 14001 diffusion in Brazil has also beendisseminated (Silva and Medeiros, 2004; Oliveira et al., 2010;Jabbour, 2010, 2013b; Trierweiller et al., 2013; Ferenhof et al.,2014). By examining the Brazilian scenario, a study conducted bySilva and Medeiros (2004) also shows that the number of com-panies adopting environmental practices has increased each year.Nevertheless, most of these companies have insufficient knowledgeabout environmental management systems and do not evaluatetheir environmental performance.

In this context, this work aims to demonstrate a set of EMS in-dicators of performance used by companies certified by ISO 14001in the Southern region of Brazil. This region was choose because isone of the most important and industrialized region of this country.A question is this sense is then proposed: what are the key envi-ronmental performance indicators used by companies to managetheir EMS certification according to ISO 14001? To address thisquestion, this work is organized as follows. Firstly, it provides ashort literature review of environmental management systems andperformance indicators. Secondly, research methods are described.Thirdly, survey results are presented and discussed and, finally,some conclusions are drawn and recommendations for futurestudies are offered.

Please cite this article in press as: Campos, L.M.S., et al., EnvironmentalJournal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2

2. Theoretical framework

Certified EMS have been highlighted in the literature among thevarious practices of environmental management adopted by majorcompanies over the last years, such as (Link and Naveh, 2006;Viadiu et al., 2006; Albuquerque et al., 2007): cleaner production,eco-efficiency, and the evaluation of the life cycle of products,among others. An EMS is part of the management system of anorganization that aims to manage the environmental aspectsrelated to its activities, products and services (Perotto et al., 2008;Campos and Melo, 2008). From the normative point of view, ISO14001 (ISO, 2004) defines an EMS as a set of inter-related elements,a part of an organization's management system, used to developand implement its environmental policy and manage its environ-mental aspects. Standards and procedures can be used by the or-ganization to put an EMS into operation. The three best-knownstandards are the EMAS, the BS 7750 and the ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004).

The BS 7750 was developed in the United Kingdom and pub-lished in 1994. It is a certification of British Standard Institute thatpresents specifications for the development, implementation, andmaintenance of an EMS to ensure and demonstrate conformitywith the statements of the company with regards to its environ-mental policy, objectives and goals. The BS 7750 served as a basisfor the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) tolaunch the ISO 14001 in 1996. According to British Standard Insti-tute website, since 2004 the BS 7750 was replaced by BS EN ISO14001: 2004.

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme System(EMAS) was adopted by the European Union Council (EC) in June,1993. It has been opened to volunteer participation by companiessince April 1995. A new version of this standard was published inNovember, 2009 (EC e N� 1221/2009 of the European Parliamentand Council). The primary objective of EMAS is to promote thecontinuous improvement of the environmental performance ofindustrial activities. It also aims to: (i) establish and implementenvironmental policies, management programs and organizationalsystems; (ii) conduct a periodical evaluation of performance of theelements that are part of the regulations; and (iii) to inform thecommunity about the organization's environmental performance.It allows European Union companies that develop industrial ac-tivities to obtain registrations of their units with an EC commission.An official European Union document containing a list of allregistered units is published annually. A registration is considered a“certificate” of good environmental performance for those com-panies that obtain it.

The ISO 14001 is an international environmental standard thatspecifies requirements related to an EMS to allow the organizationto devise its policy and objectives while considering the legal re-quirements and information concerning significant environmentalimpacts. A first versionwas launched in 1996, and a second onewaslaunched in 2004 after some changes. Since the launch of the firstversion of the ISO 14001, the number of certified companies in theworld has continuously grown (Bansal and Hunter, 2003; Balzarovaand Castka, 2008).

Despite the EMAS have arisen before, undoubtedly the ISO14001 gained more notoriety and has become the EMS standardmost worldwide applied. Regarding environmental performanceand different standards (EMAS or ISO 14001), Testa et al. (2014), forinstance, investigated the impacts of EMAS and ISO 14001 on thereduction of carbonic anhydride emissions on 229 energy intensiveplants in Italy. The results suggested that the implementation of anenvironmental management system in energy intensive industrieshas a clear influence on environmental performance both in theshort and in the long term, but a different effect of ISO 14001 andEMAS on environmental performance occurs.


L.M.S. Campos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2015) 1e11 3

Until 2012, 285,844 companies were certified in 165 countries(ISO, 2012). The number of studies that investigated the globalspread of the standard (e.g. Corbett and Kirsch, 2001; Gavronskiet al., 2008; To and Lee, 2014) and the adoption of environmentalmanagement systems in various countries also increased duringthis time. These countries included the USA (Babakri et al., 2003),Slovenia (�Selih, 2007), Spain (Rodríguez et al., 2007, 2011), China(Hui et al., 2001; Zeng et al., 2005; Qi et al., 2011), Germany(Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002), Australia (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004),Turkey (Turk, 2009), Brazil (�Avila and Paiva, 2006; Pombo andMagrini, 2008; Gavronski et al., 2008; Campos, 2012; Trierweilleret al., 2013), Japan (Nakamura et al., 2001), among others.

Particularly in Brazil, the evolution and interest in EMS subjecthave been growing in the past two decades. In a first phase, the firstpapers were related to a general overview of the system (Silva andMedeiros, 2004; Pombo and Magrini, 2008), performance results(�Avila and Paiva, 2006; Oliveira et al., 2010), or motivations andbenefits (Gavronski et al., 2008) of the EMS implementation in thecountry.

Then in a second phase some concern on the adoption ofenvironmental practices in ISO 14001 certified companies can beobserve (Oliveira and Pinheiro, 2009; Gavronski et al., 2013; Teleset al., 2014), the evolution and disclosure of EMS (Jabbour, 2010;Trierweiller et al., 2013), the use and integration with other man-agement systems (Oliveira, 2013; Jabbour et al., 2014), and linkwithtools like lean manufacturing (Jabbour et al., 2013a). Moreover,some research regarding the relation between EMS and environ-mental performance can be identified (Campos and Melo, 2008;Jabbour et al., 2013a, 2014), the EMSs and profitability (Ferronet al., 2012), and if environmental practices is a competitive prior-ity for Brazilian companies (Jabbour et al., 2012).

A strong line of research in Brazil has been the one that dealswith the relationship between environmental management in ISO14001 certified companies and human resources environmentaltraining (Jabbour et al., 2008; Jabbour and Santos, 2008a, 2008b;Teixeira et al., 2012; Jabbour, 2013a, 2013b; Jabbour et al., 2013b).There has also been a line of studies on the application of EMS inthe context of small and medium-sized companies (Campos, 2012;Ferenhof et al., 2014).

The reasons for implementing an EMS vary (Campos, 2012).Most motivations are related to external factors, such as the orga-nization's image, market-related advantages, the demands of themarket and/or customer, or seeking improved stakeholdercommunication (Hillary, 2004; Potoski and Prakash, 2004). How-ever, internal factors also are reasons, such as the emergence ofresponse, improved information flows (Potoski and Prakash, 2004;Gavronski et al., 2008), employee motivation, waste reduction,increased operational efficiency (Boudouropoulos andArvanitoyannis, 1999) as well as financial and organizational ben-efits (Hillary, 2004).

Other publications demonstrate the main benefits introducedby the adoption of an EMS: gaining new markets and customers(Zutshi and Sohal, 2004; Delmas, 2002), improvement in thequality of organizational management (Lawrence et al., 2002), andintangible benefits, such as (Delmas, 2002; Zutshi and Sohal, 2004):improved internal and external process communication, employeemotivation, and organizational image.

The certification is a voluntarily process of structured commu-nication that informs a company's stakeholders about its environ-mental management (Melnyk et al., 2003). In summary, anorganization seeks certification when a company:

� feels compelled to meet the economic demands or when thechange is market-driven;


� possesses a high capacity and the necessary competencies toobtain the certificate (in other words, the effort would not beexcessive);

� holds adequate knowledge about the standard, the impacts oftheir activities (internal and external), and identifies certifica-tion as a strategic action for the organization.

A number of works have focused their research on the defini-tion, importance, characteristics, objectives or benefits of perfor-mance measurement indicators (e.g. Adriaanse, 1993; Hronec,1994; Tunstall, 1994; Hammond et al., 1995; Kaplan and Norton,2000). Environmental indicators are considered instrumentalconcepts that must be added to the objectives of society. Collabo-rations between academics and practitioners become indispens-able in addition to government and institutions in order to analyzethe environmental data and it to propose timely environmentalpolicies (Díaz-Moreno, 1999). Each indicator should be related to aparticular environmental problem (Manteiga, 2000). Thus, the in-dicator of an environmental system responds to a generic andentirely social interest e the sustainability of development. Theindicators of environmental performance are directly or indirectlymeasured from environmental quality, and they express the per-formance of the surrounding companies (Tocchetto and Tocchetto,2004). The authors add that these indicators are used to evaluateand present the trends of conditions for a given environment. Theyalso allow for checking the effectiveness of deployed actions and tocompare them with those obtained by competing companies.

The ISO 14031 standard is a conceptual reference to the selec-tion of environmental performance indicators e “EnvironmentalManagement e environmental performance evaluation guidelines”e that has been used in Europe since 1999. This standard specif-ically addresses the guidelines for environmental performanceevaluation and the adoption of indicators; it lists more than 100 ofthese guidelines. ISO 14031 (ISO, 2013) describes two general cat-egories of indicators to be considered when evaluating the envi-ronmental performance:

� Environmental condition indicators provide data and informa-tion about the local, regional, national or global conditions ofenvironmental quality. Themeasurements carried out accordingto environmental standards and rules established by the legalstandards and devices.

� Environmental performance indicators provide data and infor-mation about the organization's environmental performanceand are classified in two types: (i) managerial, which provideinformation about the management efforts that positively in-fluence the environmental performance of the organization as awhole, and (ii) operational, which provide information relatedto the environmental performance on the operation of theproduction process.

In this context, the present work was guided by the theoreticalstudies of the management and evaluation of environmental per-formance as well as the types of performance indicators, leading tothe following research questions: what are the key environmentalperformance indicators used by companies to manage their EMScertification according to ISO 14001? In addition, are there simi-larities between the indicators used by companies in the same in-dustry? To address those questions, next section describes theresearch procedures employed in this study.

3. Research methods

The present research can be characterized as descriptive basedon Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993). It was carried out via



survey-based research by following guidelines in the literature(Forza, 2002). The study is considered as an exploratory becauseit addresses a subject that is relatively unexplored in the inter-national literature (environmental performance indicators withinthe context of ISO 14001 companies). The data were gatheredusing a questionnaire sent to a set of companies with an ISO14001 certification in Southern Brazil (State of Santa Catarina).The Southern region is the second most industrialized in thecountry. The companies are from the State of Santa Catarina,which is one of the fastest growing industrial territories in thenation. Another relevant aspect in the investigated context is thechanges of environmental legislation in emerging countries (suchas China and Brazil part of the so-called BRIC - Brazil, Russia,India, and China), that will affect organizational managers(Gunasekarana et al., 2014).

The study sample contained 73 organizations, which wereincluded in the Brazilian National Institute of Standards,Metrology and Quality (INMETRO), where secondary data wereaccessed to retrieve contact data from the organizations. Thecompanies belonged to different industrial sectors. After con-tacting the companies, some of them no longer complied with ISO14001 certification. So, the sample size was reduced to 62companies.

The survey instrument was a 9-page questionnaire with openedand closed questions that could be completed in about 20 min.After constructing the questionnaire considering the literature, theinstrument was pilot-tested. Data were collected by answering it inonline. To gather data, all companies were contacted by telephonebefore e-mailing the website link. The response rate was 63% (39companies), which is an adequate response rate according to Forza(2002).

For data analysis, a multivariate analysis was applied to analyzethe data with a two-factorial model. The first used a multiple cor-respondence analysis (MCA) because the scale was semantic innature, which inhibited the application of other methods thatrequire quantitative variables (Hair Jr. et al., 2010). The MCA wasused in all types or categories indicated by the respondents. Foreach question, the following options were available: “never use”,“rarely use”, “frequently use”, and “always use”.

In the second analysis, some questions related to the re-quirements of ISO 14001 were selected for further cluster analysis.A number of environmental indicators adopted by companies tomonitor their EMS was used to analyze the data. Principal com-ponents analysis (PCA) was applied to evaluate the relationshipbetween the variables and the likeness or similarity among com-panies, as established by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). For thecluster analysis, the PCA extracts a number of factors. Five factorswere chosen because they represented 93.94% of the variance. Theclusters were obtained using Ward's joining method (Hair Jr. et al.,2010), and the Euclidian distance was chosen as measure ofresemblance or similarity allowing for the creation of adendrogram.

Table 1Economic sectors surveyed.

Economic sector Respondents

Paper and cellulose/furniture/wood 19%Services 13%Food 10%Electric and electronic home appliances 10%Metallurgy 10%Tobacco 10%Textile 10%Petrochemical 8%Civil construction 5%Transport 5%

4. Results and discussion

The results of this study are presented as follows. Firstly, theprofile of the companies is outlined, followed by the performanceindicators checked by the ISO 14001 requirement using the resultsof the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). Because of thetype of requirements, the indicators may be operational or mana-gerial. Principal Components Analysis and Cluster are secondlypresented. Finally, a correlation among the main groups of com-panies, predominant industrial sectors, and standard requirementswith key indicators are highlighted.


4.1. Demographics of companies

Twenty industrial sectors registered in a database (RMAI, 2005)were used to define the economic sectors. Ten companies from 20economic sectors answered the questionnaire, as summarized inTable 1.

The individual who answered the questionnaire was usually theManagement System Coordinator, with the larger number of an-swers (22). Others included: production managers (06), environ-mental analysts (05), internal consulting people (03), industrialengineers (02), and technical assistants (01). Based on the answers,most respondents (72%) were directly related to the environmentalmanagement department. Moreover, an expressive number of re-spondents participated in the critical analysis of the environmentalmanagement system (EMS) of the company. It is worth mentioningthat green teams are frequently considered in the state-of-the-artliterature as an essential factor for companies aiming to imple-ment and improve environmental management approaches andpractices (Jabbour et al., 2013b). Therefore, the involvement of therespondents in the critical analysis and their knowledge of theenvironmental management system can be considered as keypoints for maintaining the EMS.

Concerning the number of employees, the data collection in-strument considered three groups for classification purposes, asshown in Table 2: small size companies, medium size, and large sizecompanies. As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of respondentsare medium-sized companies.

The results showed in Table 2 corroborated findings from othersimilar study (Oliveira et al., 2010). Oliveira et al. (2010) verified thebenefits and difficulties of Environmental Management Systemsbased on ISO 14001 at companies in the state of S~ao Paulo, Brazil.Similarly, the major respondents were also medium-sized com-panies (43,5%).

The origin of most respondents were national (56%), followed bymultinational companies (33%). Companies with mixed capital (8%)and government companies (3%) were also represented in thesample. Concerning the ISO 14001 certification, the major part ofthe companies was certified between 2001 and 2002, as showed inTable 3. Oliveira et al. (2010) found a similar result. Their sampleshows a concentration of certification of companies in S~ao Pauloaround 2001 and 2003.

The BVQI (Bureau Veritas) stands out as the preferred certifyingbody (48%), followed by DNV e Det Norske Veritas (12%). TheBRTÜV and the ABS Quality Evaluations are the third most popularcertifying body (with 8% of companies).

4.2. Main environmental performance indicators according tostandard requirements

Data analyses have shown that seven requirements stand out formost companies that “always” and/or “frequently” monitor


Table 2Number of employees in companies.

N� of employees Respondents

Fewer than 100 18%From 100 to 1000 59%More than 1000 23%

Table 3ISO 14001 certification per year (n ¼ 62companies).

Year Percentage

1998 5%1999 10%2000 13%2001 20%2002 18%2003 15%2004 10%2005 3%2006 5%


environmental performance. These requirements were: 4.3.2. Legaland other requirements; 4.4.2. Competence, training and aware-ness; 4.4.7. Emergence, preparedness and response; 4.5.2. Evalua-tion of compliance; 4.5.3. Non-conformances, corrective andpreventive action; 4.3.1. Environmental aspects; and 4.5.1. Moni-toring and measurement.

Companies most often use indicators of the performance re-quirements that are more directly associated with legal re-quirements (emergency preparedness and response, assessment oflegal and other requirements and environmental aspects). Thisfinding is corroborated by Donaire (1994), who argues that theinternalization of environmental variables by companies is theresult of external influences from the environmental legislation,and from the pressures demanded by the national and interna-tional community, which results in internal repercussions for or-ganizations (Balzarova and Castka, 2008).

Considering the large amount of indicator requirements for ISO14001 (total of 188), this work emphasizes the key performance

Table 4Main performance indicators of requirement 4.3.2.

Environmental-managerial performance indicators

Compliance with the legislation

Number of complaints reported regarding the environmentNumber of legal non-conformities registered

Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation

Number of accidents occurred throughout company historyIndustrial sectors: Civil construction; Tobacco; Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Food; M


Managerial environmental performance indicators

Investment in activities for environmental awarenessOccupational safety percentageEmployee satisfaction percentageEmployee's educational index

Investment in training and development per employeeIndustrial sectors: Metallurgy; Electric/Electric-Electronic; Petrochemical and Textile.


indicators for seven requirements, i.e. those most commonly usedby certified companies and that contribute to effectiveness of theEMS. Thus, those were further verified. The five performance in-dicators for each requirement that had the highest frequency of“always” and “frequently” were then selected. For example, the tenmost commonly used indicators were selected for the “4.3.1.Environmental Aspects” requirement.

The following tables show the main indicators and how tomeasure them: Table 4 (4.3.2 Legal and other requirements),Table 5 (4.4.2 Competence, training and awareness), Table 6 (4.4.7Emergency preparedness and response), Table 7 (4.5.2 Evaluationof legal and other requirements), Table 8 (4.5.3 Nonconformity,Corrective Action and Preventive Action), Table 9 (4.5.1 Monitoringand Measurement), and Table 10 (4.3.1 Environmental Aspects).These results are discussed in sequence by considering the size ofcompanies as well as the economic industrial sectors that stood outfor their use of indicators.

The performance indicators showed in the previous tables isrelevant to be highlighted. Boog and Bizzo (2003) argue that the useof performance indicators as management tools demonstrates theeffectiveness of the organization to ensure clear operational andenvironmental conditions. The demonstration of these conditionsdirects the efforts of companies towards preventive environmentalactions and/or corrective ones. Nevertheless, a performance indi-cator system should be deployed based on the organization'smission and related to strategies via the identification of criticalsuccess factors of its business. This requirementmay be a barrier forthe use of indicators in small businesses (Campos, 2012) becausethey are the more systematically used by medium and largecompanies.

Finally, the results obtained via the correspondence techniqueshow that companies in the pulp and paper/furniture/wood, textile,electrical/electronics and tobacco industries “always” used theperformance indicators. However, the services sector, petrochem-ical industry, construction industry and transportation industry donot use and/or rarely use most of the performance indicators. Theselast findings differ from the previous one if the environmentalimpact of companies activities from those sectors were considered.An unexpected result were from petrochemical companies sincethese organizations do not adopt performance indicators. As well-

How to assess

Total of items required by legislation/total number of times that legislationhas not been followed � 100Total of complaints reported to the company regarding the environmentTotal of legal non-conformities registered per year (includes fines, filings,contaminations)Total of legal parameters (includes DBO, DQO, phosphorus, fecal coliforms,total coliforms, etc.)Total of employee accidents throughout company history

etallurgy and Electric/Electric-Electronic.

How to assess

Total of investments destined to activities of environmental awareness(Number of accidents at work/total employees) � 100General result of the employee satisfaction research{(5 � total of doctors) þ (3 � total of masters) þ (2 � total of specialists) þ(1 � total of graduate employees)/total of employees}Total of resources applied in training and development/n� of employee



Managerial environmental performance indicators How to assess

Number of emergency simulations carried out (ISO 14031)i Total of emergency simulations carried out during the yearEmergency action plans Total of implanted emergency action plansResponse to emergencies Total of fast responses to environmental accidentsCommunication of risks Total of communications about the environmental risks of the companyNumber of emergencies attended Total of emergencies attended per yearSectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic and Textile.



Time to answer or correct environmental accidents (ISO 14031) Total time to answer or correct environmental accidents in the year/numberof environmental incidents in the year

Level of compliance with regulations (ISO 14031) (Number of complied regulations/Total number of regulations) � 100Level of compliance by service companies with company requirements and

expectancies in contracts (ISO 14031)(Total of compliance with company requirements and expectancies incontracts/Total of services carried out) � 100

Number of positive and negative reports regarding the company's environmentalactivities

Sum of the printed reports (positive þ negative)

Number of external environment initiatives reported to support the company Sum of the external environment initiativesSectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Metallurgy and Textile.



Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those that have not yetended (ISO 14031)

Total of corrective actions identified in the year

Number and type of non-compliance incidences with national or internationalstandards in force

Total of non-compliance incidences with national or internationalstandards in force during the year (per type)

Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits Total of non-conformities received in SGA internal auditsNumber of corrective and preventive actions started Total of corrective and preventive action reports startedPercentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and preventive actions started (Total of effective actions/total of actions started) � 100Industrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic;

Petrochemical and Tobacco.


Operational environmental performance Indicators How to assess

Number of defective products (ISO 14031) (Total of defective products/total of products produced) � 100Number of energy units consumed during product use (ISO 14031) Total of energy units consumed during product useAmount of fuel consumed (ISO 14031) Total of fuel consumed in the yearTotal of electric energy Total of monthly electric energy consumed in Mwh per ton of produced profilesVolume of water consumed Total of the monthly volume of water consumed in m3 per ton of produced profilesIndustrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic and Tobacco.


Operational environmental performance Indicators How to assess

Amount of energy used per year or per product unit (ISO 14031) Total energy used per year or per product unitAmount of waste for disposal (ISO 14031) Total of waste for monthly disposalAmount of waste stored on-site (ISO 14031) Total of waste stored on-site monthlyNoise measured at a location (ISO 14031) Total of noise measured per locationRecycling of waste Total waste recycled monthlyConsumption of raw materials Total of raw materials used monthlyProduction of solid waste Total of solid waste produced monthlyPhysical and chemical qualities of effluents Verify compliance with legislation (administrative rule SSMA 05/89)Amount of acquired electricity Total amount of electricity acquired monthlyTotal energy consumption Total of monthly energyIndustrial sectors: Paper and Cellulose/Furniture; Electric/Electric-Electronic; Petrochemical and Textile.


Please cite this article in press as: Campos, L.M.S., et al., Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies,Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.019


know, this is a highly impactful sector due to the nature of its op-erations, as the pulp and paper/furniture/wood, textile, electrical/electronics and tobacco industries.

4.3. Analysis of principal components (ACP) and groups ofcompanies

The analysis verified that the first two factors regained 78.81% ofthe inertia of the system, which was sufficient to be included in thestudy. When predicting the variables shown in Fig. 1, the main plan(performance indicators by requirement of the standard) indicatedpositive correlations between the majorities of indicators, asdemonstrated by the acute angles between the vectors thatrepresent the variable. An angle of approximately 90� between theindicators “Non-conformances, Corrective Action and PreventiveAction” (NCACP), “Emergency Preparedness and Response” (PRAE)and “Legal and other requirements” (RLEO) denotes a lack of as-sociation among these indicators. In other words, the fluctuationsin the number of indicators that a company uses for NCACP, forexample, does not depend on the number of indicators used forPRAE and RLEO, which are interrelated. The indicators “Non-con-formances, Corrective Action and Preventive Action” (NCACP) werealso verified to have higher correlation with the indicator “Moni-toring and Measurement” (MOME), followed by “OperationalControl” (COPE).

A cluster analysis was then conducted from factorial scores ofcompanies, including the first five factors that accounted for 93.43%of the variance. The group constitution was obtained by the com-bined Ward method, and the Euclidian distance measure of simi-larity or likeness was chosen to generate the dendrogram showedin Fig. 2.

Using the distance of combination 8 as the cutting line for theinterpretation, the grouping of six companies was verified (high-lighted with colors (in the web version) in Fig. 2). This result showsthat the first group consisted of twelve companies (E24 to E6) and,thus, it was the most homogeneous compared to the remaining.

Fig. 1. Projection of the variables. Environmental Policy (PAMB); Legal and other re-quirements (RLEO); Objectives, Targets and Programs (OMEP); Resources, Functions,Responsibility and Authority (RFRA); Competence, training and awareness (CTEC);Communication (COMU); Emergence, preparedness and response (PRAE); Evaluationof compliance (ARLO); Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action (NCACP);Environmental aspects (AAMB); Operational Control (COPE); Monitoring and mea-surement (MOME).Source: Research data.


This group primarily consisted of the industrial paper and cellulose/furniture/wood sector (E11, E12, E25, E37, and E38), which wasrepresented by only 2 companies, number 22 and 30 in anothergroup. This group highlights companies that “always” or“frequently” use most of the performance indicators required bythe standard.

The third group formed exclusively by two companies (E8 andE9) in the transport industry that uses a minimum amount ofenvironmental performance indicators required by the standardwas also emphasized. The remaining groups are represented by thetobacco, electricity/electro-electronics/electronic, petrochemicaland provision of services industry, which use a small number ofperformance indicators required by the standard compared to thefirst group, as discussed earlier.

The group analysis (dendogram in Fig. 2) considered six groupsof companies (G1 a G6) and industrial prioritized sectors related tostandard requirements and main environmental indicators. Thecriterions to select the indicators were the top three mostfrequently adopted by the groups of companies. However, in somegroups the indicators had the same frequency. Therefore, thosewere described as having the same value.

Table 11 shows the industry sectors, the standard requirements,and a list of the key performance indicators most frequently usedby companies, as grouped by cluster analysis.

In the first group of companies (G1) five sectors are represented.The last two, which belong to the food industry and tobacco, has thesame number of companies. Therefore, they share the same posi-tion. It is noteworthy that this group most frequently used threeperformance indicators of a single standard requirement: Legal andother requirements (RLEO). This means that such companies areconcerned primarily with monitoring indicators basically related tothe legal demands.

The second group (G2) primarily consists of the tobacco in-dustry, followed by service sectors and food industry. Those sectorhave the same number of companies and monitor 15 performanceindicators more frequently. It was not possible to select only thethree main indicators because there is no predominance of any ofthem since all have the same percentage of frequency of use. Theseindicators belong to four standard requirements: RLEO (Legal andother requirements), CTEC (Competence, training and awareness),NCACP (Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action) andAAMB (Environmental aspects).

The third (G3) and fifth (G5) group, stand out because they areformed by only one industrial sector, namely: transportation andpetrochemicals respectively. The transport sector more frequentlyuses twomain performance indicators from the requirements RLEO(Legal and other requirements) and CTEC (Competence, trainingand awareness). Once again, this result show the concern forcompliance with legislation and environmental awareness. For thisgroup (G3) the third most frequent was not selected because ofhaving many indicators with the same percentage of use. Thepetrochemical sector pointed out four most used indicators (ofwhich the last two have the same percentage of use) related toRLEO (Legal and other requirements), ARLO (Evaluation ofcompliance) and AAMB (Environmental aspects).

When analyzing the fourth group of companies (G4) the threemain performance indicators concern the requirements: AAMB(Environmental aspects) and MOME (Monitoring and measure-ment). They are frequently used for six industry sectors, with thesame number of companies in some sectors. From the data shownin Table 11, it is possible to conclude that this group is concernedabout the environment, primarily by controlling energy resourcesand water.

Finally, the sixth group of companies (G6) is formed mainly bythe service sector, followed by the metallurgical industries, food


Fig. 2. Dendrogram of companies from factorial scores of ACP. The numbers after the letter E represent the companies' respondents (from 1 to 39) and sector (from 1 to 10). Thefollowing industries were included: 1 ¼ paper and cellulose/furniture/wood; 2 ¼ food; 3 ¼ civil construction; 4 ¼ Electricity/electric-electronic/electronic; 5 ¼ metallurgy;6 ¼ provision of services; 7 ¼ textile; 8 ¼ transport; 9 ¼ tobacco; 10 ¼ petrochemical.Source: Research data.


and textile, which have the same number of companies. Theseorganizations employ a large number of performance indicators,but there is no predominance of any one. Therefore, it was notpossible to select the top three considering the frequency of use.Indicators listed in Table 11 are from the following requirements:CTEC (Competence, training and awareness), PRAE (Emergence,preparedness and response), NCACP (Non-conformances, correc-tive and preventive action) and AAMB (Environmental aspects).

Finally, one can clain that the overall picture in Table 11 suggeststhat the requirements RLEO (Legal and other requirements) andAAMB (Environmental aspects) were most commonly used. Thisdemonstrated that the company concern is centered in complyingto the legal requirements in addition to the conservation of envi-ronmental resources, which may be considered as basic.

5. Conclusions

This work presented the results of a survey that sought todetermine the set of environmental performance indicators thathave been used by companies certified by ISO 14001 in Southern ofBrazil. This work intended to contribute to the environment com-munity that addresses this subject and companies that want tomanage and continually improve their EMS.

The data analysis indicated three different sets of requirementsfor the standard. The first group is characterized by a highernumber of companies and/or sectors that “always” or “often” usemost of the indicators (standard requirements: 4.3.2 Legal andother requirements; 4.3.3 Objectives, goals and programs; 4.4.7Emergency preparedness and response; 4.5.3 Nonconformity,corrective action and preventive action, and 4.3.1.environmentalaspects). Companies most frequently use performance indicatorsthat are directly associated with legal requirements, possiblybecause companies are forced to meet the environmentalregulations.


The second group is characterized by a higher number of com-panies that “do not” or “rarely” use most of the performance in-dicators (standard requirements: 4.4.3 Communication, and 4.4.6Control operational). Apparently, these requirements are morequalitatively monitored while considering that the standard doesnot require the company to systematically monitor or measure allof the requisites of the standard. Nevertheless, this requires morein-depth studies.

The third group was formed exclusively by the requirement“4.5.1 Monitoring andMeasurement”. This group was characterizedby an apparent uncertainty regarding the use of operational in-dicators. Four of the 10 industrial sectors claimed they “always” or“often” use most of the indicators listed. Likewise, four of the 10industrial sectors stated they “rarely” or “never” use the same in-dicators. Nevertheless, the analysis of the sectors themselves hasnot shown a discrepancy. The set of sectors that checked “always”or “often used” consists of paper and pulp companies as well as thefurniture/wood, textile, electrical/electronic and tobacco industries,which have greater control of their activities because they are un-der more pressure from society. The transport, services and con-struction sectors suffer less pressure.

The data also indicate that the pulp and paper/furniture/woodand textiles sectors of the Southern of Brazil generally consist ofcompanies that encompass some sort of monitoring of their EMSusing environmental performance indicators. This trend can beattributed to the fact that these two sectors were pioneers inseeking to certify their EMS. The companies in the services sectorsare the least likely to use indicators, probably because its featuresare less polluting.

From cluster analysis, groups of companies related to the in-dustrial sectors, the standard requirements and a summary of thekey performance indicators used more frequently were also iden-tified. Legal and other requirements (RLEO) and EnvironmentalAspects (AAMB) are the requirements most representative. Inaddition, there should be a concern for companies to meet the legal


Table 11Main groups of companies by sectors, standard requirements, and performance indicators most frequently used.

Groups ofcompanies

Priority sectors Requirements of the standard Name of the main indicators used

G1 1 Paper andcellulose/furniture/wood

2 Metallurgy3 Textile4 Food4 Tobacco

RLEO 1 Compliance with the legislation2 Number of legal non-conformities registered3 Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation

G2 1 Tobacco2 Provision of services2 Food

RLEO/CTEC/NCACP/AAMB 1 Compliance with the legislation2 Number of complaints reported regarding the environment3 Number of legal non-conformities registered4 Legal parameters regarding the discharge of effluents required by legislation5 Occupational safety percentage6 Investment in training and development per employee7 Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those that have

not yet ended8 Number and type of non-compliance incidences with national or

international standards in force9 Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits

10 Number of corrective and preventive actions started11 Percentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and

preventive actions started12 Amount of waste for disposal13 Recycling of waste14 Production of solid waste15 Physical and chemical qualities of effluents

G3 1 Transport RLEO/CTEC 1 Compliance with the legislation2 Investment in activities for environmental awareness

G4 1 Electricity/electric-electronic/electronic

2 Paper and cellulose/furniture/wood

2 Provision of services2 Civil construction3 Textile3 Food

AAMB/MOME 1 Total energy consumption2 Total of electric energy3 Volume of water consumed

G5 1 Petrochemical RLEO/ARLO/AAMB 1 Number of legal non-conformities registered2 Number of accidents occurred throughout company history3 Time to answer or correct environmental accidents4 Total energy consumption

G6 1 Provision of services2 Metallurgy;2 Food2 Textile

CTEC/PRAE/NCACP/AAMB 1 Occupational safety percentage2 Number of emergency simulations carried out3 Number of emergencies attended4 Number of identified corrective actions that have ended or those

that have not yet ended5 Number of non-conformities detected during internal audits6 Number of corrective and preventive actions started7 Percentage of effectiveness of non-conformities, corrective and

preventive actions started8 Amount of energy used per year or per product unit9 Amount of waste for disposal

10 Amount of waste stored on-site11 Noise measured at a location12 Recycling of waste13 Consumption of raw materials14 Production of solid waste15 Amount of acquired electricity16 Total energy consumption

Requirements of the standard: Legal and other requirements (RLEO); Competence, training and awareness (CTEC); Non-conformances, corrective and preventive action(NCACP); Environmental aspects (AAMB); Monitoring and measurement (MOME); Evaluation of compliance (ARLO); Emergence, preparedness and response (PRAE).


requirements as well as the conservation of environmental re-sources, which is, in fact, a confirmatory result.

Finally, this work does suffer from limitations when conductingthis research. A limited number of companies answered the ques-tionnaire, primarily because it was long to some extent. Moreover,the application includes one state (Santa Catarina) in a developingcountry, although it is relevant in the in the Southern of Brazil. Thislimitation does not invalidate the present study, since the resultscan be added to previous studies on ISO 14000. Future studies


should consider increase the external validity by expand the surveyto other parts of the nation.

References

Adriaanse, A., 1993. Environmental Policy Performance Indicators. General ofEnvironment of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, VROM, The Hague.

Albuquerque, P., Bronnenberg, B.J., Corbett, C.J., 2007. A Spatiotemporal analysis ofthe global diffusion of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification. Manag. Sci. 53 (3),451e468.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-6526(15)00236-X/sref1







�Avila, G.J., Paiva, E.L., 2006. Processos operacionais e resultados de empresas bra-sileiras ap�os a certificaç~ao ambiental ISO14001. Gest~ao Produç~ao 13 (3),475e487.

Babakri, K.A., Bennet, R.A., Franchetti, M., 2003. Critical factors for implementingISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 11,749e752.

Balzarova, M.A., Castka, P., 2008. Underlying mechanisms in the maintenance of ISO14001 environmental management system. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1949e1957.

Bansal, P., Hunter, T., 2003. Strategic explanations for the early adoption of ISO14001. J. Bus. Ethics 46, 289e299.

Boiral, O., 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? Organ. Sci.18 (1), 127e146.

Bonifant, B., Ratcliff, I., 1994. Competitive Implications of Environmental Regula-tions in the Pulp and Paper Industry. Management Institute for the Environ-ment and Business, Washington DC.

Boog, E.G., Bizzo, W.A., 2003. Utilizaç~ao de indicadores ambientais como instru-mento para gest~ao de desempenho ambiental em empresas certificadas com aISO 14001 (Paper presented at the annual meeting for the SIMPEP, Bauru/SP/Brazil, November).

Boudouropoulos, I., Arvanitoyannis, I., 1999. Current state and advances in theimplementation of ISO 14000 by the food industries: comparison of ISO 14000to ISO 9000 to other environmental programs. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 9,395e408.

Campos, L.M.S., 2012. Environmental management systems (EMS) for small com-panies: a study in Southern Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 141e147.

Campos, L.M.S., Melo, D.A., 2008. Indicadores de desempenho dos Sistemas deGest~ao Ambiental (SGA): uma pesquisa te�orica. Produç~ao 18 (3), 540e555.

Casadesus, M., Marimon, F., Heras, I., 2008. ISO 14001 diffusion after the success ofthe ISO 9001 model. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (16), 1741e1754.

Celik, M., 2009. A hybrid design methodology for structuring an Integrated Envi-ronmental Management System (IEMS) for shipping business. J. Environ.Manag. 90, 1469e1475.

Chan, E.S.W., Wong, S.C.K., 2006. Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel industry.Tour. Manag. 27 (3), 481e492.

Corbett, C.J., Kirsch, D.A., 2001. International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification.Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 327e338.

Delmas, M.A., 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards inEurope and the United States: an institutional perspective. Policy Sci. 35,91e119.

Díaz-Moreno, A.B., 1999. Possibilidades metodol�ogicas de aplicaci�on de indicadoresambientales a nível municipal. Rev. Estud. Ambient. 1 (1), 77e95.

Donaire, D., 1994. Consideraç~ao sobre a vari�avel ambiental na empresa. Rev. Adm.Empres. 34 (2), 68e77.

Ferenhof, H.A., Vignochi, L., Selig, P.M., Lezana, A.G.R., Campos, L.M.S., 2014. Envi-ronmental management systems in small and medium-sized enterprises: ananalysis and systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 77, 44e53.

Ferron, R.T., Funchal, B., Nossa, V., Teixeira, A.J.C., 2012. Braz. Adm. Rev. 9, 78e94.Forza, C., 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based

perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 152e194.Gavronski, I., Ferrer, G., Paiva, E.L., 2008. ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: motiva-

tions and benefits. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 87e94.Gavronski, I., Paiva, E.L., Teixeira, R., Andrade, M.C.F., 2013. ISO 14001 certified

plants in Brazil e taxonomy and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 32e41.Gonz�alez-Benito, J., Gonz�alez-Benito, �O., 2005. A study of the motivations for the

environmental transformation of companies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 34 (5),462e475.

Guerrero-Baena, M.D., G�omez-Lim�on, J.A., Fruet, J.D., 2014. A multicriteriamethod for environmental management system selection: an intellectualcapital approach. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.079.

Gunasekarana, A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., 2014. Managing organizations forsustainable development in emerging countries: an introduction. Int. J. Sustain.Dev. World Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.915439.

Hair Jr, F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., Black, W.C., 2010. An�alise Multivariada deDados. Bookman.

Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., Woodward, R., 1995. Envi-ronmental Indicators: a Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting onEnvironmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development.World Resources Institute Publications, Baltimore.

Henri, J.-F., Journeault,M., 2008. Environmental performance indicators: an empiricalstudy of Canadian manufacturing firms. J. Environ. Manag. 87, 165e176.

Hillary, R., 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise.J. Clean. Prod. 12, 561e569.

Hronec, S.M., 1994. Sinais Vitais. MakronBooks, S~ao Paulo.Hui, I.K., Chan, A., Pun, K.F., 2001. A study of the environmental management system

practices. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 241e256.Inman, R.A., 2002. Implications of environmental management for operations

management. Prod. Plan. Control: Manag. Oper. 13 (1), 47e55.ISO 14001, 2004. Environmental Management Systems e Requirements with

Guidance for Use. International Organization for Standardization.ISO 14031, 2013. Environmental Management e Environmental Performance

Evaluation e Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.ISO/Survey, 2010. The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 Certificates. Interna-

tional Organization for Standardization.


ISO/Survey, 2012. The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 Certificates. Interna-tional Organization for Standardization.

Jabbour, C.J.C., 2010. Non-linear pathways of corporate environmental manage-ment: a survey of ISO 14001-certified companies in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 18,1222e1225.

Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013a. Environmental training in organisations: from aliterature review to a framework for future research. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74,144e155.

Jabbour, C.J.C., 2013b. Environmental training and environmental managementmaturity of Brazilian companies with ISO14001: empirical evidence. J. Clean.Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.039.

Jabbour, C.J.C., da Silva, E.M., Paiva, E.L., Santos, F.C.A., 2012. Environmental man-agement in Brazil: is it a completely competitive priority? J. Clean. Prod. 21,11e22.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., 2008a. Relationships between human resource di-mensions and environmental management in companies: proposal of a model.J. Clean. Prod. 16, 51e58.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., 2008b. The central role of human resource manage-ment in the search for sustainable organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 19,2133e2154.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Nagano, M.S., 2008. Environmental managementsystem and human resource practices: is there a link between them in fourBrazilian companies? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1922e1925.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A., Freitas, W.R.S., 2013a.Environmental management and operational performancein automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource managementand lean manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 129e140.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Santos, F.C.A., Fonseca, S.A., Nagano, M.S., 2013b. Green teams: un-derstanding their roles in the environmental management of companieslocated in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 46, 58e66.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Latan, H., Teixeira, A.A., Oliveira, J.H.C., 2014. Qualitymanagement, environmental management maturity, green supply chain prac-tices and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certifica-tion: direct and indirect effects. Transp. Res. Part E 67, 39e51.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2000. Organizaç~ao Orientada para a Estrat�egia. Campus,Rio de Janeiro.

Klassen, R.D., McLaughlin, C.P., 1996. The impact of environmental management onfirm performance. Manag. Sci. 42 (8), 1199e1214.

Lagodimos, A.G., Chountalas, P.T., Chatzi, K., 2007. The state of ISO 14001 certifi-cation in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1743e1754.

Lawrence, L., Andrews, D., Ralph, B., France, C., 2002. Identifying and assessingenvironmental impacts: Investigating ISO 14001 approaches. TQM Mag. 14,43e51.

Link, S., Naveh, E., 2006. Standardization and discretion: does the environmentalstandard ISO 14001 Lead to performance benefits? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 53(4), 508e519.

Lopez-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorin, J.F., Claver-Cortes, E., 2010. The potential ofenvironmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmentalmanagement, competitiveness and financial performance. J. Clean. Prod. 18,963e974.

Manteiga, L., 2000. Los indicadores ambientales como instrumiento para el desar-rollo de la política ambiental y su integraci�on en otras políticas. In: EstadísticasY Medio Ambiente. Instituto de Estadística de Andalucia, Junta de Andalucia.Sivilla.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R.J., 2003. A model of site-specific antecedentsof ISO 14001 Certification. Prod. Oper. Manag. 12 (3), 369e385.

Morrow, D., Rondinelli, D., 2002. Adopting corporate environmental managementsystems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. Eur.Manag. J. 20, 159e171.

Nakamura, M., Takahashi, T., Vertinsky, H., 2001. Why Japanese Firms choose tocertify: a study of managerial responses to environmental issues. J. Environ.Econ. Manag. 42, 23e52.

Nawrocka, D., Parker, T., 2009. Finding the connection: environmental managementsystems and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 601e607.

Nishitani, K., 2010. Demand for ISO 14001 adoption in the global supply chain: anempirical analysis focusing on environmentally conscious markets. Resour.Energy Econ. 32 (3), 395e407.

Oliveira, O.J., 2013. Guidelines for the integration of certifiable management sys-tems in industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 57, 124e133.

Oliveira, O.J., Pinheiro, C.R.M.S., 2009. Best practices for the implantation of ISO14001 norms: a study of change management in two industrial companies inthe Midwest region of the state of S~ao Paulo e Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (9),883e885.

Oliveira, O.J., Serra, J.R., Salgado, M.H., 2010. Does ISO 14001 work in Brazil? J. Clean.Prod. 18, 1797e1806.

Perotto, E., Canziani, R., Marchesi, R., Butelli, P., 2008. Environmental performance,indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J. Clean.Prod. 16, 517e530.

Petroni, A., 2001. Developing a methodology for analysis of benefits and short-comings of ISO 14001 registration: lessons from experience of a large ma-chinery manufacturer. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 351e364.

Pinsonneault, A., Kraemer, K.L., 1993. Survey research methodology in managementinformation systems: an assessment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 10 (2), 75e106.
































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.915439














































































































































Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J., Eklund, J.A.E., 2003. Implementing ISO 14000 inSweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. Int. J. Qual. Reliab.Manag. 20 (5), 585e606.

Pombo, F.R., Magrini, A., 2008. Panorama de aplicaç~ao da norma ISO 14001 noBrasil. Gest~ao Produç~ao 15 (1), 1e10.

Porter, M.E., Van Der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the statement.Harv. Bus. Rev. 73 (5), 120e134.

Potoski,M., Prakash, A., 2004. Regulatory convergence in nongovernmental regimes?Cross-national adoption of ISO 14001 certifications. J. Polit. 66, 885e905.

Prajogo, D., Tang, A.K.Y., Lai, K.H., 2012. Do firms get what they want from ISO 14001adoption?: an Australian perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 117e126.

Qi, G.Y., Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Yin, H.T., Wu, J.F., Dai, Z.H., 2011. Diffusion of ISO14001 environmental management systems in China: rethinking on stake-holders' roles. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1250e1256.

RMAI e Revista Meio Ambiente Industrial, 2005. Homenagem �a marca hist�orica das2000 certificaç~oes em conformidade com a ISO 14001. Year X, 55th ed.

Rodríguez, G., Alegre, F.J., Martínez, G., 2007. The contribution of environmentalmanagement systems to the management of construction and demolitionwaste: the case of the Autonomous Community of Madrid (Spain). Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 50, 334e349.

Rodríguez, G., Alegre, F.J., Martínez, G., 2011. Evaluation of environmentalmanagement resources (ISO 14001) at civil engineering construction work-sites: a case study of the community of Madrid. J. Environ. Manag. 92,1858e1866.

Rondinelli, D., Vastag, G., 2000. Panacea, common sense, or just a Label?The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems. Eur. Manag. J. 18(5), 499e510.

Sambasivan, M., Fei, N.Y., 2008. Evaluation of critical success factors of imple-mentation of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case studyfrom Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1424e1433.

�Selih, J., 2007. Environmental management systems and construction SMEs: a casestudy for Slovenia. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (3), 217e226.

Silva, G.C.S., Medeiros, D.D., 2004. Environmental management in Brazilian com-panies. Manag. Environ. Qual. 15 (4), 380e388.


Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics, fourth ed. Allyn andBacon, Boston, MA.

Teixeira, A.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., 2012. Relationship between greenmanagement and environmental training in companies located in Brazil: atheoretical framework and cases studies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 318e329.

Teles, C.D., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Tinoco, M.A.C., ten Caten, C.S., 2014. Characterization ofthe adoption of environmental management practices in large Brazilian com-panies. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.048.

Testa, F., Rizzi, F., Daddi, T., Gusmerotti, N.M., Frey, M., Iraldo, F., 2014. EMAS and ISO14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance. J.Clean. Prod. 68, 165e173.

To, W.M., Lee, P.K.C., 2014. Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental managementsystem: global, regional and country-level analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 489e498.

Tocchetto, M.R.L., Tocchetto, A.L., 2004. Indicadores de desempenho ambiental paraempresas com atividade galvanica. In: Congresso Academico sobre o MeioAmbiente e Desenvolvimento. CADMA, Rio de Janeiro.

Trierweiller, A.C., Peixe, B.C.S., Tezza, R., Bornia, A.C., Campos, L.M.S., 2013.Measuring environmental management disclosure in industries in Brazil withItem Response Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 298e305.

Tsai, W.-H., Chou, W.-C., 2009. Selecting management systems for sustainabledevelopment in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, andZOGP. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 1444e1458.

Tunstall, D., 1994. Developing and using indicators of sustainable development inAfrica: an overview. In: Thematic Workshop on Indicators of SustainableDevelopment, Banjul, Gambia, May 16e18.

Turk, A.M., 2009. The benefits associated with ISO 14001 certification for con-struction firms: turkish case. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 559e569.

Viadiu, F.M., Fa, M.C., Saizarbitoria, I.H., 2006. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards: aninternational diffusion model. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (2), 141e165.

Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Deng, Z.M., 2005. Towards implementation of ISO14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China.J. Clean. Prod. 13, 645e656.

Zutshi, A., Sohal, A., 2004. Adoption and maintenance of environmental manage-ment systems: critical success factors. Manag. Environ. Qual. 15 (4), 399e419.



































































































environmental performance indicators: a study on iso 14001 certified companies

Documents