human resource management and environmental · pdf filehuman resource management and...

HumanResourceManagementandEnvironmentalSustainability

MasterThesis

InstitutfürStrategie‐undUnternehmensökonomikUniversityofZurich

ChairofHumanResourceManagement

Prof.Dr.BrunoStaffelbach

LessonsLearnedfromSwissCompanies

Major: MAofArtsinEconomics,Betriebswirtschaftslehre

Subject: HumanResourceManagement

Autor: SerafinBäbler

Adresse: Bülachstr.5i

PLZOrt: CH‐8057Zürich

E‐mail: [email protected]

Matrikelnummer: 04‐705‐364

No.ofSemesters: 10

DueDate: August,27th2010

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability II

Abstract

Thepresentmasterthesisexaminesthefieldofcorporateenvironmentalstrategiesand

correspondinghumanresourcemanagementpractices.Itistheaimofthisworktode‐

velopatypologyforcorporateenvironmentalinitiativesandthereforebeabletoassess

the company’s strategywith the help of three ideal types: First, the companieswho

followatypeAstrategyseeenvironmentalissuesasarisk,whichistobemitigatedand

theythereforeestablishacorporatecontrolstrategy.Second,firmsthatfollowatypeB

strategyrecognizeenvironmentalmattersasanopportunityfornewbusinessmodels

andtransformtheirprocessesandcorevaluesto ‘green’businessactivities.Thethird

wayincorporateselementsformthetypeAandBatthesametime.

Duringthedevelopmentandtheexecutionofacorporateenvironmentalinitiative,sev‐

eral units of the organization contribute in a joint process and by doing so different

rolesaretaken.Oneimportantcontributorforaninitiativeisthehumanresourceman‐

agementof the firm.Basedonthe typologyof initiatives, therequirements to thehu‐

man resource activities are elaborated. Three case studies, which are developed

through qualitative researchmethods, describe environmental initiatives from Swiss

firmsandoutlinelessonslearnedfromthesefirms.

Allinall,tenspecificlessonslearnedarederivedfromthecasestudies.Thefindingsare

analyzedanddiscussedwiththeconsiderationof therespectivestrategicbackground

ofthecompany.Thelessonslearneddescribetheimpactoftrainingontheemployee’s

understanding of the environmentalmatter.Moreover, theway ofmanagement sup‐

port is analyzed in thedifferent strategic contextsof the companies.A further lesson

learned describes the importance of the application of the topic of environmental

sustainability to thespecific tasksof theemployee toraise theawareness for the im‐

portanceofthematter.Additionally,theneedfortheintegrationoftheenvironmental

initiativesintothehumanresourceprocessesisexplained.Theseareonlysomeofthe

fieldswhicharecoveredbythelessonslearnedformthecasestudies.

Allthingsconsidered,themasterthesisprovidesaframeworkforanalysisofenviron‐

mental initiatives and related lessons learned about effective human resource man‐

agementactivitiesandcorrespondingroles.

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability III

TableofContents

ListofFigures .........................................................................................................................................VListofTables...........................................................................................................................................VListofAbbreviations .............................................................................................................................VI

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 11.1 ResearchQuestions ............................................................................................................... 21.2 Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 31.3 Structure................................................................................................................................ 3

PartA:TheoreticalConsiderations

2 EnvironmentalSustainabilityandCorporateStrategies............................................................ 42.1 TheGreenWave .................................................................................................................... 42.2 TheEnvironmentalSustainabilityParadigm.......................................................................... 92.3 ImpactofEnvironmentalSustainabilityonCorporateStrategies ....................................... 12

3 CorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives....................................................................................... 193.1 DefinitionofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives .............................................................. 193.2 ATypologyofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives............................................................. 22

3.2.1 TypeA:GreenasThreat–CorporateControl/RiskMitigation ...........................................243.2.2 TypeB:GreenasOpportunity–Entrepreneurial .................................................................263.2.3 HybridFormofAandBwithinOneCorporateStrategy ......................................................28

4 InteractionwithHumanResourceManagementPractices ..................................................... 294.1 EnvironmentalHumanResourceManagementPractices ................................................... 294.2 ModelforKeyRolesandResponsibilities............................................................................ 324.3 OrganizationalConcernsforCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives...................................... 34

PartB:EmpiricalWork

5 CasesStudies:LessonsLearnedfromSwissFirms ................................................................... 365.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 37

5.1.1 SampleofCompanies ...........................................................................................................375.1.2 ResearchMethod..................................................................................................................38

5.2 CaseStudy1:Galenica’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyand Initiatives in thePharmaIndustry ............................................................................................................................... 415.2.1 Galenica’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy......................................................................425.2.2 CodeofConductandEmployeeParticipation:DescriptionoftheCEIandResults ..............455.2.3 LessonsLearnedformtheInitiative......................................................................................495.2.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheGalenicaCase..............................................................51

5.3 Case Study 2:Geberit’s Corporate Environmental Strategy and Initiatives in the SanitaryTechnologyIndustry ............................................................................................................ 535.3.1 Geberit’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy .......................................................................535.3.2 EnvironmentandRecyclingTraining:DescriptionandResults.............................................555.3.3 LessonsLearnedformtheInitiative......................................................................................615.3.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheGeberitCase ...............................................................63

5.4 CaseStudy3:Holcim’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyand Initiatives in theMaterialsIndustry ............................................................................................................................... 645.4.1 Holcim’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy ........................................................................655.4.2 TheCEIfortheUsageofAlternativeEnergiesintheCementProcess .................................685.4.3 LessonsLearnedformtheInitiative......................................................................................735.4.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheHolcimCase ................................................................75

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability IV

PartC:ImplicationsfromtheCaseStudies

6 DiscussionoftheLessonsLearnedfromtheCaseStudies ....................................................... 766.1 SummaryoftheLessonsLearned........................................................................................ 766.2 LessonsLearnedcomparedindifferentContexts ............................................................... 78

6.2.1 ImpactofManagementSupport ..........................................................................................786.2.2 EmployeeTrainingfor‘CorporateGreening’........................................................................80

6.3 HumanResourceManagement’sRolesinCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives................. 816.3.1 AssessmentoftheLessonsLearnedintheKeyRolesModel ...............................................816.3.2 DifferencesinCentralizationversusDecentralizationofHRFunctions................................83

6.4 WhiteSpotsintheLessonsLearned.................................................................................... 84

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 85

ListofLiterature ........................................................................................................................... 87

AppendixI:ListoftheInterviewPartners ..................................................................................... 93AppendixII:DocumentsformtheEmpiricalProcess ..................................................................... 96AppendixIII:SupplementaryDocumentsformtheCaseStudies ................................................. 102

CaseStudyGalenica .................................................................................................................... 102CaseStudyGeberit ...................................................................................................................... 109CaseStudyHolcim ....................................................................................................................... 114

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability V

ListofFigures

Fig.1:IllustrationoftheGreenWave. ................................................................................................... 8Fig.2:ImpactofEnvironmentalSustainabilityonCorporateStrategies. ............................................ 15Fig.3:FrameworkforCEI. .................................................................................................................... 20Fig.4:Porter’sValueChain .................................................................................................................. 21Fig.5:ModelofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives. ......................................................................... 23Fig.6:TypicalCEIfortype1–greenasathreat. ................................................................................. 25Fig.7:TypicalCEIfortype2–greenasanopportunity. ...................................................................... 27Fig.8:Typehybrid–bothformsofCIEwithinonecompany .............................................................. 28Fig.9:HRMpracticesandtherelationtoCEI....................................................................................... 30Fig.10:ContinuumofCentralOrganizationversusDecentralOrganizationofFunctions................... 35Fig.11:SampleoftheCompaniesfortheCaseStudies. ...................................................................... 37Fig.12:EmpiricalProcessfortheCaseStudies. ................................................................................... 38Fig.13:OverviewofGalenica’sBusinessSections. .............................................................................. 41Fig.14:ClassificationofGalenica’sCESintheModel. ......................................................................... 43Fig.15:Galenica’sCEIfortheEnvironmentalCodeofConduct........................................................... 45Fig.16:TheScopeofGalenica’sCEIinPorter’sValueChain................................................................ 47Fig.17:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinGalenica’sInitiative. ........................................................... 48Fig.18:Galenica’sLessonsLearnedformtheCEI. ............................................................................... 50Fig.19:Geberit’sCESinthemodel. ..................................................................................................... 54Fig.20:OverviewofGeberit’sInitiativeforEnvironmentalTraining. .................................................. 55Fig.21:DiagrammonGeberit’sEnvironmentalImpact. ...................................................................... 57Fig.22:TheScopeofGeberit’sInitiativeinPorter’sValueChain. ....................................................... 58Fig.23:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinGeberit’sCEI. ...................................................................... 60Fig.24:LessonsLearnedformGeberit’sCEI. ....................................................................................... 61Fig.25:Holcim’sBusinessSections. ..................................................................................................... 64Fig.26:TheFocusofEnvironmentalSustainabilityatHolcim.............................................................. 66Fig.27:Hocim’sCESintheModel. ....................................................................................................... 67Fig.28:OverviewofHolcim’sCEI. ........................................................................................................ 69Fig.29:TheScopeofHolcim’sCEIinPorter’sValueChain. ................................................................. 71Fig.30:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinHolcim’sCEI. ....................................................................... 72Fig.31:LessonsLearnedformHolcim’sCEI. ........................................................................................ 74Fig.32:OverviewoftheLessonsLearnedintheCaseStudies............................................................. 77Fig.33:DifferentApproachesforManagementSupport..................................................................... 79Fig.34:LessonsLearnedintheAreaofEmployeeTraining. ................................................................ 80Fig.35:OrganizationalAspectsoftheHRFunctions............................................................................ 83Fig.36:AffectedHRActivitiesintheCaseStudies. .............................................................................. 84

ListofTables

Table1:ListofAbbreviations................................................................................................................VITable2:OverviewofEnvironmentalManagementModels ................................................................ 16Table3:TheKeyRolesandResponsibilitiesforHRProfessionals ....................................................... 33Table4:StructureoftheCaseStudies ................................................................................................. 40Table5:AssessmentofRolesbeingtakenintheCaseStudies ............................................................ 82

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability VI

ListofAbbreviations

Table1:ListofAbbreviations

Abbr. Explanation

BSC BalancedScoreCard

CES CorporateEnvironmentalStrategy

CEI CorporateEnvironmentalInitiative

CSR CorporateSocialResponsibility

DJSI DowJonesSustainabilityIndex

EMS EnvironmentalManagementSystem

GRI GlobalReportingInitiative

GTZ DeutscheGesellschaftfürtechnischeZusammenarbeit

HR HumanResources

HRM HumanResourcesManagement

ISO InternationalStandardsOrganization

KPI KeyPerformanceIndicator

OD OrganizationalDevelopment

PMS PerformanceManagementSystem

SIX SwissStockExchange

UN UnitedNations

HRMandEnvironmentalSustainability 1

1 Introduction

Theterm‘sustainability’evolvedduringthefirstyearsofthe21stcenturytooneofthe

most cited key words and one of the biggest challenges for businesses and for the

community (UNGlobalCompact,2004).The implementationof sustainablecorporate

strategies requires strong leadership and a concrete process (Glavas, Senge, Cooper‐

rider, 2010).While scholars still dispute the impact of sustainability on the financial

bottomline,theimplementationinfirmshasalreadybeengoingonforyears(Halme&

Laurila,2009;Elkington1999).However,CESoftentakeplacewithoutavisionorplan

(Lubin&Esty,2010).

Facing the need of incorporating ‘green’ into the corporate strategy, the topic of

sustainability ismovingupon theagendaofmostbusiness leadersandmanagement

boards,whereas itgenerallystaysoff theradarscreenandawarenessofmostpracti‐

tionersintheHRenvironment(Wirtenberg,Harmon,Russell&Fairfield,2007).

Theevolutionofcompaniestowardssustainablebusinessmodelstakesplaceaccording

to different strategies (Kolk&Mauser, 2002;Delmas&Montes‐Sancho, 2010). Some

companiessee‘green’asathreatwhileothersrecognize‘green’asanopportunity.The

diversificationofcorporateenvironmental strategies (CES) leads todifferentrequire‐

mentstowardstheinvolvedbusinessunits.Especiallytheroleofhumanresourceman‐

agement (HRM) is dependent on strategic decisions and influenced by the corporate

strategyofthefirm(Campbell,2007).Therefore,eachcorporatestrategyhasitsmost

effectiveHRMsystem(Schuler&Jackson,2001).

This work will analyze the different approaches of the integration of environmental

concernsintothecorporatestrategyanddevelopaframeworkfortheclassificationof

the strategies trough ideal types. Furthermore, the corresponding corporate environ‐

mental initiatives(CEI)willbeoutlined,whichcorrespondtotheunderlyingstrategy.

This will result in a model for CEI, describing initiatives based on several strategic

backgrounds.Basedonthemodel, therequirementstotheHRMdepartmentwill first

bederivedfromatheoreticalpointofview.Theapplicationofthesefindingsintheem‐

piricalpartwillputevidencebehindtheimplicationsofthetheoreticalpart.

The empirical part contains three case studies of Swiss companies. In the cases, one

specificinitiativeisdescribedandsomelessonslearnedarepresented.Afterwards,the

analysisacrossthecaseswilldiscussandvalidatethelessonslearnedandderivesome

generalimplicationforthepractitionersandthescientisttoo.


1.1 ResearchQuestions

Startingwiththereviewofthecurrentstateofliterature,onecanfindmanyconcepts

describing how companies can develop to more environmental sustainable business

models.Thedecisionabouthowto incorporatesustainabilitydependsonseveral fac‐

tors,forexamplethepositionandthestrategyinthemarket(Kolk&Mauser,2002).It

isthefirstobjectiveofthethesistodevelopandevaluate,basedonthecurrentstateof

theliterature,atypologyofCESand–indoingso–distinguishbetweenthreetypesof

CEI.Thisleadstothefirstresearchquestion:

Q1:Whatarethemajorconceptsofenvironmentalsustainability intheliteratureand

howcantheseconceptsbetranslatedintoatypologyofCESandcorrespondingCEI?

Given the typology of the corporate strategies and corresponding initiatives, the re‐

quirementstotheHRMdepartmentwillbeanalyzed.Eachenvironmentalstrategyhas

auniqueimpactontheHRMsystemofthecompany(Doppelt,2008;Losey,Meisinger&

Ulrich,2005).TheimpactonHRMsystemswillbeexplainedonthelevelofHRactivi‐

tiesthataretypicallyaffectedtroughCEIandpossiblerolesthatcouldbetakenbythe

HRMunitsduringthedevelopmentandtheexecutionofaninitiative:

Q2: From a conceptual point of view, what are the requirements from the different

typesofCEItotheHRactivitiesofthefirmsandtherolebeingplayedbyHRM?

Based on the findings of the conceptual part of this thesis, the empirical part of this

thesiswillbeconducted.Itistheaimoftheempiricalparttoderivereal‐lifeexamples

ofthechallengesandlessonslearnedofselectedcompaniesfromeachidealtypecor‐

poratestrategyofQ1andtherolesandrequirementsfromQ2:

Q3:Inpractice,whatarethemainlessons learnedandchallengeswithregardstothe

practices and roles of HRM in the context of the type of corporate environmental

sustainabilitystrategy?

The three research question guide the work and lead to the structure of the thesis,

whichwillbedescribedas follows.Butbefore, somedelimitation to thescopeof this

workwillbemade.


1.2 Delimitations

Thetopicofenvironmentalsustainabilityincludesawiderangeofresearchdirections

and ideologies.This thesiswill focuson themanagement literatureof environmental

sustainability.Althoughenvironmentalsustainabilityisthecoreareaofthework,some

literature in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be included in the

considerations (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2006; Pedersen, 2010). Compared to the pure

scopeofenvironmentalsustainability,thepublicationsinthefieldofCSRalsoinclude

societalconcerns.Butforthisthesisiswasmandatorytounderstandthefullscopeof

thetopicandthereforeincludesomepublicationsinthisfieldaswell.

1.3 Structure

Thethesisstartswiththeintroduction(chapter1),whichdescribestheareaofinterest

andtheresearchquestions.

Theremainingdocumentisstructuredintothreeparts.PartArepresentsthetheoreti‐

cal foundationof the thesis,which includes thechapters2 to4.Chapter2 introduces

thereadertothetopicofenvironmentalsustainabilityandpresentsthecurrentstatus

oftheliterature.Theimpactofenvironmentalsustainabilityonthecorporatestrategy

of thecompanies lies in the focusof thatchapter.Chapter3covers theneedofaCES

being translated into initiatives. The term CEI will be presented and discussed in a

deepermannerwithin thischapter leading toamodel for theclassificationofCEIac‐

cording ideal types.Given the typology forCEI, the implication to theHRMsystem is

derivedinchapter4.

Based on the finding of the theoretical part, in chapter 5 a qualitative study is con‐

ductedwithtreecasesstudies(partB).Theempiricalpartfocusesontherolesencoun‐

tered in practice, lessons learned andmajor challenges in the implementation of the

initiativesinthefirms.

PartC focuseson the implicationsof thecasestudies. Inchapter6, thesynthesisand

there‐evaluationofthecasestudiestakesplace.Theconclusioninchapter7showsa

summaryoftheresultsandhighlightstherelevanceofthefindingsandresultsforprac‐

titionersandscientists.


2 EnvironmentalSustainabilityandCorporateStrategies

2.1 TheGreenWave

Theawarenessofenvironmentalissueshasbeenincreasedmoreandmoreinthepoli‐

tics, thepublicandalso in themanagement levelofcompanies.The followingsection

will explainhow this awarenesshasbeen reachedandwhat themajor impactpoints

therewereinthenearerpast.

Informationtechnologyandmediapresence

Forthisreason,wewouldliketodescribethemostimportantprerequisitesandatthe

sametimealsodriversforthisevolutiontowardsenvironmentalawareness.Firstofall,

asaprerequisiteforinformationsharingallovertheworld,telecommunicationmadea

contributiontothedevelopmentofthegreenwave,andthisbasedontworeasons.On

the on onehand, the newermedia technologies can transport pictures and videos of

naturaldisastersandotherspectacularphenomenainabetterqualityandfasterthan

ever all around the world. We all have certain pictures in our head when we think

aboutnaturaldisasters,andwiththemodernmediaandtelecommunicationtechnolo‐

gies, thewholemodernworld shares the pictures about this disasters and therefore

also a basis for environmental issues. An example for this is the natural catastrophe

thatoccurredin2005aroundthecityofNewOrleans,hurricaneKatrina.VideosonTV,

newspaperpicturesandradioreportswerespreadinnotimearoundtheworld.Fur‐

thermore,wewilllaterdiscusssomemorecompanyrelatedexamplesofenvironmental

incidents,themediareportsweredistributedallovertheworldandthereforethepeo‐

plearoundtheworldshareacommonmemoryabouttheseissues.

Besidethetransportationofthemediapicturesovertheworld,theinformationsharing

itselfhasbeenenhancedsignificantlyoverthe last20years.Withthediffusionof the

accesstotheWorldWideWeb,researchcommunitieshavebeenmovedtogethertoa

globalcommunityofscientists,alsoable toshare information immediatelyand faster

thaneverbefore.Thismakesthecommunityhighlyproductiveandeffective inglobal

collaboration.Asanexample for this,wewillnextpresent themajor findingsandre‐

portsformglobalscholarcommunityinthisarena.


ScientificandPoliticalDebatefromRiodeJaneiroEarthSummittoAR4

Asoneof the firstand importantglobal initiatives inthemid1980ies, theUnitedNa‐

tionsfoundedaninternationalgroupofexpertstoworkonareportabouttheworld’s

environmental evolution. At the beginning the group was headed by Gro Harlem

Brundtland,whowasprimeministerofNorwayat this time.Underherguidance, the

commission created a report named “Our Common Future”.1 The publication of the

report dramatically changed the public and political discussion about environmental

issues.Forthefirsttime,thereportbroughtthingsinconnectionthatweresofarcon‐

sideredseparately.Thedocumentsprovidedanintegrativeviewoftheeconomicpro‐

gress of the industrialized countries, which, for example, goes along with environ‐

mentalpollutionandarmsbuild‐up,whereason theotherhandwe facepovertyand

dept in the thirdworldcountries.These factorscombinedwith the factofgrowingof

populationandexpansionofthedesertscreatedanintegrative,butalsoalarmingand

awakeningviewonthecurrentchallengesintheglobalenvironmentalsector.Asanext

importantpointofthereport,theeditorsdeclaredthedefinitionofsustainabledevel‐

opment,asweknowittoday:“Sustainabledevelopmentisdevelopmentthatmeetsthe

needs of thepresentwithout compromising the ability of future generations tomeet

theirownneeds”(Brundtland&Khalid,1987).Asoneresultof thepublicationof the

paper, theearthsummit inRiode Janeiro(1992)was initiated.Duringthesummit in

Rio, the participants agreed on 27 principles and the so‐called agenda 21 about sus‐

tainabledevelopment.2Theprinciplesledtoacommitmentoftheparticipantstopro‐

tecttheglobalenvironmentandrecognizingtheinterdependentnatureoftheEarth.

Especiallythescientificcommunitydidnotstopwiththeirresearchafterthecommit‐

mentsofRiodeJaneiro.Asoneimportantproject,wewouldliketoconsiderherethe

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This group of scientist continu‐

ouslyresearchesonclimatespecificissuesandmoreoverregularlyreviewstheworkof

the global community. Important for public awareness are the several reports pub‐

lishedbythisgroup.ThefirstIPCCassessmentreport(AR1)wasreadyforthefamous

earthsummit inRio.Afterthis, theIPCCcommunityfurtherpublishedthreemoreas‐

sessmentreports.Thesecondassessmentreport(AR2)waspublishedintheyear1995,

thethirdpublication(AR3)in2001andthesofarmostrecentreportin2007(AR4).3

1ThisdocumentispublishedontheUNwebsite:http://www.un‐documents.net/wced‐ocf.htm,visitedonMay25th2010.

2Thedocumentisavailableon:http://www.un‐documents.net/rio‐dec.htm,visitedonMai25th2010.

3All the mentioned reports are available on the IPCC website:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm, visited onJune1st2010.


Goingbrieflyintothedetailsofthereport,wediscoverthefollowingstructure(Inter‐

governmentalPanelonClimateChange,2007):Chapter1summarizestheobservation

of thechanges in theenvironmentand theireffecton thenaturalandhumansystem.

Themost important signals or evidence for changes are:Recurrent smog alerts, acid

rain, holes inozone layer, globalwarming, and the lossof biodiversity (Amber&La‐

noie,2008).Theotherchaptersfocusonthepossiblesourcesofthechangesdescribed

inchapter1andpossiblemitigationoptions.Thisreportisimportantforboththepub‐

licandthepolitics,becauseitraisesawarenessofthetopicsandsetsthepointsonthe

publicandpoliticalagenda.

As a follow up of the Earth Summit, in the year 1997 the conference in Kyoto took

place.Thisconventionfocusedespeciallyontheglobalwarmingissueandtheemission

ofgreenhousegases.Themajoraimoftheconferencewastogetanagreementofcol‐

lective reduction of green house gas emissions. After days of negotiation,whichwas

accompaniedbyamajormediapresenceandongoingpublicityallovertheworld,the

187participatingstatesfinallyagreedonareductiontargetofminus5.2%basedonthe

emissionsof1990.Theconcretestatementofthecountrieswasalsoclearsignaltothe

businessworld that firms have to stick now concrete reductions too. The public and

politicalawarenessrosemoreandmore.

After somemore years of public debate and raising awareness of the environmental

problems in theword theUnitedNations invited toanothersummit for international

communityinJohannesburg(2001).BasedontheAR2andAR3reportofIPCC,thepoli‐

ticiansandscientistcommunitydiscussedpossiblenewwaysofputtingthegreengas

reductiontargetsandotherenvironmentalprotectionplans intoaction. Itcanberec‐

ognized that the (scientific) knowledge about the changes, trends and impacts con‐

sciously increasesbutat thesametimethecomplexityof thediscussionandproblem

solving approaches alsomultiplies due to different interest substitution, for example

the difference between emergingmarkets and thedeveloped countries. Butwhatwe

want to showhere is the increasingawarenessand recognitionof theenvironmental

issueinpublic,politicsandalsobusiness.

Majorworldwideincidents

Business iswithoutdoubtamajorstakeholder inthediscussionaboutenvironmental

issuesandthereforemustbeanimportantpartofthesolution.Inthiscontexthere,we

wouldliketoshowhowcompanyrelatedincidentscanevolvetoaglobalcognitionof

environmental issues. For this reason, two stories have been chosen andwill be de‐

scribed.Ofcourse,therewouldhavebeenalotofothercasestoincludehere,however,


these two incidentsaresupposedtoshowthechangingpublicperceptionofenviron‐

mentalissues.

Apopularcaseforthedemonstrationoftheeffectofbusinessactionsandtheirimpact

onpublicperceptionisthecaseofShellUKintheyear1995.Zyglidopoulos(2002)de‐

scribesthecircumstancesandimpactofthecase.Itallbegunwiththedecommission‐

ingofaoilplatformlocated intheNorthSea.Afterconsultationof localgovernments

andinterestgroupsShelldecidedtodisposeoftheplatformthroughadeep‐waterdis‐

posal.Howeverthisdecisionledtoabigpublicdiscussionandoppositionagainstthis

wayofdecommissioning.Asasortofenvironmentallawyer,theNGOGreenpeacetook

theroleofdiscussionleader.Finallywiththesupportofpolitics,publicandmediathe

bigShellCompanywasforcedtochooseanalternativewayofdisposal.Thiscaseshows

ontheonehand,thatintherecentyears,publicandNGOshavebeenabletopressure

bigmultinationalcompaniestowardsenvironmentalbehavior.Andontheotherhand,

that unmindful business action that damages the environment can lead to enormous

lossincompanyreputation.

Amost recent case that occurred in the current year 2010presents the immense oil

spill intheGolfofMexicointheUSA.Anaccidentduringdeep‐waterdrillingcauseda

giantoilspill inspringandsummer2010intheMexicanGulf.Likeintheothercases,

this researchdoesnotwant toexamineany technicalor legal factsbut showthe tre‐

mendousglobal response to this incident.A lookat theNewYorkTimes (2010, June

26th)presentsthereportofday66aftertheaccident.Atthistime,thetechnicalprob‐

lemhaDnotbeen clearly solvedyet, but thepublic and legaldispute about guilt and

reparationfineswasalreadyinprogresswithhighpublicity.Themaincriticismagainst

BPwastheactingwithoutplanandtheunclearandaimlessriskallocationandmitiga‐

tionbetweenthepartnercompaniesinvolved.Uptonow,theBPgrouphaslostmore

than$100billion inmarketvalue,eventhough it isnotyetclear ifandhowlongthis

negativeeffectwillholdon.Butwhatisclearthatthisaccidentcausedagreatechoin

thepublic.Atthattimetheoilspillwaseverywhere.Newspapersprovidedinteractive

realtimematerialsandlivevideoswereavailableontheworldwideweb.Thisisalso

what the Newspaper The Daily Herald – Tribune (2010, June 17th) highlighted in its

article.Theyshowedthattheoilspillwasspreadallovertheworldinsocialnetworks

andwas therefore in everybody’smind andpresence,mainly of course in a negative

manner.

This section has shown, that in combinationwith emerging telecommunication tech‐

nologies, whichmake news and scientific facts available almost immediately and all


overtheworldincombinationwithscholar’s findingsandpoliticdebateshouldmake

theenvironmentalissuetoahottopiconeachmanager’sagenda.

Fig.1:IllustrationoftheGreenWave.

Allconsidered,theinfluencesandevolutionsoverthelasttwentyyearscanbeseenasa

‘green wave’. Recent incidents in the world like Shell’s Brent Spar, the Hurricane

KathrinaorthecurrentoilspillintheGolfofMexicohavebeenbroadcasedthroughthe

newmedia to all over theworld. The resulting political efforts will lead to stronger

regulations.Theaccumulatedknowledge,sharedallovertheworld,willresultinmore

maturecustomersandpressurefromthemarket(Dunphy,Benveniste,Griffiths&Sut‐

ton,2000).Withtheknowledgeofbusinessimpactontheenvironment,thefirmswill

be more and more charged for its external costs, where no well‐defined ownership

rights are currently inplace, e.g. CO2 emissions,water and air pollution (Amber and

Lanoie,2008).

Someautorscallthisdevelopmenta‘megatrend’comingoverusinexorably(e.g.Lubin

&Esty,2010).Butwhatevertheevolutioniscalled,thesefindingsshowtheimportance

ofenvironmentalaspectsinthebusinessworldbutalsoofcourseasafieldofinterest

inthemanagementliterature.Thereforethenextsectionwilloutlinehowscholarsar‐

guetowardsthebusinessworldtohandletheemergingtopicformascientificview.

!""#$ %###$ %#!#$

&''()$*+%$,$

$$$$$$-./01$234.$526/778$,$

&''()$*+9$40:$,$$

;<6400/=>?.@$2?AAB1$,$

&''()$*+C$,$

DB7$*EEB:/01$F<7G$<G$H/IBE<$5-'8$$,$

JK<1<$'.<1<E<7$,$

&''()$*+!$40:$,$$

+B<$:/$;40/B.<$2?AAB1$,$

-.?0:1740:$+/3<.1$,$

•! 2A<@$47/.1=$

•! *EB:$.4B0$

•! L<7/=$B0$<M<0/$

74K/.$

•! F7<>47$N4.AB0@$

•! O<==$<G$

>B<:BP/.=B1K$

$$$$$$$L?..BE4B0/$J41.B04$5Q2*8$,$

3?>7BE$3/.E/3R<0$


2.2 TheEnvironmentalSustainabilityParadigm

Like the public debate, the research about the environmental aspects and business

strategyalreadyhasacertaintradition.Inthischapterwewouldliketodescribehow

thetermenvironmentalsustainabilityandtheaccordingadvisesformanagementofthe

business environment developed over the last about twenty years. In a first partwe

willshowthemoregeneralassumptions,findingsandideologiesoftheresearchinthis

area. Inasecondpart,anumberof themostcitedmodels forenvironmentalsustain‐

ability arepresented todescribe thevariety and the evolutionbasedon concrete ex‐

amplesofstudies.

Talkingabout theoriesandmodelsaboutenvironmental sustainability first raises the

question of how environmental sustainability is described in these circles. Scientists

doing research in theareaof environmental sustainabilityoften cite thedefinitionof

environmental sustainability based on the conferences and publication presented in

thechapterbefore,namelytheoneoftheUnitedNationsprogram.Inthiscontext,the

highestcredoofsustainablebehavioristonotactinawaythatthepossibilitiesoffu‐

turegenerationsareaffectednegatively.Thishasalsobeenincorporatedinthenewer

publicationsoftheWorldBusinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment(2005).Based

on this definition scholars now derive their way of implementing this into business

strategy andmissions, to become environment‐friendly (Nidumolu, Prahalad & Ran‐

gaswami, 2009). Kolk andMauser (2002) explore in their review awide number of

different models of environmental sustainability. According to their research, some

authorsseethisasacontinuousprocesstowardsahigherlevelofsustainablebehavior

of the company, so called stagemodels.When researchersdonot assumeadevelop‐

ment over time,models are describedmore as a continuumof possible strategies or

simplychoicesbetweenequalopportunities.

Inanextpart,asampleofpublicationswillbepresented.Therangerepresentspublica‐

tions form the last 25 years and includes conceptual, theoretical and also empirical

research which is based on surveys or cases studies. The following overview of the

theoriesandmodelsissupposedtoshowthemostimportantconceptsinthisareaand

thelateststateoftheliterature.

Probablythefirstpublicationdescribingstrategiesforenvironmentalsustainability is

theworkofPetulla(1987).Thisresearchdescribesaclassificationofmodelsforenvi‐

ronmentalmanagement,basedonthesurveyof132managersofUSfirms.Petullaex‐

ploresacontiuumofpossiblestrategies.Ononesidethestrategyofcrisis‐orientedbe‐

havior.Thismeansthestrategyofonlyinvestigatingwhenthecompanyisinvolvedin


concrete issuesor faces serious risks.On theotherhand the risk‐mitigation strategy,

wherefirmsconsciouslymonitortheirriskandtakesomeriskmitigatingactions.The

moreproactiveapproach isherecalledenlightenedenvironmentalmanagement.This

standsforaproactiveapproach,e.g.troughinnovationordifferentiation.

Incontrast tothismodel, thetheoryofHofstra,Timar,Verdonk,anddeWalle(1990)

represents the dynamic approach of stages of development. According to their re‐

search, the company startswith the stage of inspection,where the different require‐

mentsofregulators,investorsandconsumersaremetonebyone.Thesecondstageis

calledthetotalcompliance.Here,thecompanyisinlinewithalltherequirements.The

final stage is called total integration,where the ideaand thevaluesofenvironmental

management are completely integrated in the company. The disadvantage of such a

modelliesintheempiricalvalidation,whichismuchmoredifficultthanforcontinuum

models (Kolk &Mauser, 2002). However, through the definition of the stages as so‐

calledidealtypes,Hofstraetal.addacertaindegreeofflexibilitytotheirmodel.

Elkington(1994)describesanotherstagemodelinhiswin‐win‐winbusinessstrategies

forsustainabledevelopment.Inthistheorythecompanypassessixdistinguishstages.

Beginningwith thestageof ignoranceof themanagement, the firmdevelops through

thestagesofawakening,denial,guiltreduction,displacementbehavior, tokenismand

conversiontowardsintegration.Thelaststep,integration,representsthehigheststate

of sustainable corporate strategy. This theory is foundedby several case studies and

goesalongwithobservations,so‐called‘revolutions’inthemarket(Elkington,1999).

Whereas the focus of the firstmodelswas not somuch on the financial benefits, the

publicationofHart (1997) clearly argueswith financial benefits of adaptingenviron‐

mentalstrategiestothecompany.Inthismodel,thefirmhastodevelopfrompollution

reductionstrategiestoanintegrativepartofthestrategy.Whenfirmonlyseetheenvi‐

ronmentalissueasadanger,managersmissthechancetotakethisasanopportunity

tocreate financialvalue for the firm.This theoryhasbeenbackedupbyanumberof

casestudieswithinternationalcompanies.Inthiscontext,Porter(1996)highlightsthe

presence of strong environmental regulations as a source for competitive advantage,

sincefirmsarepushedtoinnovateandgainmoreefficiency.

WinnandAngell(2000)haveusedthemethodofanexploratoryfactoranalysistoun‐

derstand the strategies of corporate greening. The studies focusing on the internal

processesofgreeningdistinguishedfourgreeningtypes.Companieswithlowcommit‐

ment to greeningmay follow a so‐called deliberate reactive strategy.When commit‐

mentforcomplianceisshownfromthemanagement,butnotyetimplemented,afirm

canfinditself instrategicstatusnamed‘unrealized’.Byimplementingmoreandmore


environmental‐friendly components to the operations, the firms follow an emergent

activestrategy.Andfinally,thecompleteintegrationofgreenintostrategyandopera‐

tionsiscalledthedeliberateproactivestrategy.Withthisempiricallydrivenresearch,

WinnandAngelhavehighlightedtypesofcorporategreeningstrategies,obviouslynot

focusingontheindividualmotivationorthecontextofthefirm.

Aninterestingapproachinadaptinggreenelementsintothecorporatestrategypresent

Dunphy,Benveniste,GriffithsandSutton(2000),becausetheylinktheimplementation

ofecologicalsustainabilitywithhumansustainability.Thismeansthetrainingandin‐

vestmentinhumanresourcesideallygoesalongwithecologicalsustainability.

Inaccordancewith that,Rosen (2001)promoted inherpublication for theCalifornia

ManagementReviewsymposiumfor ‘EnvironmentalStrategyandCompetitiveAdvan‐

tage’ashiftfromcompliancedrivenapproachtoastrategicviewofenvironmentman‐

agement.Thisrequestsareformationofcorporatecultureandaswellseveralpractical

changesinprocessesandtools.

The claim for the transformation of business models towards sustainability is sup‐

ported by Doppelt (2003) too. In his stepwise approach of change management, he

suggeststoreplaceenvironmentalharmfulmaterialsinproductionandworktowards

theredesignoftheproducts,processesandservicestoconformtheeco‐efficiencyprin‐

ciples.

In the context of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which includes the environ‐

mentalaswellasthesocialsustainability,PorterandKramer(2006)distinguishare‐

sponsiveandstrategicapproach.Whereastheresponsiveapproachmainlyfocuseson

mitigationofharmformthevaluechainofthecompany,thestrategicapproachstands

foratransformationofthevaluechainactivitiesformorebenefitfortheenvironment

andthestakeholders.

ThestrategicversusresponsiveortacticalapproachhasbeentakenupagainbyLubin

and Esty (2010). They distinguish between two dimensions of environmental strate‐

gies.Oneaxisrepresentsthewillingnessofthefirmtoseeenvironmentalsustainability

fromastrategicor froma tacticalperspective.Ontheotherhand is theability to im‐

plementeither riskmitigationmeasuresaswaste reductionora realbusinessmodel

transformation.Bycombiningthetwoaxes,this leadstoafourpatternmatrix,where

LubinandEstyadvisetofollowastrategicapproachwithfocusonthetransformation

ofthebusinessmodelratherthanconfrontonatacticalriskmitigationbasis.

Thesepublicationsalldescribeapproachesfortheadaptationofenvironmentalstrate‐

giestothecompany’scorporatestrategy.Thenextchapterwillnowputthisinforma‐

tionintoonegenericdescriptionofacorporateenvironmentalstrategy.


2.3 ImpactofEnvironmentalSustainabilityonCorporateStrategies

Theaimof thissection is toshowthe impactofenvironmentalmattersonthecorpo‐

ratestrategy in therespectivecontextof thecompany. Itwillbeshownthatenviron‐

mental issuesdonotnecessary influenceall companies the sameway.The corporate

environmental strategy depends on such factors as position in themarket, power of

regulationandtheperceptionofthetopicinthetopmanagement.

In general, the corporate strategydefines how the firmplans to act in themarket. It

includesavaluepropositionindicatingwhatthecompanyissupposedtodelivertothe

customers.Moreoverthestrategyincludescorebeliefsorvalues,whichdescribehow

thecompanywillacttowardsitsstakeholders.Therefore,thecorporatestrategyissub‐

jecttomanyelementssuchascustomers,competitors,suppliers,regulations,theavail‐

abilityofresourcesandalsopowerofthepublic.Thus,thestrategyconsistsofacertain

valuepropositionthatthefirmissupposedtodelivertoitsstakeholders.Andmoreover

the company promotes core beliefs,which reflect the values and culture of the com‐

pany.Confrontedwiththegreenwavedescribedinthechapterbefore,executivesnow

have to rethink the current corporate strategy regarding compatibilitywith environ‐

mental‐friendly requirements. Drivers for this evolution from the former corporate

strategytoanenvironmental‐friendlystrategyarenumerousanddifferacrossmarket

andindustry.Themostcitedfactorsforevolutiontowardssustainablecorporatestrat‐

egyareaccordingNidumolu,PrahaladandRangaswami(2009)andinsomepointsalso

DelmasandMontes‐Sancho(2010):

Emergingregulationsformgovernmentalside

Consumerpressurefromthemarket

Socialreasonabilitymotivesbasedonvoluntarybehaviorofthecompany

Strengtheningofthecompetitivenessduetovalueaddingenvironmentalinitia‐

tivesortransformations

In literature, particularly the last bullet point is empathized (e.g. Porter & Kramer,

2006). Themainmessage of this research is that environmental‐friendly behavior of

companies also pays off at the financial bottom line. These concepts argue that the

modification of the corporate strategy can create additional value, which can

strengthenthepositioninthemarketorcanbeearnedinliftupoftheprices.Thecon‐

sumerwillstillaccept the liftupof thepricesince theyaresatisfiedonanadditional


level of confidence. The confidence is related here to the feeling of the customers to

support environmental sustainableproducts andbusinesses and thereforebepart of

anenvironmental‐friendlyaction.Thishypothesisexpectsthatcustomersarewillingto

payextrapricesforsustainableproductsandservicesoratleastraiseloyaltytowards

theenvironmental‐friendlycompany.Thatisthecaseifthecompanychoosesarather

proactiveapproachandrealizesadifferentiationstrategycomparedtothecompetitors.

If the firm relies on a reactive approach, it is the situationwhere companieshave to

respond tocustomerpressure formoresustainableproducts (Henriques&Sadorsky,

1996). This pressure can come via consumer organization ormedia. In this case the

companyintheworstcasehastotakebackcertainproductsduetoenvironmentalin‐

compatibility.Inothercasesthecompanieshavetocommitimmediateimprovements

intheareaofresourceconsumptionoremissionsduetoproductionprocesses.

Overthelastdecades,environmentalissuesalsobecameapoliticalmatter.Duetopub‐

lic pressure and recentnatural crises and findingsby the scientific community, envi‐

ronmentalsustainabilityhasbecomepartofthedebatesincongressesandadministra‐

tionsallovertheworld.Incombinationwithpublicpressureandpoliticaldebate,the

degree of regulations and policy are rising continuously (Rugman& Verbeke, 1998).

Thistakesplaceoninternationalandnational,butonindustrylevelaswell.Therefore,

notallcompaniesfacethesameregulations,pressuresfromthemarketorcangenerate

competitive advantage out of the incorporation of green aspects into the corporate

strategy.Moreoverthepersonalperceptionoftheimportanceofthematteracrossthe

executivesdifferstoo.Asaconsequenceofthis,theimpactofgreentocorporatestrat‐

egycandifferalotacrosscompanies.

To illustrate thebasis environmental strategies, amodel of ideal typeswill be elabo‐

rated.Themodeltakesintoaccountthedifferentcontextsofthecompaniesandthere‐

foreshowstwowaysofadapting ‘green’ intothecorporatestrategy.Thenatureofan

idealtypemodel is,that inrealnocompanyexiststhatfitsperfectlytotheidealtype.

The aimof the ideal typemodel ismore todistinguishbetween the twodirections a

companycanchoose.

Themodelshowsthetwostagesofacorporatestrategy.Firstthemodelassumesthat

the environmental matters are not or insufficiently incorporated into the corporate

strategy of the firm. This first step therefore reflects the strategy without environ‐

mentalconcerns.Duetothereasonspresentedinthischapterthestrategiccouncilof

thefirmdecidestoincludeenvironmentalaspectsintothecorporatestrategy.Theen‐

vironmentalpartof theoverall corporate strategycouldbecalledcorporateenviron‐


mental strategy, indicating that the attitude, vision and strategy of the company to‐

wardstheenvironmentisspecifiedthere.

The adoption of green elements into the corporate strategy can now happen in two

directions.Thefirstpossibilitystickstotheexistingvaluepropositionandcorebeliefs,

butfigurativelyaddsagreenmantletothecurrentstrategy.Thisgreenmantlemeans

to considerenvironmental aspects in corporateactivities.Forexample this canmean

that the existing productswill not be changed, but in the distribution of the product

maybeconsideredannewwayoftransportthatismoreenvironmentalfriendly.Other

examplesfocusonwastedisposalorfacilitymanagement.Thisfirsttypecanbenamed

as“doingoldthingsinnewways”(Lubin&Esty,2010).Theoverallaimofthisdirec‐

tion is tomitigate possible risks and control existing environmental issues to lower

theirimpact.

Thealternativetothefirstdirectionistoperformatotalincorporationoftheenviron‐

mental‐sustainability across thewhole value chain and in this process, to holistically

change the value proposition and core beliefs of the company. An example for this

wouldbethemodificationoftheproductorservicesportfolioandtodeliveronlyprod‐

uctsthatareenvironmentalfriendlyinthefuture.Thedecisionoftengoesalongwitha

replacement of current production technologies and product lines. The second type

reflectsadeep transformationof theentirevaluechainof the firm.Therefore, type2

can be described as ‘doing new things in new ways’ (Lubin & Esty, 2010). This ap‐

proachconsidersenvironmentalmattersasanewchallengeandasanopportunityfor

newbusinessmodels.


Fig.2:ImpactofEnvironmentalSustainabilityonCorporateStrategies.

The impactof thegreenwaveoncorporatestrategiescan,accordingtothemodel,be

described in twoways. Either a company can choose the type riskmitigation,which

reflectstheexistingcorporatestrategyinagreenmantle.Orthecompanycanchoose

thedirectionoftheentrepreneurialtype,whichrepresentsamodificationorevensub‐

stitutionoftheexistingvaluepropositionbygreenfactors.

In literatureonecan findconceptualandempiricalevidence for these twodirections.

Severalpublicationshaveeitherderivedalikewiseconceptualmodelorfoundempiri‐

cal evidence for this two directions. The following table shows a sample of selected

studies,whichdealwiththetopicofadaptingenvironmentalsustainabilitytothecor‐

porate strategy. The choice shall reflect the most cited models in this context. This

overviewincludesstudiesformthelast25years.Thetableshowstheauthor,theyear

ofpublicationandbrieflythecontextofthemodel.Moreoveritisindicatedwhetherthe

work has an empirical or conceptual bases. In the last two columns, the summary

showstherelationwiththemodelelaboratedbefore.Asmentioned,thesepublications

support the distinction in the two directions of risk mitigation and entrepreneurial

type.Whenthecitationsdescribeacontinuumoralargenumberofstepsordirections

ofCES,thentheseveralstepsareheresummarizedundertheleftorrightcolumn.The

modelsarepresentedinachronologicalorder.


Table2:OverviewofEnvironmentalManagementModels.

Publication,Model

Context Method AccordingTypeRiskMitigation

AccordingTypeEnterpreneurial

Petulla(1987) ApproachestoEM

Empirical Crisis‐/Cost‐oriented

EnlightenedEM

Hofstraetal.(1990)

Stagesofcomple‐tionofEM

Empirical Inspection,[...] […],totalintegra‐tion

UNCTAD(1993) Managementapproaches

Empirical Complianceori‐ented(reactive),[…]

[…],Sustainabledevelopment

Elkington(1994) Stagesofre‐sponsetoenvi‐ronmentalprob‐lems

Empirical Ignorance,awak‐eningdenial,guiltreduction,[…]

Integration

Crosbie&Knight(1995)

Strategicoptionformanagement

Conceptual Donothing,de‐fensiveposture,[…]

Sustainablebusi‐ness

Hart(1997) EnvironmentalStrategies

Conceptual Pollutionpreven‐tion,[…]

CleanTechnology

Ehrenfeld(1998) EnvironmentalStrategies

Conceptual Businessasusual,compliance,[…]

Sustainability

Winn&Angel(2000)

Corporategreen‐ing

Empirical Reactivegreening Proactivegreen‐ing

Rosen(2001) Environmentalstrategy

Conceptual Compliance‐driven

Strategicenvi‐ronmentman‐agement

VanMarrewijketal.(2004)

Frameworkforcorporatesustainabilityandresponsibility

Conceptual Compliancedriven

Entrepreneurialdriven

Dunphy,GriffithsandBenn(2007)

Environmentalstrategies

Conceptual Compliancecor‐poration

Sustainablecor‐poration

Pedersen(2010) Corporateenvi‐ronmentalandsocialstrategies

Empirical Reactive–com‐pliancedrivenandriskavoid‐ance

Proactive–makeadifference

Dependingonthedifferentbackgroundsandthe focusesof the literature, theexpres‐

sionsdifferacrossthepublications.Thevarietyofexpressionscanbeseen inthe last

twocolumns.Besidetheexpressions,moredifferencesexistbetweenthemodels.The

relationofriskmitigationandentrepreneurialdifferacrossthemodels.Somepublica‐

tionsseethetwodirectionsasanevolutionaryprocess(e.g.Hofstraetal.,1990;Elking‐

ton,1994).Inthiscase,companieshavetogothroughphasesorstages,socalledstage

models.Otherauthorsseethetwodifferentpossibilitiesasoptionstobechoosen(e.g.

Crosbie&Knight,1995;Rosen,2001).Inthiscaseitisastrategicdecisionwhichwayto

follow. At this point, this work will not differentiate between the motivations and

causes for thetwodirectionsnorevaluatethetwoways.Whatthissectionshowedis


thatarangeofCESexistintherealworld,whichcanmostlybeassignedtooneofthe

twoidealtypeselaboratedinthemodel.

Thequestionstillremains,howtorecognize,whichCESisbeenfollowedbyacertain

company.Tobringthenecessarytransparencyintothereporting,agloballyacknowl‐

edgedframeworkhasbeenelaborated.GlobalReportingInitiative(GRI)isaframework

withtheaimofensuringafocused,trustfulsustainabilityreportatthecompanylevel

(GRI, 2009).GRIpresents guidelineswhat to report (e.g. environmentalperformance

indicators)andhowtoreport(e.g.datacollection).Theframeworkallowsthreediffer‐

ent application levels. Level C is for beginners, levelA is for advanced reporters and

levelBforadaptorswithrequirementssomewhereinbetween.TheGRIdefinesanum‐

ber of KPIs for different areas of business activities as economic, environmental and

social performance, the company’s impact on human rights, society and product re‐

sponsibility.Inthefieldofenvironmentalperformancetheframeworkdemandsinfor‐

mation aboutmaterial, energy andwater consumption, emissions andwasteproduc‐

tionandalsoabouttransportation.TheGRI3.0frameworkhasdevelopedtothestan‐

dardofcorporatereportsofenvironmentalsustainability.

FollowingtheGRIframework,manycompanieshaveextendedtheirexistingreporting

withenvironmentalmatters. In theirreports, theynowmakeastatementabout their

emissions,theevolutionofenvironmentalpollutionovertheyearsandtheirtargetsfor

reduction. The companies are forced to communicate their vision and objectives for

environmentalaspects.

GreenPerformanceManagementSystems(PMS)

A formalization of the corporate strategy represents the performance management

system(PMS).Sowhenthegreenwaveisaffectingthebusinessstrategy,thisalsohas

animpactonthePMS.AsabasisforincorporatinggreenaspectsinthePMS,currently

twomajor underlying frameworks are available (Länsiluoto& Järvenpää, 2010): ISO

14000standardsandGlobalReportingInitiative(GRI).

ISO 14000 family incorporates several standards for environmental manage‐

mentandreporting(ISO,2009).TheISO14001providesthekeyperformance

indicators(KPIs)fortheenvironmentalPMS.Thestandard14004providesad‐

ditionalguidelinesforimplementingandreportingthestandard.Furthermore,

theISO14000familyincludesstandardsformeasuringtheenvironmentalper‐

formance, green house gas accounting and verification and environmental

communication.


Thementioned frameworksallowtodefineKPI tobe incorporated into thePMS.The

balanced scorecard (BSC) developed by Kaplan and Norton (2005) should be men‐

tionedhereasapopularexampleofaPMSinpractice(Länsiluoto&Järvenpää,2010).

Basicallytwowaysof implementinggreenaspects intothecorporatePMSexist.First,

the implementation of green aspects into the existing PMS, as highlighted by Figge,

Hahn,Schaltegger&Wagner(2002).Second,theimplementationofadiscretePMSfor

environmentalreasons,thencalledanenvironmentalmanagementsystem(EMS).Both

wayscanhelpdefine,monitorandmanagetheareasofthecompany,whereimprove‐

ment from an environmental view are necessary and therefore refine the corporate

strategyofacompany.

HavingthemodelofaCESinmindandknowinghowthestrategycanberecognized,it

is nowpossible to go one level deeper than the strategy. The next sectionwill show

howCESaretranslatedintooperationalprojectsandactions.


3 CorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives

Theexplanationssofarfocusedonthestrategicleveloftheincorporationofgreenas‐

pectsintothecorporatestrategy.Themodelpresentedinchapter2hasshowndiffer‐

entdirectionsforCES.Oncethestrategyis inplace,operational implementationmust

followtoreachtheobjectives.Intheareaofenvironmentalmatters,therealizationof

thestrategyisputintoaCEI.CEItakeupwithacertainneedofthecompanyandreal‐

izesomechangesinthecorporationtoreachthesustainabilityobjectives.Inthefollow‐

ingchapter,theexpressionCEIwillbedescribedinmoredetails.Theinteractionofthe

CESwiththeCEIisoutlinedanditwillbeshownhowdifferenttypesofCEIcansupport

specificenvironmentalstrategies.Comingtothispoint,typicalCEIforthetwodistinc‐

tivetypesofCESwillbedescribedanddiscussed.

3.1 DefinitionofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives

After theadjustmentof the corporate strategybyenvironmental aspects the changes

still need to be implemented. The realization of a corporate environmental strategy

takesplaceviaCEI.ACEIhasthecharacterofagreenprojectandachangeinitiativeat

thesametime.ACEIconsistsofaclearlydefinedgoalandislimitedtoacertaintimeof

execution.During the rollout, theCEI is supposed to transfer thegreenbehaviorand

attitudetothecompanyandtheirstakeholders.

ACEIcanaffectdifferentlevelsandprocesses,organizationalunitsandpeople.Tode‐

scribeaCEI,next,aframeworkwillbeintroduced.Itisthepurposeoftheframeworkto

providethenecessarystepstocatchtherelevantaspectsofaninitiativebeingableto

assesstheimpactandtheaimoftheinitiative.Theframeworkconsistsoffiveareasof

investigation,asitisshownonFig.3.

Firstofall,itismandatorytoreviewtheneedsforaspecificinitiative.Theneedcanbe

basedonfiguresliketheratherhighemissionofgreenhousegasesorenergyconsump‐

tion.Ortheneedcanbebasedonpersonalperception,forexamplewhenthemanage‐

ment identifies a lack of general understanding of environmentalmatters at the em‐

ployees’level.TheneedprovidesthebaselinefortheCEI.Asanextstep,theobjectives

fortheCEIcanbederivedfromtheneeds.Theobjectivesdescribetheexpectedresults

oftheinitiative.IfpossiblethattheobjectivesshouldberelatedtocertainKPIformthe

environmental reporting.Withhavingclearobjectivesset, theresultof the initiatives

canbemeasuredproperly.


Fig.3:FrameworkforCEI.

ThescopeofaninitiativecanbevisualizedusingPorter’svaluechain(Porter&Kramer,

2006).Anexampleofthevaluechaincanbeseenontheillustrationabove.ThePorter’s

valuechainshowsthecorporateactivitiesintwocategories.Onthefirsthandarethe

primaryfunctionthatreflecttheprocessofvaluecreationforthecustomers.Thisproc‐

essusuallystartswithinboundactivities,whereusuallymaterialsorservicesarepur‐

chasedfromsuppliers.Afterthevalueaddingactivitiesandsales,theproductisfinally

deliveredtoacustomerandasusuallylastpartoftheprimaryactivities,theafter‐sales

servicetakescareofcomplains,guaranteeobligationsetc.

Intheminimalcase,aCEIonlyaffectsonepartoftheprimaryactivities.Anexampleof

sucharathersmallscopedinitiativewouldbeagreenhousegasreductionprogramin

the inboundlogistics,wherethetransportof thematerials isorganizedwithenviron‐

mentalfriendlyvehicles.AnotherexampleforaCEIwitharathersmallscopewouldbe

an improvement of the isolation of the facilities to avoid unnecessary heating in the

wintertimeandthereforesaveenergy.

On theotherendof thescale,aCEIcanaffect thewholevaluechainandat thesame

time have consequences on the related support function. For example if a company

drivesazerowastestrategy,theinitiativeis forcedtoconsiderthewholevaluechain

form inbound until the installation of the product. Having such a big impact on the

value chain, procurement is somehow involved if for the reason of the CEI newma‐

chinesareneededandHRMissupposedtotrainthepeopleusingthisnewprocesses.


Fig.4:Porter’sValueChain.

Source:Porter&Kramer,2006,p.81.

The two examples show only a part of different scopes and consequences a CEI can

have on the company’s value chain and according organization.What can be seen is

thatwhatevertheaimoftheCEIis,differentpiecesofthevaluechainareinvolvedand

thereforeotherstakeholdersareaffected.Inmostcases,theknow‐howandmindsetof

theemployeeshastobetrained.Fromthispointthisalsoshowstheimportanceofin‐

volvingthesupportingfunctionsinCEI.

Asafourthstep,thecorrespondingrolesandresponsibilitiesmustbederived.Thede‐

velopmentandimplementationofaCEIis,dependingonthescope,oftenajointeffort

of different parties.As the case studieswill show, the overall responsibility for envi‐

ronmentalsustainabilityissomehoworganizedcentrally.Itmightbeacommitteeora

team,butthisroleistheoverallcoordinatoroftheCEIinthecompany.Nexttothehead

functionofenvironmentalsustainability, thebusinessandsupportunitsare involved.

WhentheCEIisaffectingtheprimaryprocesses,thebusinessunitsplayanimportant

partinit.Anexampleisthere‐engineeringofaproductionprocesstooptimizetheen‐

ergyconsumption.Atthesametimeinalmosteverycasethesupportactivitiesareaf‐

fected. Especially when the employees training, compensation or organization is in

scope,theHRMunitisinvolvedbysomeextend.

The results show the effect of the CEI after the implementation. The effect must be

compared to the needs and objectives and therefore provide a feedback process for

further initiatives. After this rather generic description of the structure of a CEI, the

nextsubchaptersshowtherelationofthenatureofthestrategyofthecompanyandthe

correspondingCEI.


3.2 ATypologyofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives

The ideal typemodelofCEI takestwoaspects together.Ontheoneside inchapter2,

thebasicsofaCEShavebeenelaborated.TheCESrepresentsthewayoftheincorpora‐

tionofgreenmattersintothecorporatestrategyofthefirm.InthemodelforCES,two

distinctivetypesforCEShavebeenderived.Ontheotherside,inthischaptertheprin‐

ciplesofCEIhavebeenoutlined.CEIaretheprojectsandinitiatives,whichhaveanim‐

pactonthecoreofthecompany,e.g.theemployeesorthevaluechainofthecompany.

TheCEIareinarelationwiththecorrespondingCESofthecompany.Thereforeinthis

subchapter, the combinationof the typeof CES and the systemof correspondingCEI

willbeinthefocusofinterest.Itistheaimtoelaborateonthebasisoftheidealtypesof

CES, which have been shown in chapter 2.3, a model for CEI. As a result of the CEI

modelitcanbeshownhowthenatureoftheCEIcorrespondwiththeCESofthecom‐

pany.

Asafirststep,someclarificationsaboutthefundamentalsofatypemodelwillbemade.

Theintentionofanidealtypemodelistoprovideanindicationforaclassificationofa

reallifeexample,whetheritisoneortheothertype.Thisusuallyhelpstounderstand

thepracticalexamplebasedon thesimplifiedunderstandingderivedwith thehelpof

theidealtypesofthemodel.Anidealtypemodelisnotablenorisittheobjectiveofthe

typemodel to explainonehundredpercentof the realworld.But inour context, the

ideal typemodelwillhelptoclassify theCEIencountered intheempiricalpartof the

thesisandprovidesomeupfront implicationsasabasis fordiscussion.Ofcourse it is

crucialtoassessthecontextofarealliveexamplefirstbeforetransferringtheimplica‐

tionsoftheidealtypemodeltothecase.Bydoingso,theidealtypemodelwillprovide

thebaselinefortheanalysisandthediscussionoftheempiricalcasesandcanfurther‐

morebetransferredtotheCEIwheneverwanted.

TheidealtypemodelforCEI,whichiselaboratedhere,takesasafoundationthediffer‐

ent types of CES presented in the chapter 2.3. According to this, CES can follow two

basicideas.ThefirstwayistypeA,whichrecognizesenvironmentalissuesasathreat

and potential risk. The risks have therefore to bemitigated and as a consequence of

this,itleadstotheconceptofacorporatecontrolstrategy.Thesecondapproachistype

B,whereenvironmentalmattersare seenasanopportunity to innovate thebusiness

processandtheofferings.Inthiscase,theCEScanbedescribedasanentrepreneurial

strategy.ThetwotypeswillactasabasisfortheCEImodel.

Inanextstep,theidealtypesofCESwillbeextendedbythecorrespondinginitiatives.

ThemodelassumesthatthenatureofCEIdifferentiatebetweenthetwotypesofCES.

So,thetypestrategyAwillleadtotypeAinitiativesandthesamefortypeBCES.This


relationbetweentheCESandtheCEIisbasedontheinteractioneffectsofthestrategy

andtheinitiative.CEIhaveimpactonthecoreofthecompany,forexampleontheem‐

ployees. Themanagement is committed to transferring the corporate strategy to the

mind set of the employees andwill therefore initiate and conductCEI,whichhelp to

implementtheCESinthecoreofthecompany.Fig.5showstheinteractioneffectsbe‐

tweenthestrategiclevelandtheleveloftheinitiative.

AccordingtotheidealtypesofCESandtheconsequencesforCEI,thismodeldescribes

twotypesofCEI.TypeAinitiativessupportacorporatecontrolandriskmitigationCES,

whiletypeBfostersaentrepreneurialenvironmentalstrategy.

Fig.5:ModelofCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives.

Sincethestrategycanbesetdifferentlybetweenbusinessunitsofthecompanyitmight

cometo thesituationwhereseveralbusinessunitsofonecompany followadifferent

CES.Asanexample,thisisthecasewhentheproductionunitfollowsthestrategytoact

according the corporate control strategy and is therefore focused on riskmitigation.

Butatthesametime,theproductdevelopmentgoesanownwayofputtingtheireffort

intoenvironmentalinnovationofthevaluechainandthusfollowinganentrepreneurial

approach.Especiallyinhighlydifferentiatedcompaniesthiscanbethecase.

Asaconsequenceofthis,additionallytotypeAandB,thereexistahybridstrategyon

the company level,whereboth typeA andB arepresentunderone roof of the com‐

pany.Inthefollowingsection,thetwotypesofCEIwillfurtherbedescribedanelabo‐

rated.


3.2.1 TypeA:GreenasThreat–CorporateControl/RiskMitigation

ItistheambitionofthissubchaptertopointoutthemostimportantaspectsofatypeA

initiativeandshowhowsuchaCEItypicallysupportstheaccordingCES.Toreconsider

thebasicsof typeAhereagain the importantkeypoints: typeACEI is related to the

strategytosee‘greenasathreat’.Asaconsequenceofthis,thecompanyfollowsacor‐

poratecontrolstrategytomitigatethepossiblerisksintheareas,wherepotentialenvi‐

ronmental issues arise. The nature of typical type A CEI will be assessed using the

frameworkelaboratedinchapter3.1.Thismeansthatfollowingaspectsareconsidered

todelineatethetypicalnatureofsuchaninitiative:Thecharacteristicneeds,objectives,

scope,contentandcorrespondingroles,whichcorrespondwithatypeACEI.

The first point the representative needs for an initiative in that context will be de‐

scribed.Companiesfollowinganapproachof‘greenasathreat’trytomitigatethepos‐

sibleriskviaacompliancestrategy(LubinandEsty,2010).Jabbour,SantosandNagano

(2010)described thisstrategy in theirresearchas thewayofmitigating thenegative

effects coming from business activities.While the company sticks to the rules of the

regulationorthecompliancestandard,theriskseemstobeundercontrol.Therefore,a

typeAinitiativecanbaseontheneedofbeingcompliantwithregulationsorstandards.

In awider context, theneed canbedescribedas externalpressure to actmore envi‐

ronmental‐friendly.When the need is basedmore on the internal view, the need for

costsavingcanbethebaseforaninitiative.Especiallyinthecontextofrisingpricesfor

energyandfuelthiscontextcanbetheneedforatypeACEI.Afurtherneedcouldbe

therecognitionofareas,wherebusinessactivitiescurrentlycausedamagetotheenvi‐

ronment,butwhichhasnoimpactonthefinancialbottomlineofthecompanybecause

it might not be related to extra costs for the company yet. But with the increasing

awarenessforenvironmentalissuesinpublicandadministrationitcouldpotentiallybe

acauseforexpensesinfutureandthereforeevokeacurrentriskforthecompany.This

canbethecaseforgreenhousegasemissions,wastewaterdispreadordisposalofcer‐

tainwastematerials.

Thekeypoints represent typicalneeds fora typeACEI.Theneedscanbe translated

into characteristic objectives of the initiatives. With the implementation of a CEI, a

companymightexpect:

Hands‐onsolutionstomitigatenegativeeffectsonthecosts

Achievingcompliancewithregulationsandstandards

ImprovementsinspecificenvironmentalKPI,e.g.greenhousegasemissions


Thescopeisthereforeringfencedaroundaspecificproblemorrisk.Asampleofsev‐

eralCEIinonecompanycanbelooselydistributedoverthedifferentareasofthefirm,

e.g.oneCEIwithfacilitymanagement,onewiththeproductdevelopmentandonwith

thedepartmentofafter‐salesservces.LubinandEsty(2010)describeinitiativesinthat

contexttohavethelookandfeeloftacticalprogramsindifferentareasofthefirm.The

figurebellowshowsthedistributionof theCEI in theconceptofPorter’svaluechain.

Eachgreensquarerepresentsaninitiativeinaspecificareaofthefirm.

Fig.6:TypicalCEIfortype1–greenasathreat.

Source:AdaptedfromPorter&Kramer,2006.

The illustration shows the maximum number of possible initiatives over the value

chain.Of course this is rarely the case.Often themanagement focuses theCEI in the

areasofthehighestimpactpotentialontheorganizationandthebottomline.

Withintheinitiatives,thewaytothesolutionisproblemidentificationandadedicated

problem solving. Therefore also the roles and responsibilities are organized in that

way.Thepositionresponsibleforsustainability,thismightbeapersonoracommittee,

will identify and steer the areasof investigation.Theproblem solving takesplaceon

the lower levels. The management‐by‐objectives might be a corresponding steering

logic.Thetargetwillbecentrallysetandtheexecutionhappenswithintheunits.Arisk

of theseparationof identification,steeringandexecutionmightbe theorganizational

separationandthemissingtransferfortherootcauseoftheenvironmentalissue.The

question,whythisisimportanttothecompanymightbelessimportantthanthesolv‐

ingoftheproblem.Fromaleadershippointofview,thismightbedescribedastransac‐

tionalcontextratherthanatransformationalcontext(Brass&Riggio,2006).


3.2.2 TypeB:GreenasOpportunity–Entrepreneurial

ThefollowingsubchapterwilldescribethetypicaldetailsofaCEIaccordingtotypeB.

Inthiscase,theunderlyingCESisfocusedonanentrepreneurialapproachincontribu‐

tionwithenvironmentalmatters.Theconfrontationwithenvironmentalissuesisseen

asanopportunity.Thecompanyiswillingtochangedeeplywithregardstothevalue

propositionandthecorebeliefs.Thereforeaninitiativeinthatcontextismorecomplex

andistouchingonmorelevelsthanaCEIdescribedinthechapterbefore.

Thedocumentationwill follow thesame frameworkas theoneelaborated in chapter

3.1.ItwillstartwiththeexplorationofthecorrespondingneedsforaCEIandthengo

over to theaccordingobjectives.After that, thetypicalscopeandcontentwillbeout‐

lined.Finallytherolesandresponsibilitiesare identified. It is the intentionofthefol‐

lowingexplanationstoimpartafeelingfortypicalCEI,whichsupportatypeBstrategy.

WhilefortypeAitwastheneedtobecompliant,typeBgoesonestepfurther.TypeB

initiatives tackle the need of transformation of the company to an environmental

friendlybusiness.Tobecompliantisrelatedtosatisfyminimumrequirements.ButCEI

for typeB choose theway to achievemuchmore than theminimumrequiredby the

stakeholders.Inthiscase,thecompanyiswillingtorethinkcurrentprocessesandways

ofwork.Itistheneedtoestablishenvironmentalfriendlybehaviorona‘sophisticated’

level. In terms of financial figures type B initiatives focus on long‐term profitability

improvements. Since deep transformations only become effectivewith the change of

the mind set of the employee and the management, the need for awareness raising

mightberelevantforCEIfortypeB.

Thecorrespondingobjectivescanthereforealsobedifferentiatedontwolevels:First,

theobjective tobring the companyone step forward to environmental‐friendlybusi‐

nessbehaviorandprocesses.Second,thereisthetargettoraisetheunderstandingand

the relevance of environmentalmatters at the employees’ level. In otherwords: The

objectives can rely on hard factors as improvements on KPIs of the environmental

sustainability reportingor the financialbottom lineandat the same timealsoon the

softfactorsside.CEIfortypeBthereforealsotargetpositiveeffectsoncommitmentof

theemployees,trustandmotivation.

ThetypicalscopeandcontextofatypeBinitiativeismuchwiderandextensivethana

typeACEI.Thesuccessfultransformationonacompanycanonlybeachievedwhenthe

wholevaluechainincludingallprimaryfunctionsandsupportfunctionsareinvolved.

ThisrequiresanintegratedconceptforCEIoverthecompanyandanexpandedscope

of the initiative.This canbe realizedwith alignedprojects through the companyand

theintegrationofthesupportfunctionstotheinitiatives.Fig.7showsthescopeonthe


valuechainofPorter.Ascanbeseenhere,thescopeisnotlimitedtoacertainunitor

function,butshouldbeoneCIEacrossbusinessunitsandfunctions.

Fig.7:TypicalCEIfortype2–greenasanopportunity.

Source:AdaptedfromPorter&Kramer,2006.

Ofcourse, thecontextsof theCIEhavetobespecifiedtothesituationofthebusiness

unitorfunction.Sothecontentoftheinitiativecandifferacrossthecompanytoguar‐

anteetherelevanceof theconnectionof themattertothespecific jobsandtasks.But

theillustrationwantstoshowthatthetopicenvironmentalsustainabilityintypeBini‐

tiativesdoesn’tknowanybordersorlimitation.ACIEaffectsallpartsofthecompany.

RegardingtheconcretecontentofaninitiativetheCIEshouldconsiderthetwolevelsof

objectives.Ontheonehandtheimpartmentofthegeneralunderstandingoftheimpor‐

tanceandontheotherhandtoshowwhereandhowenvironmentalsustainabilitymat‐

tersatthespecificplaceofthecompany.

Comingtotherolesandresponsibilities,wherethemorecomplexprocessincompari‐

sonwithatypeAinitiativemattersagain.ForatypeBinitiativeitiscrucialtobringthe

affectedstakeholderstooneplaceandtointegratethemintotheprocessformthevery

beginning. planning, target setting and execution should be close together to benefit

frominteractioneffects.TheprocessofthedevelopmentandtheconductionofatypeB

CIE ismorerelated toa iterativeprocessof revision, trialand innovation towardsan

environmental sustainablebusiness. In theconstructof the initiative,with regards to

the leadership style, in this case it more conforms a transformational style than a

transactionalmethod(Brass&Riggio,2006).


3.2.3 HybridFormofAandBwithinOneCorporateStrategy

AnadditionalcaseofCESwithcorrespondinginitiativeshowsthefollowingillustration.

The strategy usually takes place at the business unit level – especially in diversified

companies (Porter, 2008). If one business unit, here called division, sticks to the old

production technologies and products and the other division has managed to

reengineer, innovateandcreatenewbusinessopportunities, thecompanycomes into

the situation where different environmental strategies are in place within the same

company. This situationmay occur, if the investment cycles within division one are

ratherlongsothatthemanagementisnotabletoreactinamoreproactivewaytoen‐

vironmentalmatters. Fig. 8outlines the situationwithdifferentCESwithinone com‐

pany.Inthiscase,thedivision1followsthetypeAstrategy.Division3hasincorporated

thetypeBstrategy.

Fig.8:Typehybrid–bothformsofCIEwithinonecompany.

Notsurprisingly,thedifferentCESalsocorrespondtoothertypeofCEI.Theneedsand

theobjectivesvarybetweenthebusinessunits.Thishasanimpactonthenatureofthe

CEI in the respective areas.TheCEI therefore create adistinctive culture andunder‐

standingofenvironmentalissuesacrosstheunits.Asalogicalresult,a‘parallelworld’

in termsofenvironmentalmanagementwillbecreated– leading to twodifferentap‐

proachesforCEIwithinonecompany.Theenvironmentalmanagementforthattypeof

companythereforeincorporatesbothtypeofCIE.


4 InteractionwithHumanResourceManagementPractices

TheHRMdoesnotonlyrepresentamajorinternalstakeholderwithinthecompany,but

it isalsoasource forcompetitiveadvantage(Wright,Dunford&Snell,2007).Marcus

and Fremeth (2009) point out, that especially the green competencies of the human

resourcesofafirmcanbedifficulttoimitateandthereforerepresentanopportunityto

achieve competitive advantages in the market. As a consequence of this, human re‐

sources should be considered as a strategic topic also in the context of the environ‐

mentalsustainability.

ThemanagementofthehumanresourceshappensmainlythroughtheHRMpractices

ofthefirm.BasedonthestrategicvalueoftheHRMpracticesitisthereforecrucialfor

thecompany’ssuccesstohavetheHRMpracticescloselyinterlinkedwiththecorporate

strategyofthefirm(Huselid,1995;Bowen&Ostroff,2004;Schuler&Jackson,2001).

ThisisvalidingeneralbutalsointhecontextofCEI.

Thepracticesbasicallycontaintheprocesses,tasks,modelsandconceptsofmanaging

human resourceswithin the company. TheHRMpractices correspondwith theHRM

functions.The functionsrepresent theorganizationalunits,howto taketheresponsi‐

bility forcertainpractices,sometimesalsoonlyapartofonepractice. Ifseveral func‐

tionsworktogetherinanetwork,thedifferentfunctionstakespecificroles.

ItistheaimofthechaptertodescribetherelevantHRMpracticesintherelationshipof

HRMandCEI,andtofurtherdescribetherolesthatcanbetakeninthiscontext.Start‐

ingwith thescholar’spointofview,Huselid (1995) identifies in thewidercontextof

corporatestrategyandtherelation toHRM, forexample theareasofemployeeskills,

knowledgemanagementandthemotivationoftheemployeesandtheaccordingprac‐

ticesas crucial for thecompany’sperformanceandsuccess.This chapterwillput the

generalfindingofthescientificcommunityintothesituationofCIEandwillbeableto

outlinethespecificsofthiscontext.Moreover,arangeofpossibleroleswillbederived.

Toconclude this chapter, some thoughtson theorganizational concernsof theplace‐

mentoffunctionsoverthecompanywillfollow.

4.1 EnvironmentalHumanResourceManagementPractices

AnumberofstudieshaveshowntherangeofpracticesofHRMthatareablecontribute

to the successful implementation of a corporate strategy in the firm. In this context

Huselid(1995)mentionstheselectionprocesses,incentivecompensation,performance

management systems, the employee involvement and training to be central for the


company’ssuccess.WrightandBoswell(2002)addtothesefindingsthetwofollowing

layersintheirview:ThemacroandthemicrofoundationofHRMresearch.Themacro

practices are related to concerns of the organization as a whole. For example the

workforceplanning,companywideskillprofiles, trainingconceptsandHRpoliciesas

the codeof conduct fall into themacro layer.On theotherhand themicro layer that

focusesonindividualsoftheorganization.Inthiscategorybelongforexampletheindi‐

vidualcompensations,recruitmentandperformanceappraisals.

Forthisresearch,bothHRMpracticeswillbeconsidered,onthemacroandonthemi‐

cro level.However, thepossiblepractices to take into accountonboth levels arenu‐

merous.Thereforethefollowing illustrationshowsthreepracticesonthemacro level

andthreeonthemicro,whichwillbe in focus for the followingempiricalpartof this

work.

Next, the sub setofpossibleHRMpracticeswill bedescribedanddiscussed. It is the

intentiontorepresentwiththesubsetthemajortopicsinthefieldofHRM,whichare

crucialwithregardstothedevelopmentandtheexecutionofCEI.Fortheaggregation

oftheelements,areviewofaccordingliteraturehasbeenconducted(e.g.Glavas,Senge

& Cooperrider, 2010; Lai, Cheng& Tang, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2006; Shari, 2010;

Wirtenbergetal.2007).ThefollowingoverviewofHRMpracticesreflectsthesixmost

citedtopicsrelevanttothecontextofthisstudy.Inthefollowingillustration,theprac‐

ticesarepresentedwiththeirrelationtotheCEIinthecenter.

Fig.9:HRMpracticesandtherelationtoCEI.

ThepictureshowsfivepracticesbeingrelevantinthecontextofCEI.Threeofthemfit

intothedefinitionofmacropractices.Themacropracticesconcernorganizationwide

!"#$

!%&'()*$

+%,-.-/0$

12(-)-)3$4$

5/6/,%'&/)7$

!%&'/)8

0(9%)0$

1(,/)7$:3&7$;/.2<-9)3$


matters. In the situation here, the macro wide practices training and development,

companypoliciesandrecruitingareinscope.Themicropracticesconsistofindividual

compensationsandtalentmanagement.Thepracticesareexplainedinmoredetails.

Traininganddevelopmentareconsideredhereasmacropracticebecausethefocusin

this practice lies on the general training concepts valid for the whole organization

ratherthantheindividualopportunitiesofonespecificemployeeinthisfield.Themain

topicsinthisareaareguidelines,conceptionsandplansfortraininganddevelopment

possibilitieswithin the company. Training is considered as the preferred practice to

changetheskills,knowledgeandbehaviorof theemployees.SinceaCEIoftentargets

theimprovementoftheseareas,thetraininganddevelopmentpracticeisafieldtobe

carefullyconsideredwithregardstoCEI.

As otherpractice in themacro framework theHRpolicieswill be examined. This in‐

cludestheregulationsinwrittenformvalidfortheemployeesofthefirm.Typicalregu‐

lationsarecodeofconductorbehaviorguidelinesforenvironmentalmatters.Acodeof

conduct advises the employees how to act in the critical fields, as potential environ‐

mental, societal or legal issues. When impacting the organization with CEI, also the

written policiesmust be expanded, adjusted or at least empathized. This is why the

areaofcorporatepoliciesmatterswithregardstoCEI.

Asthirdpracticeinthemacrocontexttherecruitingguidelinesandregulationsmaybe

relevant.Inthisdomain,thesettingsfor‘whowillbehired’aredefined.Inmoredetails

thismeansthatherethequalitiesandcompetencesofacandidateareidentifiedtobe

successfulwiththeapplicationataspecificcompany.Thismayberelevantbecausea

changeintheCESandtheaccordingCIEwillaltertherequestedcompetencesandabili‐

tiesof theemployeesandasaconsequence,also therequirementsat the ‘frontdoor’

mustbeadjusted.

Thetwopracticesatthemicrolevelremain.Oneimportantpracticewithregardtothe

monetarymotivationoftheemployeesrepresenttheindividualcompensationsorper‐

formanceappraisals.Avarietyofresearchhasshowntherelevanceofthetopicandthe

reasons to position compensations as a strategic element of the HRM practices (Hu‐

selid,Jackson&Schuler,1997).Theeffectofcompensationsistofocusandadjustthe

organizations objectiveswith the personal targets of the employees.With regards to

that, thecompensationsrepresentacrucial fieldalso in the implementationofCEI in

thefirm.

As a last area, the practices of talentmanagement arementioned as being of impor‐

tancewithregardstoCEI.Thetalentmanagementinthiscontextdefinesthecriteriaas

towhat kindof employees are considered as highperformer and thereforepotential


candidatesforapromotiontoahigherposition.Withchangingvaluesandobjectivesof

theorganizationinrelationwithCEI,thecriteriaforbeingatalentmightbeinfluenced

too.Therefore,thepracticeofindividualtalentdecisionsisassignedasareaofinterest.

Thefiveareaspresentedherehavebeenidentifiedtoberelevantforassessingthein‐

teractionbetweenCIEandHRM.Theywillbetakenintoconsiderationwithinthecase

studiesandthederivationofthelessonslearned.

4.2 ModelforKeyRolesandResponsibilities

Thescientific communityof so‐called role theorists, forexampleAshforth (2001)un‐

derstandstheorganizationasasystemofroles.Therolesactinsharinganddistribut‐

inginformationaboutdesiredandexpectedactivitiesoftheorganizationmembers.The

followingsectionwillbreaktheviewofroleswithinacompanydowntothecontextof

CEIandHRM.ForthedevelopmentandtheexecutionofCEI,thecontributionofseveral

partsofthecompanyisneeded.Thesectionbeforehasrecoveredthemostimportant

practices in the area of HRMwith regards to CEI. Certain organizational units, here

calledfunctions,executethesepractices.Thefunctionsactinanetworktocontributeto

theCEI.Theaimofthischapteristoexamineaframeworkforthedifferentrolespossi‐

blytakenbythedifferentfunctionsduringthedevelopmentandtheexecutionofCEI.

SchulerandJackson(2001)proposeaframeworkforgenericrolesthatcouldpossibly

be takenbyHR functions.The frameworkwasoriginallymeant for the interactionof

HRM and business functions, and not in the specific context of initiatives. The table

shows four role descriptions reflecting different levels of involvement and extend of

understandingfortherespectivematter.


Table3:TheKeyRolesandResponsibilitiesforHRProfessionals.

KeyRoles ResponsibilitiesontheJob

StrategicPartner Showsconcernsformultiplestakeholders,includ‐ing employees, customers, shareholders and thesocietyatlarge

Understands howmoney gets made, spent, andlostinaglobalcontext

Educates managers about the value of humanresources and the consequences of managingpeopleeffectively(orineffectively)

Innovator Helps the organization create an environmentthatsupportscontinuouslearningandcreativity

Createsnewapproachestomanagingpeopleanddoesnotonlyrelyonwhatothersaredoing

Collaborator Knowshowtocreatewin‐winsituations Sharesratherthancompetes Works effectively across internal and external

organizationalboundaries

ChangeFacilitator Anticipatestheneedforchangeandpreparestheorganizationforit

Thinks conceptually and articulates thoughtsclearly

Executechangesinstrategy Energizesotherstoacceptandembracechange

Source:Schuler&Jackson,2001.

TherolesasshownabovewillnowbetranslatedinthecontextofCEI.Startingatthe

bottom with the role of change facilitator, this represents the lowest amount of in‐

volvementinthetopic.Inthiscase,thefunctionactsasanexecutorandmultiplierfor

thetopicofenvironmentalsustainability.Asanexample,atrainingfunctionorganizes

the training sessions and enables thepresentation of the content developed anddis‐

tributed fromother functions to the employees. In this case, the function actswithin

thecorrespondingresponsibilitiesandputstheeffortintotheexecutionraterthanthe

developmentandinfluencingoftheCEIitself.Thefunctionisseenhereasaperforming

unit,preparingandexecutingthecontentoftheCEItotheorganizations.

Inthenextroleoftheframework,thefunctioncollaboratorgoesonestepfurtherinto

thedevelopmentoftheinitiative.Thefunctioncontributeswithknow‐howandexisting

processesoftheunit.ItistheaimtoseekandestablishsynergiesbetweentheCEIand

the corresponding HR practice. For example, a performance appraisal practice could

alignthe incentiveswiththeparticipationinaCEI.Sotheeffortoftheemployeesput

into the CEIwould also pay off at the compensations side. This reflects an example,

where practices andCEIwork together in a network and enforce the initiative to be

moreeffective.Ontheotherhandthecontributionof the function to theCEIhelps to

!"#

!"

!"

!"#


reform and innovate the HR practice by taking new, environmentalmatters into ac‐

count.

Theroleofinnovatorrepresentsthestatusofafunction,activelybringingtheirknowl‐

edgeofacertaintopicintotheCEI.Thisisthecaseforexamplewheninthecontextof

environmental sustainability the function acts as an information provider about the

environmental impact of the business activities. In general, the role brings external

knowhow and approaches into the development and execution of the CEI that deci‐

sivelyhelpstoaddvaluetotheCEI.

Asatoprole intheframeworkpresented,thestrategicpartneractsastheintegrator,

coordinatorandexecutorofthe initiative. Inthatrole, thefunctionactivelybringsto‐

gether relevant stakeholders of the CEI and sets the targets and the direction of the

initiative.Thestrategicpartnershowsunderstandingforthedifferentbackgroundsand

beliefsofthestakeholderandconsolidatestheirviewsintoajointeffort.

Thedifferentrolesreflectdifferentpositionsthatmightbetakenbyfunctions.Itisnot

necessary thateachposition is takenbyadistinctive role inan initiative. Itmightbe

possible that the strategic partner acts as facilitator at the same time. On the other

hand,twofunctionscouldcontributeatthesametimeintheroleoftheinnovatortothe

initiative. In that context, the strategic partnerwould integrate the inputs fromboth

sidesintotheCEI.Ofcourse,theframeworkdescribesonlyfourtypesoutofacontin‐

uumofinvolvementandparticipation.However,thetypesseemtobeabletosketchthe

severalrolestakenwithinCEI.Furthermore,theoriginalcontextofHRMfunctionscan

beextendedtoothercontributing functionsof thecompanywithslightlydifferent in‐

terpretationsoftheperceptionoftheroles.

4.3 OrganizationalConcernsforCorporateEnvironmentalInitiatives

Sofar inthischapter, therelevantpracticeshavebeenexaminedandwiththeframe‐

workfortherolesandresponsibilities,somedescriptionsofpossiblerolestobetaken

havebeenoutlined.Thequestionremains,howtoplacethefunctionintermoftheor‐

ganizationofthecompany.Thetwopossibleextremesrepresentthetotallycentralized

approach and one the other side the completely decentralized approach (Malone,

1999). The centralized approach represents an organization, where decisionmakers

aremainly put in the organizations heads, for example in the headquarter or the in

groupholdingorganization(Lashley,2001).Thedecentralizedapproachwouldbere‐

flected in a situation where the units have much freedom of decision and they face

muchautonomy.Thefollowingillustrationdescribesthetwoedgesonacontinuum.


Fig.10:ContinuumofCentralOrganizationversusDecentralOrganizationofFunctions.

Likethefigureshows,severalallocationonthatcontinuumarepossible.Eachsidehas

itsadvantagesanddisadvantages.Drucker(1988)pointsoutthatgenerallyincompa‐

niesthereisthereasonableneedforcentraldecisionmakersintermsofefficiencyand

speedofdecisions.Butontheothersidetheknow‐howandtheinformationisincen‐

tral organizations limited to very few people. A decentralized organization can addi‐

tionallydevelopmorespecialtiesforthespecificcontextofthesituation.Druckercalls

this the organizational dilemma. The criteria to decidewhether a function should be

placedcentralizedorratherdecentralizeddependonthecomplexityandthespecialties

tobe considered in thedecisions, sinceamanager isonlyable todetect and interact

accordinglywithinhislimitedareaofexpertise(Harris&Raviv,2002).Forthecircum‐

stances of CEI thismeans that if an initiativeneeds special expertise of the situation

where theproject takesplace, a ratherdecentralizedapproach seems tobe effective.

The areaswhere a function can realize synergies across each other, should be orga‐

nizedwithamorecentralizedapproach.

ThissectionrepresentedtheconsiderationsregardingtheinteractionofHRMpractices

and functionswithCEI.The findingswillprovideabaseline for theupcomingpartof

casestudiesinthenextchapter.


5 CasesStudies:LessonsLearnedfromSwissFirms

Thecases studies represent theempiricalpartof the thesis.Basedon the theoretical

frameworkofthefirstfourchapters,threecasestudieswillbepresentedtogainaddi‐

tionalfindingsabouttheadaptionofEnvironmentalStrategiesinthepractice.Thecase

studieswillexaminethedetailedstrategiccontextofthefirmanddescribeindetailan

initiativewhichhasbeenconductedover the lastyears.Aftera shortpresentationof

thefirms,thecorrespondingCEIofthecompanywilloutlinetheapproachandthere‐

sultsoftheinitiative.Aspecialpartoftheinvestigationsshowstherespectiverolesand

responsibilities.Thethreecaseswillshowthattheorganizationalsetupofeachinitia‐

tivehastobechosencarefullyandwithrespectstotheaimandtherequirementsofthe

initiativeand the contextof the company.This is justone lesson learned thatwillbe

derivedfromthecasestudies.Onesection ineachcase focusesespeciallyonthetake

awaymessagesthatwerereportedbytheinterviewpartnersorfoundduringthedesk

research.

Thefirstsubsectionofthischapterwillintroducethereadertothemethodologicalba‐

sicsofthethesis.First,thesampleofcompaniesforthecasestudieswillbeexplained

and discussed. Second, the section outlines the detailed empirical approach and the

procedure for theempirical study. Itwill bedescribedwhat interviewpartnerswere

chosenandhowtheinformationwascompiledforthecasestudies.Aftertheintroduc‐

tivewordsofthefirstsection,thethreecasestudieswillbepresented.

ThecasestudiesrepresentcompanieswhohavetheirheadquartersinSwitzerland.All

ofthemhaveaninternationalfocus,eitherbyhavingproductionsitesabroadorserv‐

ingtheEuropeanorworld‐widemarketswiththeirproductsorservices.Thefirstcase

showstheinitiativeofapharmaceuticalcompany,whichelaboratedanenvironmental

codeofconductthroughemployeeparticipationandthereforemanagedtosensibilize

the staff for environmental issues. The second case shows the training initiative of a

company in thematerials industry. The CEI succeeded in handing on the knowledge

andmotivating the employees, which is necessary to conduct a deep environmental

transformation to a green businessmodel. The third case describes an initiative of a

company in the cement industry. Although the core‐business process of the cement

productionisalmostintangiblefordrasticenvironmentalimprovements,thecompany

achieved the substitutionof traditional energy sources throughawastemanagement

solution,helping toachieve cost savings forenergyandat the same timehelping the

localcommunitywiththedisposaloflitter.


5.1 Methodology

The section will describe the empirical approach for the case studies. As research

methodforthecasestudies,deskresearchandinterviewswithrepresentativesofthe

companywerechosen.Thedeskresearchdeliveredthepublicavailableinformationfor

the discussionwith the interview partners. The interviews have been conducted be‐

tweenJuneandAugust2010.Thedeskresearchincludeddocumentsandpublications

beingavailableduringthesametimeperiod.So,forexamplewithregardstotheannual

reports,thecasestudiesbaseonthereportsuptotheyear2009.Asfollowing,there‐

searchmethodwillbedescribedinmoredetails.

5.1.1 SampleofCompanies

ItistheintentionofthisworktopresenttheinitiativesandlessonslearnedfromSwiss

companies in the different context of the firmswith regards to strategy andmarket

environment.At the same time the companies included in the sample shouldbepar‐

ticipatingintheinternationalmarkettobeinterestingandprobablyknownabroad.To

excludesmallcompaniesfromthepopulation,onlycompanieswereconsideredwhose

shares are stock listed at the financial markets, for example at the Swiss Stock Ex‐

change.The firms inscopeshouldreflect interestingcaseswithregards to the imple‐

mentationofenvironmentalstrategies.Therefore,onlycompanieswithasustainability

reportwereconsideredforthesample.Thefollowingillustrationshowsthewayfrom

thepopulationtothesample.

Fig.11:SampleoftheCompaniesfortheCaseStudies.

!"#$%&%

!"#$%'%

!"#$%(%

)$"*+,"-$.%/0%12/-3$.4"0*%

1-567%4/#-$*%

1,#-"/0"8/4/-9%:$;5.-%

!"#$#%.$<$6=0>%*/?$.$0-%

/0*,#-./$#%

@5;,4"=50%5A%65B;"0/$#%

1"B;4$%


The figure above shows the criteria for the companies in the sample. According the

schema, three companies have been chosen. All the companies hold the criteria and

weretakenintothesamplefortheempiricalpartofthethesis.Thethreefirmsforthe

casestudiesare:

GalenicaGroup,PharmaceuticalIndustry,

Untermattweg8,CH‐3027Bern

GeberitInternationalAG,SanitaryTechnology,

Schachenstrasse77,CH‐8645Jona

HolcimLtd,CementandAggregatesIndustry,

Zürcherstrasse156,CH‐8645Jona

Thecompanieswerecontactedandrequestedtoparticipateinthiscasestudy.Thefol‐

lowingsectionwilldescribethedetailedresearchprocessfromthesampletothecom‐

pletedcasestudies.

5.1.2 ResearchMethod

It is theaimofthisthesistodiscover interestingenvironmental initiativeandlessons

learnedindifferentcontexts.Thisintentionratherreflectsanapproach,wherediscov‐

eringanddetectionisinthefocusoftheempiricalwork.Thereforeaqualitativewayof

workwaschosenandnotaquantitativeapproach(e.g.Gubrium&Holstein,2002).

Twomethodswere combined for the empirical process in this thesis. First the desk

research,wherepublicdocumentsandinformationontheinternetwerestudied.Sec‐

ond, personal interviews were conducted to gather the informal information and

knowledgeaboutthecases.Figure12showstheprocessoftheempiricalworkofthis

thesis.

Fig.12:EmpiricalProcessfortheCaseStudies.


Giventhesampleofthethreecompanies,thefirmswerecontactedbyemailandtele‐

phoneand informedabout thescopeandthe intentionof thecasestudy.Asampleof

documentsto illustratethecommunicationwiththe firmscanbefoundintheappen‐

dix.Allcompaniesacceptedtherequestforparticipationandafirstworkshopwasset

uptosharpenthescopeoftherespectivecasestudy.Topreparethefirstmeeting,an

intensivedeskresearchwasconducted.Thefocusofthedeskresearchwasonofficial

publication of the company as annual reports and special reports, for example on

sustainability.Furthermore,newspaperarticlesandotherpiecesof informationwere

gatheredtocreateafullpictureofthesituationofthefirmbasedexternalcommunica‐

tion.

Thecontactperson for the firstmeetingwas the representative for the sustainability

topicatgrouplevelorarespectiveteammember.Itwastheobjectiveofthefirstwork‐

shoptoidentifytheconcreteinitiativethatwastobethescopeforthecasestudyand

todiscussthenextsteps,especiallyabouttheinterviewpartnerstogooneleveldeeper

into the information. Itwas the intention todiscover theCEI fromdifferentsides.So,

threedifferentpeoplewereapproached foran interviewabout the samecase. Itwas

theaimtointerviewmoreorlessthesamefunctionsoverthethreecases.Theguide‐

linefortheselectionoftheinterviewpartnerwas:

ResponsibleforSustainabilityatcorporatelevel

Projectmanagerorinvolvedpersoninthedevelopmentandrolloutoftheini‐

tiative

ResponsibleforHRM/ODconcerns

Takenintoconsiderationthatthesetupoftheprojects isnotalwaysthesameitwas

theaimtoshowflexibilitywithregardstotheinterviewpartnerselection.Know‐how

was more important than hierarchy. So when a teammember was more closely in‐

volvedintheCEI,theinterviewtookplacewiththeteammember,oratleastonepart

ofit.Itisadvantageofthisapproachthattheinformationreallyisfromthebasis.The

riskofsuchanapproachisthatthemanagementperceptioncanbeaslightlydifferent

one.Toensure that thegap isnota significantone, theoutcomeshavebeenchecked

and alignedwith information of the other interview partners. At least one interview

partnerofeachcasestudywasrepresentingatopmanagementposition.

Basedontheoutcomesandthedecisionsofthefirstmeeting,specifiedquestionnaires

withopenquestionsweredevelopedanddistributed to the interviewpartner for the

followingmeetings. The theoretical background for the conduction of the interviews


was based on the guidelines and suggestions in the work of Gubrium and Holstein

(2002),Marschan‐PiekkariandWelch(2004)andWeathington,CunninghamandPit‐

tenger(2010).

Itwastheaimof theempiricalpart togatherasmuchinformationaspossibleandto

developsomehypothesesandfindevidenceforthemwiththeinterviewpartners.The

methodofthepersonalinterviewoffersanappropriatepossibilitytoassembleagreat

amountofrich information(Weathington,Cunningham&Pittenger,2010).The inter‐

views were conducted face‐to‐face wherever possible. In the other cases, telephone

calls took place. For each case study, at least four sessionswere held that lasted be‐

tweenhalfandhourandtwohours.Aftertheinterviews,theinterviewpartnersagreed

tosomefollow‐upsforadditionalinformationsharingviaemailorphone.

Astheresearchprocessshows, the interviewstookplaceoneaftertheother.The in‐

tentionwas to rework the findings form the interview first before startingwith the

nextsession.Likethisitwaspossibletoreassesstheoutcomesfromthefirstinterview

withthenextoneandthereforedevelophypothesesandfindingsinaninductiveway.

This research method is called multi‐stage interviews (Marschan‐Piekkari & Welch,

2004).Forthedocumentation,thesameframeworkwasappliedinallthreecasestud‐

ies.Thismadeiteasiertofollowthearrangementofthedifferentcases.Thefollowing

tabledescribesthestructureofthecasestudies.

Table4:StructureoftheCaseStudies.

Name of the Section in theCaseStudy

Content

1. Introduction to the casestudy

Nameof thecompanyandsomebackground information,descrip‐tion of the industry, corporate strategy, brief introduction to theCEI,descriptionoftheintentionofthecasestudy

2. Presentationof theCESofthecompany

Vision and mission of the company regarding environmentalsustainability, assessment of the CES in the model for environ‐mentalstrategies

3. Description of the respec‐tiveCEI

Needs for the initiative, Objectives, Scope of the CEI, Roles andResponsibilities,ResultsoftheCEI

4. Lessons Learned form theinitiative

This section includes a detailed description of the lessons learnedformthecasestudy,mainlyfocusingonthreeorfourdistinctareasoftheimitative

5.DiscussionandConclusion In this section, the prerequisites for a transfer of the CEI and thelessonslearnedtoanotherorganizationarediscussed.Furthermorethe section reviews the impact of the CEI on the CES of the com‐pany.

According this framework, the case studies have been developed and compiled. The

followingpagesshowtheoutcomesoftheempiricalwork.Afterthepresentationofthe

cases,theoutcomeswillbeanalyzedanddiscussedinthenextchapter.


5.2 CaseStudy1:Galenica’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyandInitia‐

tivesinthePharmaIndustry

Galenica is an internationally operatinghealthcare companywith its headquarters in

Bern,Switzerland.Thecompanywasfoundedin1927asapharmaceuticalwholeseller.

In themeantime, the companyemploys about1’100people and is stock listedat the

Swissstockexchange(SIX).Overtheyears,Galenicahasdevelopedtoahighlydiversi‐

fiedhealthcareproviderservingdifferentbusinesssectors.Fourfieldsofactivitiesde‐

scribethecompany’sstrategyandorganization.Theareasareshownontheillustration

bellow.

Fig.13:OverviewGalenica’sBusinessSections.

The different business sectors run under several umbrella brands and labels.4 The

business sector,whichproducesandsellspharmaceuticalproducts, is calledPharma.

ThesectorPharmahasdevelopedtoa leading internationalpharmaceuticalproducer

in the field of aliment iron deficiency anemia. As second division, Galenica provides

logisticservicestothehealthcaremarket.Thisincludestheoperationofalogisticcen‐

terinSwitzerlandthatisabletoservetheEuropeanmarketwithtransportanddistri‐

butionservices.Asthirdsector,Galenicarunsretailstoresforpharmaceuticalproducts.

InthissectorGalenicaismainlyfocusesontheSwissmarket.Asforthbusinessdivision,

Galenica provides services for databases and networks for the health caremarket in

SwitzerlandundertheumbrellanameofHealthCareInformation.

According to thedescribedbusiness sectors, thecorporate strategyofGalenica isde‐

scribed as follows (Galenica, 2010): It is the target of Galenica to be top in these se‐

lectedpartsofthehealthcaremarketintermsofexperienceandexpertise.Themission

toachievethetargetisthroughconcentratingonwhatismostimportantintherespec‐

tivesectorsandsettingclearpriorities.Galenicastrivestomeettheneedsoftheircus‐

tomers,partnersandshareholders.Intheannualreport,Galenicadescribeitscoreval‐

uesasfollows(Galenica,2010,p.10):

4ForadetailedoverviewofallthebrandsofGalenica’sgroupcompaniesandproductsseeGa‐lenica,2010,p.71.


Long‐termorientation:TheGalenicaGroupfocusesitsactivitiestoensurethe

company’scontinuedexistenceoverthelongterm.Short‐termprofit‐oriented

approachesareoutofplaceatGalenica.

Innovation:Newpharmaceuticalproducts,strengtheningoftheexistingprod‐

uctrange,innovativeservicesofthehighestqualityandcontinualadaptationof

infrastructurewillalsoleadGalenicatosuccessoverthelongterm.

Focusonsuccess:Galenicaisasuccess‐orientedgroupthataimsforhighprof‐

itabilityastheresultofitsownefforts.

Flexibility:Galenica’sBoardofDirectorsandCorporateExecutiveCommittee

observemarkettrends,weighopportunitiesagainstrisks,andlaytheground‐

workearlyonforasuccessfulfuturebyfollowingaflexibleapproach.Inorder

togeneratevalueoverthelongterm,theyarealsopreparedtoacceptshort‐

termfluctuationsinresults.

Sustainability:Galenica’seconomicperformanceiscloselylinkedtoitssenseof

environmentalandsocieCEItalresponsibility.

In terms of environmental sustainability, Galenica takes the impact of their business

actionsseriousandhasthereforestartedandconductedanumberofCEI.Asanexam‐

ple of a CEI, this case studywill highlightGalenicas effort to develop and establish a

codeofconductat thenewdistributioncenter inNiderbipp,Switzerland.Thisopera‐

tions center, setup in theyears2008and2009, ispartof theLogictics sectorofGa‐

lenica. It includes about400 employees and creates a revenueof 2 bn. Swiss Francs.

Thisisabout80%oftheGalenicagroup,butonly20%oftheprofit.

ItistheintentionofthiscasestudytoshowhowGalenicawasabletosharpentheun‐

derstanding for environmental matters and establish a culture of environmental

awarenesswithminimalcostsofrealizationthroughtherealizationoftheCEI.

5.2.1 Galenica’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy

To understand the needs and the objectives of the CEI, the corporate environmental

strategyofGalenicawillbepresentedas follows.The firstpartof thisparagraphwill

outlinetheobjectivesandthevisionofGalenicawithregardstoenvironmentalmatters

andwillleadtoaclassificationofthestrategyinthetypemodelofcorporateenviron‐

mental strategies.Theorganization, roles and responsibilitiesof environmentalman‐

agementwill be described and illustrated by an overview of typical CEI at Galenica.


This paragraphwill closewith remarks about thepublicity and the sustainability re‐

portingofthiscompany.

Galenicahassetacoupleofobjectivesintheenvironmentalarea.Issuesandconcerns

aroundenvironmentalmattersaretakenseriously.Galenicahasthereforedefinedtwo

overarching corporate environmental objectives, which are published in the chapter

aboutsustainabilityintheannualreportofGalenica(2010,p.76):

Definingandenforcingenvironmentalcriteriawhenpurchasingorconstructing

newfacilitiesorrenovatingexistingones;and

Raisingawarenessandtrainingemployeesintheareaofwastedisposaland

wastemanagement.

Inaccordancewiththeseobjectives,Galenicatriestoaddconsiderationsregardingthe

environment to existing processes, procedures and practices wherever possible. In

general, this canbe consideredasanadditionaleffortofGalenica comparedwith the

pre‐environmentalstrategyandaddsanextralayertotheexistingvaluepropositionof

thecompany.WiththeimplementationoftheenvironmentalstrategyGalenicastillsells

thesamepharmaceuticalproducts,butconsidersenvironmentalmatterswherepossi‐

ble.

Fig.14:ClassificationofGalenica’sCESintheModel.


In thesenseof thetypemodel forenvironmentalstrategiesthismeansthat thevalue

propositionatthecoredoesnotchangethroughthecorporateenvironmentalstrategy;

it ismore a supplementary consideration of environmentalmatters in the reporting.

“Our employees act ‘green’ in their day‐to‐day behavior. All we need is gather their

effortandmakeitvisible”Mr.Henzi,responsibleforsustainabilityatGalencareports.

Theillustrationaboveshowsthetwodifferentstrategies,whereGalenicaratherrepre‐

sentsatypeAstrategy.

Theorganizationalviewofenvironmentalsustainability issetupas follows:Froman

organizational point of view, the steering of the environmental issues happens in a

committeeforsustainability.Thecommitteeconsistsofthegroupheadofsustainabil‐

ity,which is represented by the head of legal affairs. Each business division has one

memberinthecommittee.Thecommitteeisresponsibleforthesteeringandthecoor‐

dinationoftheinitiativesandthereportingconcernsofGalenica.

To gain a better understanding of Galenicas environmental strategy, an overview of

currentandpast initiativewillnowbepresented.TheCEIatGalenica typically cover

thefollowingareas:Facilitymanagement,waste,publictransport,fleetmanagement.

AsanexampleforfacilitysectionGalenicamanagedtoreduceenergyconsumptionvia

adjustmentson thebuilding’sclimatecontrolsystem.Through the installationofmo‐

tion sensors in the facilities Galenia achieved energy savings too. Galenica launched

wastehandlingguidelinesthataredistributedtotheemployeestoteachabouthowto

prevent unnecessary waste in the offices and recycling mistakes. At some sites, Ga‐

lenicacoordinatescarpools to thenextpublic transport station toavoidpreventable

carandtaxidrives. Additionally themanagement is incloseconnectionwiththecity

authoritiestogetbusstationsclosetotheGalenicabuildingsandattractivetimesched‐

ules. In termsof fleetmanagement,Galenica is aimed topurchase only vehicleswith

excellentemissionstandards.

Theinitiativesarereportedonaregularlybasisinthesustainabilityreport,whichisa

integralpartoftheannualreport.ThestatementfollowstheGRI3.0standardandindi‐

catesanumberofenvironmentalandsocialKPIsofthecompany.Asoneexampleofthe

environmentalmanagementatGalenica,thespecificinitiativeforthecodeofconductat

thelogisticcentreinNiderbippwillbeoutlinedinthiscasestudy.


5.2.2 CodeofConductandEmployeeParticipation:DescriptionoftheCEIand

Results

GalenicahasimplementedanumberofCEIsoverthelastyears.Asanexampleforan

initiative,which fits intoGalenica’sCES, the case for thedevelopmentand the imple‐

mentationoftheenvironmentalcodeofconductattheproductionsiteofNiderbippwill

bepresentedinmoredetail.Theproductionsitehasbeensetupasageographicalcon‐

solidationfortwoformerlyexistingproductionsites.Asaconsequenceofthemergerof

the twoproduction site, new teamswere createdout of theold structures andproc‐

esseshad tobe adjusted andwherenecessarynewly created. In this environmentof

change,alsoaCEIwasimplemented.Thebuildingwasbuiltaccordingtohighenviron‐

mental standards so that the energy costs for heating and climate control were ex‐

pectedtodecrease.Alsoduetotheconsolidationofthesites,theprocessesweresup‐

posedtoreachahigherlevelofenvironmentalefficiency.Butonethingwasmissing.No

regulationsandnormsintheareaofworkplaces,transportandfacilitieswereavailable

atthattime.ThiswaswhentheCEIoftheenvironmentalcodeofconductforthenew

production site at Niderbipp was initiated. The following illustration shows the key

pointsof the initiative following the steps toanalyze theCEI. In thenext section, the

needs,objectives,scopeandcontent,therolesandresponsibilitiesandtheresultswill

bepresentedinmoredetails.

Fig.15:Galenica’sCEIfortheEnvironmentalCodeofConduct.

!"#$%%&#'()#*+%#,-.#

/"#012%345%6#('#*+%#,.-#

7"#8+%#93(:%#('#

*+%#

;<;4=45%#

>"#?(@%6#=<&#

?%6:(<6;A

1;@;4%6#

B"#?%6C@*6#

•! ,(<3)%*%#;D:)(5%D%<*6#'()#3(6*#6=5;<E6#F;*+#

)%E=)&6#*(#%<5;)(<D%<*=@#D=G%)6#;<#*+%#=)%=6#('#

F()H#:@=3%I#*)=<6:()*#=<&#'=3;@;4%6#

•! J;66;<E#%<5;)(<D%<*=@#)C@%6#=<&#)%EC@=4(<6#=*#=#

<%F@K#6*=)*#C:#:)(&C34(<#6;*%#

•! L=<&#(<#;&%=6#'()#)C@%6#

=<&#)%EC@=4(<6#*(#1%#

;D:@%D%<*%&#=*#@(F#

3(6*6#

•! MF=)%<%66#)=;6;<E#=*#*+%#

%D:@(K%%6#@%5%@#'()#

%<5;)(<D%<*=@#D=G%)6#

•! $%F#:)(&C34(<#6;*%I#)=*+%)#'%F#

:)(3%66%6#=<&#)C@%6#;<#:@=3%#

•! M)(C<&#>NN#%D:@(K%%6#

•! O(6*1(P#*(#6C1D;*#*+%#;&%=6#*(#

*+%#D=<=E%D%<*#

•! -<3%<45%6#'()#:=)43;:=4(<#

•! .D:@(K%%#)%:)%6%<*=45%#

3(DD;G%%#=6#6*)=*%E;3#:=)*<%)#

•! 9;*%#D=<=E%D%<*#=6#6:(<6()#=<&#

6C::()*%)#

•! .<5;)(<D%<*=@#,(C<3;@#=<&#L?#

:(@;3;%6#=6#3(<*);1C*()#

•! ?%D=)H=1@%#%D:@(K%%#

:=)43;:=4(<Q#!RN#;&%=6#

6C1D;G%&#

•! .<5;)(<D%<*=@#3(&%#('#

3(<&C3*#%@=1()=*%&#1=6%&#

(<#*+%#%D:@(K%%6#

6C1D;G=@6#

•! 8=<E;1@%#=F=)%<%66#('#

%<5;)(<D%<*=@#;66C%6#=<&#

D(45=4(<#*(#6(@5%#*+%D#S=@%<;3=T6#

,(&%#('##

,(<&C3*#


NeedsfortheCEI

TheproductionsiteatNiderbippwasatthistimeinthestartupphase.Employeesfrom

thetwoformercenterswerebroughttogetheratthenewplaceandofcourse,alsonew

teammembersjoinedthefirmatthistime.Thematterofenvironmentalsustainability

wasalreadya topic tobeconsideredatGalenicaat this time.Theconstructionof the

buildingwasaccordingtohighenvironmentalstandardsandtheprocessesforthenew

productionsiteweremoreeco‐efficientcompared to the formerones.Butat theem‐

ployeelevel,thetopicofenvironmental‐friendlybehaviorwasnotyetinstitutionalized.

ItwastheaimofGalenicatogathersomepossibilitiesforimprovementsthatpayoffon

thefinancialsidetoo.Forexampleitwasintendedtoreducetheamountofwasteand

fuelthroughconcreteregulationsforenvironmental‐friendlybehavior.

Objectives

According to theneeds,Galenicaset theobjectivesondifferent levels.Firstofall,Ga‐

lenicaaimedtocreateacatalogueofhands‐onimprovementpossibilitiesformoreen‐

vironmental‐friendlyactingoftheemployees.Second,thegoalwastoraiseawareness

for the topic of environmentalmatters so far, that the suggestions for improvements

would come from theemployees themselves.Thekeywas to increase the awareness

through participation. As an additional point , itwas an experiment to see if the ap‐

proachofanenvironmental conductwouldsucceedand if itmightbeapossibility to

transferoftheapproachtootherproductionsitesandbusinessunits.

ScopeandContentoftheCEI

TheCEIaffectedaround400employeesworkingat theproductionsite.The initiative

started inNovember,2009.All employeeswere informedabout the initiativeandre‐

quested tosubmit their ideasand thoughtsonenvironmental improvementpossibili‐

tiesintoapostbox.Thesuggestionscouldeitherbesubmittedonpapertoahardware

postboxat thesiteortothevirtualpostboxviaemail.Theareasofpossible improve‐

mentshadbeenclearlydefined.Suggestionscouldbemadearoundthetopicsofwork‐

place,transportandfacilities.Thefollowingpictureshowsthescopeoftheinitiativeon

the Porter’s value chain. The topics of the CEI of the environmental code of conduct

refertothesupportactivityoffirminfrastructure.


Fig.16:TheScopeofGalenica’sCEIinPorter’sValueChain.

Announcing a lottery had set incentives for participation. Every input automatically

tookpartinalotterydrawingwheretheemployeeswereabletowinabout$200five

times. The time for submittalwas limited to approximately threemonths. After this

period,thecontributionswereevaluated.

RolesandResponsibilities

Theoriginalindicationfortheinitiativecamefromtheemployees.Theemployeerep‐

resentativecommitteeisagroupofstaffelectedtodiscussconcernswiththemanage‐

ment representing the employees of the site. Realizing theneed for developing envi‐

ronmental regulations, the employee representative committee raised the ideaof the

initiative. Supportedby themanagementof the site, the committeeactedas strategic

partner(SP)fortheCEI.Thecommitteebroughttogethertherelevantstakeholdersand

mainlymanagedthedevelopmentandexecutionoftheplan.Asalreadymentioned,the

management of theproduction site acted as a sponsor and facilitator for theproject.

Themanagement,especiallytheheadoftherespectivedepartment,was integratedin

theinitiativeastheofficialspeakerfortheannouncementsandthepromotion.Forthe

accurateandefficientsteeringoftheprocessthedepartmentforprocessmanagement

waspartoftheteam.Theresponsiblepersonwasatthesametimethelinkandmem‐

berofthecentralcommitteeforsustainabilityatGalenicagroup.Withthetargetofcre‐

atingnewregulations for theemployees, thedepartment forODwasalso involved in

theinitiative.

!"#$%&'(#)*+#,-+,#.%

!"#$#%&'()(*+($%&,-)((+($%&+(."/012&2"-)31(/4&

/,$)'%0.*1,#-.%2)')3.$.'+%

!"#$#%&2"*25+3($%&02)+(+($%&*16,"(/)31(&/7/0"64&

4.-5'16137%8.9.61:$.'+%

!"#$#%&,2185*0&8"/+$(%&0"/3($%&,21*"//&8"/+$(%&6)0"2+)-&2"/")2*9%&6)2:"0&2"/")2*94&

;#1-,#.$.'+%

!"#$#%&*16,1("(0/%&6)*9+("27%&)8."23/+($%&;&/"2.+*"/4&

&'<1,'=%

>13"*?-*%

!"#$#%&+(*16+($&

6)0"2+)-&

/012)$"%&8)0)%&

*1--"*31(%&

/"2.+*"%&

*5/016"2&

)**"//4&

@:.#)?1'*%

!"#$#%&

)//"6<-7%&

*16,1("(0&

=)<2+*)31(%&

<2)(*9&

1,"2)31(/4&

@,+<1,'=%

>13"*?-*%

!"#$#%&128"2&

,21*"//+($%&

>)2"915/+($%&

2",120&

,2",)2)31(4&

2)#A.?'3%B%

C)6.*%

!"#$#%&/)-"/&

=12*"%&

,216131(%&

)8."23/+($%&

,21,1/)-&

>2+3($%&?"<&

/+0"4&

DE.#FC)6.*%

C.#9"-.%

!"#$#%&+(/0)--)31(%&

*5/016"2&/5,,120%&

*16,-)+(0&

2"/1-531(%&

2",)+24&

@2+6)27&)*3.+3"/&

A5,,120&)*3.+3"/&


Fig.17:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinGalenica’sInitiative.

As the illustrationabove shows, theemployee representative committeewasembed‐

dedinanetworkoffourcounterparts.Thethreefunctionsatthebottomactedascol‐

laborator(C).

ResultsoftheInitiative

The commitment to the initiative was high across the whole production site. In the

threemonthsperiod,160ideasweresubmitted.Ononehandsinglepeoplebroughtin

theirsuggestions,butalsowholegroupsparticipatedintheinitiative.Someteamscon‐

ductedworkshopstodevelopideasforthepostbox.Finally,123ideaswerecompiledin

theclosingdocumentoftheenvironmentalcodeofconduct.Thecodeofconductcon‐

sistsof22regulationstobefollowedintherespectiveareasoftheinitiative.Thecode

ofconductcontainsthefollowingtopics:

1. Generalintroduction

2. Workplace

3. Transports

4. Facilities

5. Legalvalidity

In thepartof thegeneral introduction, theenvironmental codeof conductpointsout

thecontextofthedocument.Furthermore,inthissectionthepaperdescribestherele‐

vanceofthecodeofconductasregulationthathastobefollowedbyalltheemployees.

Thesectionworkplacecontainssettingstobeconsideredwithregardstothecomputer

andtheprinter.Withsimplechangesonthemonitorsettingsforexample,thecompany

asawholeisabletosaveenergyandwithregardstotheprintmanagement,tospend

lesspaperfortheprintouts.

!"#$%&''(

)'#*'+',-./0'(

1%""2-''(

3)(4'0'$%#"',-(

56%$272'+8(

6*%7'++(

9.,.:'"',-(;(

1%""2<''(=%*(

>?+-.2,.@2$2-&(

9.,.:'"',-(

5>2-'8(

>6(

1( 1( 1(


Thetransportsectionofthedocumentcontainstheguidelineforthepurchaseofnew

cars.Itrulesthatcarswithlessemissionofgreenhousegasshouldbepreferred.Fur‐

thermore itengages theemployees touse thepublic transportor thebicycle togo to

workwhereverpossible. In thesectionof the facilities thedocument theappropriate

heating and lightning of the company building. The legal validity notice declares the

codeofconducttobebindingasof1stofJuly,2010.

All in all, the environmental code of conduct sets the guideline for environmental‐

friendly behavior for the administrative business activities. The ideas,which consid‐

eredother topics than thementionedones,weresubmitted to therespectiveprocess

owners.ThetrackingoftheseadditionalideaswasnotanymorecoveredbythisCEI.

5.2.3 LessonsLearnedformtheInitiative

The followingpartwill focuson the lessons learned form the initiative.As a starting

point, themajorobjectivesandscopewillberepeatedquickly. Itwasthe intentionof

theCEItogatherconcretepointsofimprovementintheareaofenvironmentalsustain‐

ability at the production site in Niderbipp.Moreover, the initiativewas supposed to

strengthentheawarenessfortheenvironmentalsustainabilitytopic.Itwasnottheaim

of the initiative tocreatebig costs.Rather,hands‐onsuggestions for savingsandrisk

mitigationswereexpectedintheareaoftheworkplace,transportandfacilitymanage‐

ment.Theresultsoftheinitiativeleadtothecodeofconduct,whichincludesguidelines

fortheemployeessupposedtoreducethecostsforenergyandfuel.

Indiscussionwiththeseveralinterviewpartners,thefollowingthreekeypointsforthe

successfulimplementationofsuchaninitiativeinthatcontexthavebeenderived.The

statementsareillustratedinthefollowingfigure.Thelessonslearnedarebasedonthe

experiencesoftheinvolvedpeopleintheinitiativeattheproductionsiteandalsoform

thecentralsupportfunctions.


Fig.18:Galenica’sLessonsLearnedformtheCEI.

As the illustration above presents, the lessons learned can be summarized in three

mainpoints.Theitemswillnowbedescribedinmoredetail.

First,theinitiativewassuccessfulthroughthepositiveeffectoftheemployeeparticipa‐

tion.Ononehand,theideawiththepostboxtogathertheinputsfortheemployeeswas

initiatedby theemployees themselves.Theemployee representation team,which re‐

flects the footing of the company, initiated the idea, which was successful.

Empowerment ingeneralmeanstodelegate thedecisionabout theapproachand im‐

plementationof the initiative toa lower levelofhierarchy(Lashley,2001).When the

initiativeisfoundedontheemployeelevel,themotivationandtheidentificationforthe

topicarepersemuchhigherthanthoseatopdowninitiativemighttrigger.Andespe‐

ciallyinthesituation,wheretheaimoftheimitativeistogatherideasandsuggestions

thatarealreadyinthemindoftheemployeesorevenalreadyinformallyimplemented

somewhere, theempowermentof theemployeesreflectedanaccurateandsuccessful

methodtoconductaninitiativeliketheCEIofGalenica.

Second,once the initiativewas initiatedand reported to themanagement, theexecu‐

tiveshadtodecidewhethertosupporttheCEIornotandinwhichway.Inthecaseof

theinitiativeforthecodeofconduct,thelocalsitemanagementcommitedtheirstrong

supportfortheinitiative.IntheviewofMr.Clémençent,headofbusinesssectorlogis‐

tics,itiscrucialtoofficiallysupportaninitiative.“Itisimportanttoustoacknowledge

theeffortsandtheideasoftheemployeesintheareaofenvironmentalsustainability”

Mr. Clémençent says. The sitemanagement acted as a sponsor and promoter of the

initiative.Forexample,intheofficialannouncementMr.Clémençentactedasaspeaker

to underline the importance and the relevance of the initiative. The effort of the top


managementshowedtotheemployeesthattheinitiativemustbetakenseriouslyand

ensuredtheseriousparticipationoftheemployeesintheproject.

Asathirdlessonlearned,Galenicarecognizedtheimportancetosupportandguidethe

employees’ initiative with expert knowledge form central site. Once the CEI was ac‐

cepted and supported by themanagement, the processmanagement and the central

environmentalteamattendedthedevelopmentandexecutionphaseoftheinitiative.In

thefocusofthecoachingwerethefinancialplanningandtheschedulingoftheproject.

Furthermore,thecentral functionsactedascoordinationpartnersandenabledsyner‐

giesthroughtheintermediationofknowledgeacrossbusinessunitsandfunctions.The

combinationoflocaleffortandengagementtogetherwiththecompetencesofthecen‐

tralfunctionensuredthesuccessfuldevelopmentandexecutionoftheinitiativeaccord‐

ingtotheobjectivesandtherequirementsoftheCEI.

5.2.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheGalenicaCase

Intheclosingdiscussionandtheconclusionofthiscasestudy,firstthequestionofpre‐

requisitesforthereplicationtootherdepartmentsorcompanieswillbediscussed.Af‐

terwards,acriticalreviewoftheinitiativewillanswerthequestion,inwhichwaythe

CEIsupportstheCESofGalenica.

Thetransferoftheapproachtoanothercontextdependsonseveralfactors.Thedeci‐

sivepointswillbediscussedasfollows.Togathervaluableinputsformtheemployees,

thepeopleneedtohaveacertainknowledgeofthetopicofenvironmentalsustainabil‐

ity.Lookingattheemployeesoftheproductionsite,mainlythepeopleworkingatthe

administration where involved in the initiative. This department represents people

with the necessary educational background that enable them to contribute to such a

CEI.Asasecondpointinthiscontext,thecultureofthecompanymustbereadytoac‐

ceptandacknowledgearegulationlikeacodeofconduct.Whentheemployeesarenot

usedtoactaccording thewrittenrulesandregulationofacompany,adocument like

the codeof conduct could lackacceptance from theemployee’s side. Sucha situation

could occur when people are not able to read and many instructions are provided

word‐of‐mouthorthroughpracticalapplication.This isnot thecase forGalenica.The

employeesofGalenicawork in an environmentof strict quality andbehavior regula‐

tions. To accentuate the importance of the environmental code of conduct, the legal

departmentdecided to include the environmental codeof conduct,whichwas elabo‐

ratedbytheinitiative,intotheoverarchingframeworkofthegeneralcodeofconduct.

Therefore,onlyifthenecessaryknowledgeoftheemployeesisavailableandtheaccep‐

tanceof awritten statement is given, the initiative canbe transferred to anotherde‐


partment or company. These twopoints are considered as the crucial factors for the

replicationoftheinitiativetoelsewhere.

Toconcludethecasestudy,thefeedbackfromtheinitiativetotheenvironmentalstrat‐

egy of Galenica will be discussed. As showed in the introduction, Galenica follows a

strategywhere environmentalmatters are taken seriously into account. Galenica as‐

sesses and reviews the environmental impact of its business activities and seeks for

mitigationandimprovements.ThisapproachhasbeenidealizedasthetypeAstrategy

in the framework for CES. Especially for the rollout of the CES, Galenica emphasized

that thebehaviorof theemployees isabitgreenalreadybecausethestaffconsistsof

people thathaveasoundknowledgeandeducationalbackground in thismatter.Asa

consequenceof this,Galenicastarted togatherwhatwasalready in thebehaviorand

knowledgeofthepeople.Astheoutcomesoftheimitativehaveshown,thesimplecol‐

lectingofideas–andofcoursethereworkoftheCEIexecutionteam–haveresultedin

anenvironmentalcodeofconductwithmoderateeffort.Thiscasestudyrepresentsan

exampleofaCEIthatsupportsthestrategyoftypeAbecausethecoreprocessesofthe

company do not need to be redesigned or revised. But the initiative sensibilized the

staff forenvironmental issues throughparticipationeffectsand incentives forpartici‐

pation.Therefore,theCEIofGalenicacanbeseenasaninitiativewheresustainabilityis

notthecorestrategy,butistakenintoaccountwholeheartedly.


5.3 CaseStudy2:Geberit’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyandInitia‐

tivesintheSanitaryTechnologyIndustry

TheGeberitgroupproducesandsellssanitaryproductsandtechnologies inover100

countriesaroundtheworld.Theheadquarterof thecompany isbased inRapperswil‐

Jona,Switzerland.Geberit,whichwas founded in1874,achieved2.2bn.SwissFrancs

revenueintheyear2009.Inthesameyear,theGeberitgroupemployedapproximately

5,600peoplein67countries.ThecompanyoperatesproductionsitesinGermany,Aus‐

triaandSwitzerlandbutalsointheUSA,China,ItalyandSlovenia.Geberitmanagedto

develop to a European market leader position over the last years and faces good

growthperspectivesinNorthAmericaandAsia.TheproductportfolioofGeberitcon‐

sistsofsanitarymaterialssuchascisternssystems,faucetsandflushingsystems,waste

fittings,trapsandaccordingpipingsystems.ThegroupisstocklistedattheSIXandis

inpublicownership.SustainabilityisanimportantpartofGeberit’scorporatestrategy.

This includestheprovisioningofsustainableproducts to themarketontheonehand

andthesustainablebusinessbehaviortowardsthestakeholderofthefirmontheother

hand.

Geberit conducted a number of environmental initiatives. The effort of Geberit for

achievingsustainabilityreflects thehigh investments in trainingof theemployees for

example. Also in the focus of CEI arewaste andwater reductionmeasurements and

alsoenergyefficiencyprograms.Onasystemsandprocesses level,Geberit’senviron‐

mentalmanagementisimplementedinaccordancewithISO14001.

ThiscasewillfocusononespecificCEIofGeberitintheareaofemployeetraining.For

the last threeyears,Geberithasbeenconductinganextendedenvironmentandrecy‐

clingtraining.Theaimofthiscasestudyistohighlighttheimportanceofanintegrated

trainingconcept forachievingenvironmental sustainablebehaviorasapartofanex‐

tensivegreenbusinessstrategy.Thisexamplewillshowhowtheorganizationaldesign,

the roles and responsibilities in this CEI are able to transfer the values of environ‐

mentalsustainabilitytotheemployeesofaproductionsite.

5.3.1 Geberit’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy

Thecompanyfollowsanapproachofintegratingenvironmentalsustainabilityintothe

corebusinessstrategy.ForGeberit,sustainabilityisemphasizedinallbusinessactions

andwithacontinuingtransformationalcharacter.Environmentalconcernsarenotonly

takenasapossibleriskformitigation,butasachallengetocreatenewandinnovative


waysofraisingthevalueofthecompany.ThestrategyofGeberitconcerningenviron‐

mentalmatters is to innovate and become environmental friendly before an issue is

ruledbygovernmental regulations.Moreover,Geberit aims to create amore sustain‐

ableindustryenvironmentbyproactivelyapproachingpossiblehazardswithpartners

andcompetitorsinajointprocess.

Asanexampleforthecorporateenvironmentalstrategy,Geberitcreatesandmaintains

anextendedstakeholderdialogue.Thestakeholderdialoguerepresentsthediscussion

and alignmentwith Geberit’s stakeholders, namely the customers, shareholders, em‐

ployees,governmentalandindustryorganizationsandotherparticipantsofthemarket.

Geberitusesseveralchannelsforinteractions.TheInformationCenterisanimportant

part of it,where the company shows and informs about their products and business

activities,mainly for citizens, partners and official bodies.Otherways of stakeholder

interaction are fairs, forums, summits, and also personal contacts. For internal

stakeholdersworkshopsandtrainingsareconducted.Geberitmanagedtosetupacul‐

tureof constant learningover the last coupleof years. In average, eachemployeeat‐

tendedaround19hoursoftrainingintheyear2009(Geberit,2010).

With regard to the typology of environmental strategies, the approach of Geberit

matcheswiththetypeb.For typebcompanies, thechallengesofenvironmentalmat‐

tersareincorporatedinatransformational,innovativecorestrategyrepresentingeco‐

friendlybehaviorwithinthecorevalueproposition.

Fig.19:Geberit’sCESinthemodel.


Withregardstothesustainabilityreporting,GeberitadaptedtheGRI3.0standardwith

the full extend (A+adaptor).Theway to sustainabilityand the transparent reporting

standardsalsohaveapositive impactonGeberit as an investmentopportunity.Over

the last years, Geberit has developed to an interesting share for investors who are

aware of environmental friendly behavior. The share of the company is listed in the

DowJonesSustainabilityIndex(DJSI)(SAM,2010).

5.3.2 EnvironmentandRecyclingTraining:DescriptionandResults

In the followingparagraph,Geberit’semployee training initiativewillbedescribed in

moredetail. The initiative is called the “environmental and recycling training” and is

conductedfortheemployeesattheproductionsiteRapperswil‐Jona.Togetadetailed

understandingofGeberit’sinitiative,thecasestudyfollowsthedifferentstepsshowed

in the illustration above. First, the specific needs for this initiative will be outlined.

Basedon theneeds, theobjectives for the initiativearedescribed.Thescopeand the

actual content of the CEIwill be described as the third step. And as a fourth step, a

modelwillbepresentedfortheseveralrolesandresponsibilitiesthatweretakendur‐

ingelaborationandrolloutoftheinitiative.Thelastparagraphofthissubchapterwill

highlighttheresultsoftheCEIandshowwhathasbeenachievedbytheimplementa‐

tionoftheinitiativesofar.Additionallytothestepsalreadymentioned,theillustration

showsthemostimportantkeywordsfortherespectivestep,whichwillbeexplainedin

thetextbelow.

Fig.20:OverviewofGeberit’sInitiativeforEnvironmentalTraining.

!"#$%%&#'()#*+%#,-.#

/"#012%345%6#('#*+%#,.-#

7"#8+%#93(:%#('#

*+%#

;<;4=45%#

>"#?(@%6#=<&#

?%6:(<6;A

1;@;4%6#

B"#?%6C@*6#

•! D;66;<E#C<&%)6*=<&;<E#('#*+%#;F:()*=<3%#('#

6C6*=;<=1;@;*G#

•! $(<A3(F:@;=<*#1%+=5;()H#%"E"#F;6*=I%6#;<#

)%3G3@;<E#

•! J*#*+%#6=F%#4F%K#?;6;<E#;F:()*=<3%#('#*+%#*(:;3#

(<#F=<=E%F%<*#@%5%@#

•! 8(#C<&%)6*=<&#*+%#

;F:()*=<3%#('#*+%#*(:;3#

('#%<5;)(<F%<*=@#

6C6*=;<=1;@;*G#

L*)=<6'()F=4(<=@M#

•! D=I%#*+%#=::@;3=4(<#'()#

*+%#(N<#2(1#=<&#*=6I6#

•! J@@#<%N#%F:@(G%%6#

•! .F1%&&%&#;<#*+%#*)=;<;<E#

3(<3%:*#

•! 8N(#:=)*6K#JN=)%<%66#)=;6;<E#=<&#

:)=343=@#=::@;3=4(<#*(#*+%#(N<#

2(1#

•! 9F=@@#E)(C:#*)=;<;<E#L>AO#:%(:@%M#

•! ,%<*)=@#'C<34(<#=6#I<(N#+(N#

:)(5;&%)#

•! P%3%<*)=@#*)=;<;<E#)%6:(<6;1;@;*G#

=<&#'=3;@;*=*()H#3@(6%@G#=@;E<%&#

N;*+#*+%#1C6;<%66#

•! D=2()#)%&C34(<#('#

F;6*=I%6#;<#)%3G3@;<E#

•! ?%&C34(<#('#6:%3;=@#N=6%#

•! J@;E<%&#F;<&6%*#=<&#=#

3C@*C)%#('#6C6*=;<=1;@;*G#

Q%1%);*R6#

.<5;)(<F%<*=@#

8)=;<;<E#


NeedsfortheCEI

Although the topic of sustainability has a quite a high importance for Geberit on the

managementlevel,attheleveloftheemployeesitlackedanappropriateunderstanding

ofwhatsustainabilityreallymeansforthedailyworkoftheemployees.Thecompany

decidedtoputthefocusoftheinitiativetowherethebusinessactivitieshavethehigh‐

estimpactontheenvironment,i.e.theproductionsites.Intheprocessofproduction,a

lotofsparematerialandwasteisproduced.Theinsufficientknow‐howoftheworkers

in thisareacausedmistakes inrecyclingandalso themissedopportunity for reusing

thematerials somewhereelse in theprocess.Thiscausedunnecessarycosts,because

thematerials had to be sorted again by otherworkers. And furthermore as another

example for theneedofanenvironmental training,at someplaces the incorrecthan‐

dlingofthemachinescausedpreventableenergycosts.Havingidentifiedtheseneeds,

Geberitdecided to launch the initiative.Theaimof theCEIwas to tackle themissing

know‐howandawarenessinthisarea.Sincemostoftheemployeesworkinshiftsand

themachinesarerunning24hoursaday,theinitiativeneededtobecarefullyaligned

withtheplansandrestrictionsofthebusinesslines.

Objectives

Theinitiativewassupposedtoraisetheawarenessofthesustainabilitymatterandto

showhowenvironmentalsustainabilityeffectsof thedailyworkoftheemployees.As

anexpectedresultofthetraining,themistakesinrecyclingaresupposedtobereduced.

It is the aim of the initiative to build an integral understanding of environmental

sustainability.Therefore, theenvironmentalandrecyclingtrainingisexpectedto lead

to further optimization ideas in the business activities. To illustrate the objectives of

theinitiative,onecanalsolookatthedocumentedenvironmentalimpactoftheGeberit

group,whichisalsopresentedinthetrainingtotheemployees.


Fig.21:DiagrammonGeberit’sEnvironmentalImpact.

Source:Geberit’sTrainingDocument(seeappendix).

The figure above shows the environmental burden of Geberit in the year 2007. The

greatestparthererepresents theenergyconsumption,makingup89.30percent.The

obviouslyrathersmallpartsinthisgraphrepresenttheuseoffuel,theemissionsdue

toprocessesofmachines,thewaterconsumptionandtherecycling.Theverysmallpart

assignedtorecyclingisimportantfortheinitiative.Recyclingonlymakesup2.10%of

theenvironmentalburden,althoughGeberitusesa lotof resourcesat theproduction

site.Mr.Wydler,headoftrainingattheproductionsiteinRapperswil‐Jona,says:“With

thispictureweshow,thatrecycling iscrucial.Duetoadditionaleffort, thisnumber is

already possible. To reach this ambitious low figure without any extra costs of re‐

sorting thematerials, it is important to impart theknowledgeverydetailed andpre‐

cisely”.


AttheGeberitgroup,eachemployeegetsabasicenvironmentaltraining.Theinitiative,

whichisofinterestinthiscasestudy,goesonestepfurtherandrepresentstheapplica‐

tiontotheproductionsiteinRapperswil‐Jona.TheproductionsiteinRapperswil‐Jona

includesabout400employees,mainlyworkersatthemachines.Sincetheintroduction

of the training threeyearsago, theparticipationhasbeenmandatory forallnewem‐

ployees.ThefollowingillustrationshowstheassessmentoftheCEIintheframeworkof

Portersvaluechain.Thereisabasicenvironmentaltrainingthatisvalidforallemploy‐

ees.Therefore,ithasbeenintroducedverticallyinthepicture.Theproductionsitethat

is inscopeof the initiativecoversmainly the first threeprimaryactivities inPorter’s

valuechain.Sincetheinitiativerepresentsaspecialapplicationfortheproductionsite,


the additional remark indicates the focus on the three first primary activities in the

valuechain.

Fig.22:TheScopeofGeberit’sInitiativeinPorter’sValueChain.

Attheproductionsite,thepeopleusuallydonothaveadeepknowledgeofeithertech‐

nicalorenvironmentaltopics.Additionally,thepeoplehiredattheproductionsitehave

differentculturalbackgroundsandspeakforeignlanguages.Theserequirementshave

tobeconsideredinthedevelopmentofthetrainingingeneral.Thelevelofinformation

inallthetrainingsmustbeeasytounderstandandillustratedwithfiguresandnottoo

much text. The general training concept bases on three pillars: technical know‐how,

economicunderstandingandsocialcompetence,wheresustainabilityisoneimportant

point.Withthedevelopmentoftheenvironmentandrecyclingtraining,thesustainabil‐

itymatterplaysanaccurateroleintheoveralltrainingconcept.Toaugmentthelearn‐

ing effect, the topic of environmental sustainability is furthermore integrated in the

othertrainingsessions.Forexample,theenergyaspectshavetobeconsideredduring

thetechnicaltrainingforthemachinetoo.Therecyclingtopichastobeintegratedinto

theproductportfoliotrainingaswell.Bydoingso,environmentalmattersplayaninte‐

gral role in the overall training concept. The trainings are conducted as face‐to‐face

instructions.Theyareconductedinsmallgroupsof4to8peopleandalignedwiththe

shiftplanof theemployees.The trainingsusually takeplacebeforeorafter theshifts

withdurationofapproximatelyonehour.

!"#$%"&'%()*#)+,'

-.//0"1'%()*#)+,'

!"#$%"&'

($)*+,-+'

./012,$"+' 32140,")'5'

6270+'

8901:6270+'

601;*-0'

.%<#$%"&'

($)*+,-+'

23*#"03$+31%4'5"%#3#36777'

=*1>'!"?12+<1%-<%10'

8+7679':3%3(#369'/4%33#369'#3*+,10"'"+4%)03,;'

@%>2"'A0+$%1-0'32"2)0>0"<'

8+7679'"+(".#)369'1"%#3#369'(0$/+3,%)03',&,1+$;'

B0-C"$7$)D'E0;07$/>0"<'

8+7679'/"0<.(1'<+,#639'1+,)369'/"0(+,,'<+,#639'$%1+"#%4'"+,+%"(=9'$%">+1'"+,+%"(=;'

F1$-%10>0"<'

8+7679'(0$/03+31,9'$%(=#3+"&9'%<*+"),#369'?',+"*#(+,;'

777'%3<',/+(#%4'%//4#(%)03'

@0"'1=+'/"0<.()03',#1+'


Thecontentofthetrainingisasfollows.5Twomajorpartsrepresentthesubstanceof

the training. In the first place, overall awareness for the topic is increased. This part

introduced theparticipant to thebasicsof environmental sustainabilityas thedefini‐

tion of sustainability, the objectives of environmental management and the general

mitigationpossibilities.Inthesecondpart,theinformationisputintoaction.Appliedto

the specific tasks of the employees, the recycling of the different materials they are

handling isshownstepbystep.“Inourviewit isessential thatouremployeeshavea

deepunderstandingof thematerials they areworkingwith andhowandwhy things

canberecycled”Mr.Wydlersays.Eachsessionendswithaknowledgetesttocheckthe

understanding of the participants. If necessary, employees have to catch up on some

topicsandrepeatthetest.


Thedevelopmentandtheconductionofthetrainingstandforajointeffortofdifferent

functionsandroles.Thenextparagraphwilloutlinethedifferentrolesinthisprocess

andwhatthecorrespondingresponsibilitiesare.

For this specific training, the four most important functions are represented by the

central sustainabilitycompetencecentreof theGeberitgroup, thegroupHR function,

thegroupresponsiblefortraininganddevelopmentandthebusinesslinesofthepro‐

ductionsite.

Theheadoftraininganddevelopmentplaystheroleoftheintegrator,coordinatorand

facilitatorofthetrainingsandhastheoverallresponsibilityforthetraining.Byhaving

thisfunctioninplace,Geberitwasabletointegratethetopicofenvironmentalsustain‐

abilitytoitsoveralltrainingplanfortheemployees.Therefore,thecloseconnectionto

othertopicsofthetrainingconceptispossibleandtheintegrationasanequalpartbe‐

tweentechnicalandeconomicaltopiccanbeguaranteed.Fromanorganizationalpoint

ofview,thetraininganddevelopmentfunctionisapartoftheproductionsitebusiness

unitandthereforerepresentsaperipheralfunctionofHRM.

Thecentralsustainabilitycompetencecentreisresponsiblefortheoverallsustainabil‐

itystrategyandthecoordinationoftheCEIatGeberit.Withitsdeepknowledgeofenvi‐

ronmental issues, risksandopportunity, this teamrepresents amajor counterpart in

thedevelopmentof the training.This includes thecreationof the topic list, thestruc‐

ture and the content of the training.With the expertise of the central sustainability

team,thissideisabletoreviewandfrequentlyinnovatethetrainingconcept.Further‐

5 For additional information about the training see appendix “Environmental and RecyclingTrainingDocuments”.


more,thecentralcompetenceteamforsustainabilityactsasapresenterandteacherin

thetrainings.

The groupHR function plays an important role for the training aswell, because the

initiativeis integratedinthecompanywidetalentandincentivesystemsofthegroup

HRfunction.HRacknowledgestheparticipationinthetrainingwithcareerpathsthat

arealignedwiththetrainingprogram.Asaconsequenceofthis,thegroupHRcontrib‐

utes to the implementationof theCEIbysetting theright incentives forparticipating

andfulfillingthetraining.

Thelastpartnertomentionhereisthebusinessline,whichisrepresentedherebythe

managers and team leaders of the production site. The business is important for the

coordinationof theavailabilityof theemployees.Moreover, thebusinessreviewsand

supportsthetrainingprogramactivelytosettherightatmosphereforsuccessfultrain‐

ings.

Fig.23:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinGeberit’sCEI.

Theillustrationaboveshowsthevariousrolesbeingplayedinthedevelopmentandthe

conductionof the training.Thecompetencecentresustainabilityplays theroleof the

innovator(I).Aninnovatorisable,throughtheexternalexpertiseinthesustainability

topic,todevelopandcreatenewtrainingsforthecompany.ThegroupHRcontributes

withtheintegrationofthetrainingconceptintheircareerpathsandincentivesystems.

ThereforethegroupHRtakestheroleascontributor.Thestrategicpartner(SP)inthe

middlestandsforthetraininganddevelopmentfunctionoftheproductionsite,which

closelyinteractswiththeotherroles.Thebusinessrepresentsthelastpartnerandcon‐

!"#$%&'($")

'"*)+,-*./-".0)

12)3.%4-5.0)

6%'-"-"7)'"*)

8.4./$9&.":)

;,"5($")

<,0-".00)=-".0)

>$&9.:."5.)

>.":%.)

3,0:'-"'?-/-:@)

+%$,9)12)

5.":%'/)0,99$%:)))))))))))))'"*)))))))))*.5.":%'/)0,99$%:)))))))'"*)))))))9%-&'%@)#,"5($"0)

!)

>)

3A) >)


tributeswith itssupportandcollaboration to thedevelopmentandconductionof the

training.


The CEI has nowbeen in place for three years and about one third of all employees

havebeentrainedsofar.Theeffect,however,ismuchbiggerthanonethird,sincethe

employeesworkinmixedteams.So,theknowledgehasalreadybeendiffusedinallthe

teams.Comingtotheconcreteresultsoftheinitiativeonecandistinguishbetweenfacts

ontwodifferentlayers:Attheonehandontheamountofspecialwasteandtherecy‐

clingratio.Andontheotherhandtheimpactonthesocialskillsoftheemployees.

“Werecognizedaneminentreductionofrecyclingmistakesandthereforeweachieved

costsavingsinavoidingextraworkofresortingmaterials”,Mr.Wydlersays.Andalso

asaconsequenceofthis,theamountofspecialwastehasbeenreduced.

Withtheintegrationoftheenvironmentaltrainingintheoveralltrainingplan,Geberit

managedtointegratetheenvironmentaltopicsmoothlyintothemindsetofthepeople.

Asaconsequenceofthis,sustainabilityisnotseenasanextratopic,butasanintegral

partofthetrainingprogram.


After three years of conducting the environment and recycling training, a number of

success factorsand lessons learnedcanbederived.Next, themost important lessons

learnedfromGeberitwillbepresentedanddiscussed.Thelessonslearnedincludead‐

vicesonhowtosuccessfullysetuptheCEIandtoreachthebestpossibleimpactonthe

organization.TheIllustrationshowsthefourareasofGeberit’slessonslearned.

Fig.24:LessonsLearnedformGeberit’sCEI.

!"#$%&'&()*)'+$,-##".+$/".$

)'01."'*)'+&2$3-3+&1'&4121+5$

6##217&8"'$"/$+9)$+"#17$+"$+9)$

3#)71:7$;"4$<$+&=3$"/$+9)$

)*#2"5))3$$

>3+&42139$&'$)?+)'310)$$

2)&.'1'($7-2+-.)$

@A>$*-3+$4)$1'+)(.&+)B$1'$+9)$

"0).&22$+.&1'1'($#."(.&**$

C)33"'3$C)&.')B$

D$ E$

F$ G$


Asafirstlessonlearned,especiallyduringthedevelopmentandtheearlyimplementa‐

tionphaseoftheCEI,itwascrucialtobringthenecessaryknow‐howtogether.Inpar‐

ticular, thealignmentbetweenthesupport functionsandthebusinessunitwouldnot

havebeensoeasyintheearlystage, ifthedirectionfromtopmanagementwouldnot

havebeensetproperly.Butwiththeaccordingguidanceinthebackgrounditispossi‐

bletocreateandmaintainthenecessarynetworktodevelopandimplementaneffec‐

tiveenvironmentaltrainingtoreachthesetobjectives.

Thesecondpointtoremember is that intheenvironmentofaproductionsite,where

mostoftheemployeesdonotbringabigschoolingbackgroundwiththem,itismanda‐

tory tomake the clear applicationand show theunderstandable relationof the topic

environmental sustainability to their respective jobsand tasks. In the realization,Ge‐

berit has implemented the practical part by dividing the training into two pieces, a

theoreticalandpracticalone.Inthesecondhands‐onpart,theperson/unit/division/

party responsible for recycling from the business line leads this part personally, and

thisshowstherelevanceofenvironmentalissuesandtheimportancetoo.Representa‐

tives form the business can, by applying the training to concrete working situation,

makeacloseconnectionto thedailyworkhere.Like this, thecontentof theenviron‐

mentaltrainingrestsinmind.

Third, fromGeberit’sperspectiveit is importanttounderstandthematterofenviron‐

mentalsustainabilityasawholeandthereforeitisvaluabletoincludethetopicinthe

overall training plan rather than have detached sessions only on sustainability.With

thisdecision,Geberitaccomplishedtotransfertheprinciplesofsustainabilitydirectly

into the core values of the employees.With the implementation of the sustainability

training as an integral part of the schooling concept, people recognize this as a fixed

partinthecompany’sstrategyandvalues.

And fourth,whenGeberitacknowledged thevalueof training theemployees, it is the

aimofthecompanytoimplementapositivelearningcultureovertime.Thisleadstoa

higher acceptance andmotivation for the training sessions. As a first point here it is

importanttoshowtheimportanceofthetraining.Theresultsofthetestmustbewell

consideredand if certainemployees still lack theknowledgeof a topic, rework is re‐

questedalsofromthebusinessside.Asasecondpoint,trainingshouldnotbeaonetime

session,butcontinuouspartsoflearningandthereforeseeingthesuccess.Especiallyin

environments,wherepeoplehavearatherloweducationalbackground,itisimportant

tocreateapositivelearningcultureratherthanputtingtheemployeesbacktoschool.


5.3.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheGeberitCase

Asconclusion fromtheGeberit casestudy, twoquestions remain tobeanswered.On

thefirsthanditwillbediscussedtowhatothercontextsGeberit’senvironmentaltrain‐

ingCEIcouldbetransferredandwhatpossiblestumblingblockscouldbe.Asasecond

part,inthisparagraphthequestionwillberaisedifandhowthisCEIsupportsthecor‐

porateenvironmentalstrategyinthespecificcontextoftheGeberitgroup.Butfirstto

thequestiontowhichcontextGeberit’sCEIcouldbetransferredto.

Asshowninthescopeoftheinitiative,thistrainingisdesignedfortheenvironmentof

aproductionsite.Theemployeesatthisproductionsitehavearatherloweducational

backgroundandtheyarenotusedtoself‐studyoronlinelearning.Thereforetheform

offace‐to‐faceinstructionisthemostappropriatewayofconductingthetraining.Other

formsdonotseemtobeasuccessfulwayof teachingsustainability. Inotherareasof

Geberit,wherepeoplebringmore schoolingbackground to their job, it ismore com‐

montoconductself‐studies,especiallytodeepentheknowledgeinaparticulararea.

Butwith lower educated employeeswho sometimes face lack of language skills it is

moresuitabletoperformface‐to‐facesessionswithhands‐oninstructions.Andthis is

alsothecontext,thisCEIcouldbetransferredto.

Asecond importantaspectconsideringthetransfer tootherenvironments is the top‐

levelmanagement support for the CEI.When sustainability is not in the focus of the

managementanddoesnothavethenecessaryattentioninthecompany,itwillbehard

for the leadof the initiative to setup the initiative successfully.But that leads to the

question of the appropriateness of the initiative with the corporate environmental

strategyofGeberit.

Asshownatthebeginningofthecasestudy,Geberithastheaimtofollowahighlysus‐

tainablecorporatestrategy,wheretheenvironmentalsustainabilityisanintegralpart

ofthebusinessstrategyandcorevalues.Thehigheffortoftrainingfortheemployees

shows that Geberit is determined to invest in human capital. The presence of the

sustainabilitymatter in the training concept and the rollout to all employees shows

howGeberitusesthisCEItodeeplytransformthethinkingandthebehavioroftheem‐

ployees.ThetraininginitiativepresentedinthiscasestudythereforeshowshowaCEI

is able to transform the organization towards sustainability, which is the key to a

“greenasanopportunity”strategy,howithasbeenfollowedbytheGeberitgroup.


5.4 CaseStudy3:Holcim’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategyandInitia‐

tivesintheMaterialsIndustry

TheHolcimgroupproducesbuildingmaterials forconstructionworkanddeliversre‐

lated services. The main products are cement and aggregates, which is for example

gravel.Thecompany,foundedin1912,hasitsheadquarterinZurich,Switzerland.The

productionsitesandthekeymarketsarespreadaroundtheworld.Holcimmaintains

localunitsin70countriesacrossallcontinents.Intheyear2009,thegroupemployed

80’000people.The following illustrationshowsthethree fieldsofHolcim’soperation

inasimplifiedmanner.

Fig.25:Holcim’sBusinessSections.

Thecementproductionrepresentsthecoreunit.Theproductionprocessforcementis

quitecomplex.Inafirststep,limestoneandclayareheatedtoapproximately1450de‐

grees Celsius in a blast furnace. The so‐called clinker,which is the result of the first

process,goesintothenextstep.Inthesecondstep,gypsumisaddedtotheclinkerand

inthecementmillprocessedtofinepowder.Holcimproducedabout1300mil.tonesof

cementintheyear2009.Theproductionofthecementtakesplaceinlargescaledand

capital‐intensefurnacesandcementmills.Theinvestmentcycleinacementplanttakes

about50to60years.Thismeans,thataninvestmentinacementproductionsiteisan

extraordinarylong‐termdecision.Thesecondunitproducesaggregates.Themostim‐

portantaggregatesaresand,crushedstoneandgravels.Theaggregatesareusedforthe

manufacturingof furtherbuildingmaterialsasforexampleasphalt.Holcimtakescare

oftheprocessofconveying,preparationandsortingofthematerials.Finally,theprod‐

uctsareusedtobuildroadsorrailwaytracks.Thethirdunitcombinestheothercon‐

structionmaterialsandservices.Thisincludestheproductionofconcreteandready‐to‐

useasphalt. For example, oneunitproducespipesandotherproducts that consistof

concrete.Thebusinessunitalsoincludesconstructionservicesandinternationaltrad‐

ing.

ItisthestrategyofHolcimtobesuccessfulthroughthecombinationoflocalresponsi‐

bilityandglobal leadership(Holcim,2010).Inthiscombination,thelocalunitfocuses


onoptimumcustomerservice,adaptedtotheregionalneedsandrequirements.Onthe

otherhand,thecentralfunctionssettheglobalstandardsforthebusinesses,alsofrom

asocietalandenvironmentalperspective.

Especially environmental issues influenceHolcim’s business strategy and target. The

extractionofthenaturalresourcesfortheprocessaffectstheenvironmentatthepro‐

duction sites. As shown above, the production process for cement requires a huge

amountofenergy.Thetraditionalenergysourcesmostcommonlyusedarecoal,heavy

fueloilorgas.So,environmentalsustainabilityandindependenceformfossilfuelsplay

anintegrativeroleinHolcim’scorporatestrategy(Holcim,2008).

In thiscontext, thecasestudyexaminesthe initiativeofHolcimto includealternative

energies in theprocessofcementproduction.AtHolcim, the firstexperiencewithal‐

ternativeenergieswasalreadymadetwentyyearsago.Therollouttoawidernumber

of production plants took place over the last few years. This CEI therefore shows a

long‐term corporate initiative with worldwide impact for the production plants.

Through the initiative,Holcim is able to use communitywaste for the heating of the

cement furnaces.Thecasewillshowwhat therequirements for theCEIwere,outline

theoutcomesandderivethelessonslearnedformtheinitiative.

5.4.1 Holcim’sCorporateEnvironmentalStrategy

TounderstandtheinitiativeinthecontextofHolcim’ssituationinthemarket,thefol‐

lowingsectionwilldisplaythemostimportantpointsofHolcim’senvironmentalstrat‐

egy.Holcimshows thecommitment to theprinciplesof sustainabledevelopmentand

theadaptionofenvironmental‐friendlybusinessprocesses into thecorestrategy.But

whatdoesthismeanforabusiness,wherehugeinvestmentsinblastfurnacehavebeen

made and where the process of production consumes much energy and natural re‐

sources?Andadditionally,thistakesplaceinamarket,wherethedemandforcementis

stillveryhighandalternativeproductsstillclaimmarketonthebuyer’sside.

Even though the conditions for environmental countermeasures are not easy under

thesecircumstances,HolcimdevelopedandimplementedaCESindifferentfieldsofthe

company.Accordingthechairman’sstatementinthesustainabilityreport2009,thekey

areasandobjectivesfortheenvironmentalstrategyare(Holcim,2010a):

Achievereductionsingreenhousegases,especiallyinthefieldofCO2emissions

Takecareofnaturalresourcesespeciallyinthefieldofwaterconsumption

Showastrongcommitmenttobiodiversityandestablishabiodiversityman‐

agement


Thethreepointsaboveandotherenvironmentalobjectiveshavebeenintegratedinto

Holcim’s sustainability focus, which describes the field of investigation in environ‐

mentalmatter.The following illustration shows the four fields,which summarize the

areasofHolcim’sCES.

Fig.26:TheFocusofEnvironmentalSustainabilityatHolcim.

The illustrationpointsout thediversified fieldsofHolcim’sCES.First,Holcimaimsto

create sustainable products to support sustainable construction. Thismeans, that ef‐

fortswillbemadetodevelopnewproducts.Withregardstotheproductdevelopment,

Holcim acknowledges the opportunity to craft products that support the environ‐

mental‐friendlyconstructionofthebuilding.ThispartoftheCESreflectstheinnovative

side of the company. The aspects focus on the creation of new opportunities, which

mayresultintheadaptionorreinventionofthetraditionalvaluechain.Inthetypology

for CES this sidewould be covered through the typeB strategy. The typeB strategy

represents‘greenasopportunity’.

ButthisisonlyonesideofHolcim’sCES.Duetothefactthatthedemandforthetradi‐

tionalcementisstillhighandtheinvestmentsintheproductionsiteareofanextraor‐

dinary long‐term nature, Holcim faces additional challenges. In the existing process,

Holcimaims to increase theeco‐efficiency in several areas. First,Holcim iswilling to

achieve improvementswith regards to the climate emissions.As statedby the chair‐

man,HolcimseesthenecessitytoreducetheemissionsofCO2intheprocess.Further‐

more, theuseofenergyshouldbe improvedbyprocess innovations.Andasa lastas‐


pect,Holcimwantstotakecareofresourcesconservationsaswaterconsumptionand

biodiversity. These points havemore the nature of optimizations,where the current

valuechainandproductiontechnologyisgiveningeneral.Butwithintheexistingproc‐

esses and technology, improvements for environmental‐sustainability are subject of

investigation.IntheidealmodelofCES,thisrepresentsmorethetypeA.

Holcim therefore represents a company, where both types are reflected in the envi‐

ronmentalstrategy.

Fig.27:Hocim’sCESintheModel.

The illustration above shows the two ideal types of CES. Type A represents the ap‐

proach,where thecurrentvalueproposition isgivenandaround thegivenprocesses

andproducts,environmentalimprovementsaresought.ForHolcimthisisthecasewith

theeffortsaroundthelong‐terminvestmentsofthecementproductionplants.Herethe

technologywiththeblastfurnaceisgiven,buttheprocessesaroundaresubjecttore‐

consideration for environmental improvements as energy efficiency and water con‐

sumption.Ontheotherhandtheaspectofputtingeffortintonewproductsandseeking

foropportunitiesrepresentstherightpyramidintheillustration.Inthatcase,oldpro‐

ductiontechnologiesarenotrelevant. It ismoreaboutdiscoveringnewopportunities

forfuturemarkets.

AsaresulthavingbothaspectsinoneCES,Holcimcouldbedescribedas‘hybridtype’

withregardstotheidealtypemodelofenvironmentalstrategies.

!"##$%

!"#$%&

'()*)+,-).&&

/&0)(%&1%#,%2+&

!"#$%&

'()*)+,-).&&

/&0)(%&1%#,%2+&

3.4,().5%.6"#&1"#".7%&

!"#$%&

'()*)+,-).&&

/&0)(%&1%#,%2+&

1%2)(%&

89%(&

:)&&'(%6;,.<+&,.&.%=&=">+?& :)&$#)%6;,.<+&,.&.%=&=">+?&

@>*%&8A&B,+C&D,-<"-).& @>*%&1A&3.6%(*(%.%$(,"#&


Holcimreportstheeffortsforenvironmentalsustainabilityinthesustainabilityreport

(Holcim,2010a).ThereportiscompiledaccordingtheGRI3.0standardwiththeadap‐

tion levelA+,which represents thehighest levelof sustainability reporting.Alsoasa

consequenceofthis,theHolcimshareislistedintheDJSIandFTSE4GoodSustainability

Index(Holcim,2010).

5.4.2 TheCEIfortheUsageofAlternativeEnergiesintheCementProcess

Holcimwas looking forpossibilities for the substitutionof traditionalenergysources

for the cement process. In that context, the idea of ‘co‐processing’ was born. Co‐

processinginthatcontextsignifiestheimplementationofanadditionalvaluechainto

theexistingcoreprocess.Theproductionprocessforcementrepresentsthecoreproc‐

ess. In addition to that, a supplementary process supports the core process. In this

situation itwas theaimto inventavaluechain for theprovisioningofenergy for the

blast furnace. It is a strategic focusofHolcim’sCES tousealternativeenergies in the

processes.This iswhyHolcimstartedaninitiativetoassessthepossibilityofalterna‐

tiveenergiesinthetraditionalprocess.

SincetheproductionplantsofHolcimarespreadallovertheworld,itwasnoteasyto

findonealternative resource that isavailableatallplacesaround theworld.Butone

thingthatisavailableeverywhereiswaste.Furthermore,withtheusageofwasteasa

source for energy, Holcim would be able to create a win‐win situation for the local

communityandthecompanyatthesametimebecausethedisposalofwastecanhelp

the localcommunity toa increase their livingstandard.Asaresultof these thoughts,

Holcimdecidedtolaunchaninitiativetoassessthepossibilityoftheusageofwasteasa

sourceofenergy.

ThefollowingoverviewshowsthekeypointsoftheCEI.Asanextstep,thefiveareasof

theinitiativewillfurtherbeoutlined.Thedescriptionwillstartwiththeneedsforthe

CEI,followedbytheaccordingobjectives,thedefinitionofthescopeandanexplanation

of the roles and responsibilities within the initiative. The last point summarizes the

resultsoftheinitiative.


Fig.28:OverviewofHolcim’sCEI.

The followingsectionswilloutline theareasof theCEI inmoredetails.The initiative

will show howHolcimmanaged to develop a company‐wide standard for the use of

alternativeenergies inthecementproductionprocess.Additionally, theinitiativealso

delineates the approach of local realization according the respective community re‐

quirements.

NeedsfortheCIE

Giventhecurrentprocessfortheproductionofcement,Holcimfacedhighenergycosts.

TheblastfurnaceheatsthematerialstooveronethousanddegreesCelsius.Therefore,

theoptimizationoftheenergysourcesmaybeapossibilitytoachievesignificantcost

reductions.Aninitiativetosearchdifferentwaysofenergysupplyfortheblastfurnace

would also lower the risk of dependency to one source of energy.Waste is available

almost everywhere as a possible resource for combustion. The need for alternative

energysourcesand theavailabilityofwastearound theworldrepresented theneeds

forthisinitiative.

Objectives

Itwas the intentionof the initiative toassess thepossibility tosubstituteonepartof

thetraditionalpowersupplyforthecementprocesstroughalternativeenergies.Since

powersupplyisanimportantcostfactorfortheproductionprocess,Holcimexpected

cost savings.Apositivebusiness casewas theprecondition for an implementationof

theCEI.Butitwasalsoimportantthattheapproachwouldbeabenefitnotonlyforthe

!"#$%%&#'()#*+%#,-.#

/"#012%345%6#('#*+%#,-.#

7"#8+%#93(:%#('#

*+%#

;<;4=45%#

>"#?(@%6#=<&#

?%6:(<6;A

1;@;4%6#

B"#?%6C@*6#

•! D;E+#%<%)EF#3(<6CG:4(<#;<#*+%#*)=&;4(<=@#

3%G%<*#:)(3%66#

•! H;5%)6;I3=4(<#;<#*+%#%<%)EF#6C::@F#

•! J(*%<4=@##

•! J(6;45%#1C6;<%66#3=6%#

•! K%<%I*#'()#1(*+L#*+%#

3(G:=<F#=<&#*+%#6(3;%*F#

•! -<3)%=6%#('#*+%#

6C164*C4(<#)=*%#

•! -G:@%G%<*=4(<#

=33()&;<E#3(G:=<FAM;&%#

6*=<&=)&6#

•! H%5%@(:G%<*#('#'C<&=G%<*=@6#

=<&#EC;&%@;<%6#'()#M()@&AM;&%#

;G:@%G%<*=4(<#

•! ?(@@A(C*#=33()&;<E#@(3=@#

)%NC;)%G%<*6#

•! ,%<*)=@#*%=G#'()#EC;&%@;<%6#=<&#

3(<6C@4<E#

•! O(3=@L#&%3%<*)=@#;G:@%G%<*=4(<#

*%=G#

•! D?#6C::()*#'()#)%3)C;*G%<*#=<&#

*)=;<;<E#

•! P()@&AM;&%#5=@;&#

;G:@%G%<*=4(<#EC;&%@;<%6#

•! $%M#5=@C%#3+=;<#'()#*+%#

C6=E%#('#=@*%)<=45%#

%<%)E;%6#%6*=1@;6+%&#

•! -<3)%=6%#('#*+%#6C164*C4(<#

)=*%#('#*)=&;4(<=@#%<%)EF#

6(C)3%6# D(@3;GQ6#

R@*%)<=45%##

.<%)E;%6#

,.-#


company,but also to the local community.Theusageofwaste for energyproduction

hasbeenseenasapotentialwin‐winsituationfortheneighborhoodandforHolcimat

thesametime.


The scope of the initiative includes two levels. The first level represents the general

assessmentofthepossibilityandthedevelopmentofacompany‐widestandardforthe

realizationatseveralplaces.Thesecondlevelistherollouttotheplantsaccordingthe

localrequirementsandspecialties.

Onthe first level itwastheaimtoworkout theadvantagesanddisadvantagesof the

usage ofwaste as co‐processing for the cement process. Although the experiences of

Holcimwithregardstoalternativeenergiesbegantwentyyearsago,itwasachallenge

toputall factstogetheranddevelopstandardsandguidelines.Nexttothecreationof

the standards, someconsultingknowledge for thepractical implementationwas sub‐

jectofdevelopment.

Oncethestandardsweredescribedthetheoreticalknowledgewas inplace, theadap‐

tiontothelocalfacilitieswasconsideredasthenextstep.Thelocalrequirementsand

preconditionsdiffer a lot around the countries and theproduction sites.Therefore, a

close link between the overarching group of company‐wide specialists and the local

implementationteamwasnecessary.

Before therolloutof the initiative, theHolcimsiteswerepureproductionsite for the

traditional products. The processing ofwaste as source for energy requires an addi‐

tionalvaluechainforthegathering,pre‐processingandburningofthematerials–and

at the end also the disposal of the ash of the waste combustion. The waste co‐

processing was a completely new field of investigation for the Holcim sites and re‐

quired new skills, new processes and new equipment. This is because thewaste co‐

processingisillustratedasanadditionalvaluechaininthefigurebellow.


Fig.29:TheScopeofHolcim’sCEIinPorter’sValueChain.

Thevaluechainforalternativeenergiesisininteractionwiththeoperationsofthecore

process, since the additional processdelivers energy for the cementprocess.But the

two value chains are very different in terms of skills, people and also level of recog‐

nized importance to the employees and sometimes management representives. The

cementprocessisthecorebusinessofHolcimwithalongtraditionandpride.Theal‐

ternativeenergyunitisrathernewtotheorganizationandrequiresskillsthatwerenot

availableinthecompanybefore.Therefore,thealternativeenergyvaluechainmustbe

seenasaseparateone,alsobecausetherequirementsdiffertothesupportfunctionsof

thealternativeenergiesprocess.Thisaspectwillbeexplainedmoredetailedwithinthe

nextsection.


Asdescribed,theinitiativeconsistsoftwolevels.Onthefirsthandthereisthegeneral

assessmentofthepossibilitiesandthedevelopmentofguidelines.Sincethisworkcan

bemultiplied all over the company and synergies can be achieved, these tasks have

!"#$%&'(#)*+#,-+,#.%

!"#$#%&'()(*+($%&,-)((+($%&+(."/012&2"-)31(/4&

/,$)'%0.*1,#-.%2)')3.$.'+%

!"#$#%&2"*25+3($%&02)+(+($%&*16,"(/)31(&/7/0"64&

4.-5'16137%8.9.61:$.'+%

!"#$#%&,2185*0&8"/+$(%&0"/3($%&,21*"//&8"/+$(%&6)0"2+)-&2"/")2*9%&6)2:"0&2"/")2*94&

;#1-,#.$.'+%

!"#$#%&*16,1("(0/%&6)*9+("27%&)8."23/+($%&;&/"2.+*"/4&

&'<1,'=%

>13"*?-*%

!"#$#%&+(*16+($&

6)0"2+)-&

/012)$"%&8)0)%&

*1--"*31(%&

/"2.+*"%&

*5/016"2&

)**"//4&

@:.#)?1'*%

!"#$#%&

)//"6<-7%&

*16,1("(0&

=)<2+*)31(%&

<2)(*9&

1,"2)31(/4&

@,+<1,'=%

>13"*?-*%

!"#$#%&128"2&

,21*"//+($%&

>)2"915/+($%&

2",120&

,2",)2)31(4&

2)#A.?'3%B%

C)6.*%

!"#$#%&/)-"/&

=12*"%&

,216131(%&

)8."23/+($%&

,21,1/)-&

>2+3($%&?"<&

/+0"4&

DE.#FC)6.*%

C.#9"-.%

!"#$#%&+(/0)--)31(%&

*5/016"2&/5,,120%&

*16,-)+(0&

2"/1-531(%&

2",)+24&

@2+6)27&)*3.+3"/&

A5,,120&)*3.+3"/&

!"#$%"&'

($)*+,-+'

./012,$"+' 32140,")'5'

6270+'

8901:6270+'

601;*-0'

.%<#$%"&'

($)*+,-+'

!"#$%&%'()!*+,(-#&%'(!.#(-/$(0!12-!,3(!4(5(#,!6-2789%2#!

=*1>'!"?12+<1%-<%10'

:(;/;<!=#&#9$#/<!>+&##$#/<!$#'(0,2-!-(+&%2#0?!

@%>2"'A0+$%1-0'32"2)0>0"<'

:(;/;<!-(9-8$%#/<!,-&$#$#/<!925>(#0&%2#!0@0,(5?!

B0-C"$7$)D'E0;07$/>0"<'

:(;/;<!>-2789,!7(0$/#<!,(0%#/<!>-29(00!7(0$/#<!5&,(-$&+!-(0(&-93<!5&-A(,!-(0(&-93?!

F1$-%10>0"<'

:(;/;<!925>2#(#,0<!5&93$#(-@<!&7'(-%0$#/<!B!0(-'$9(0?!

!"#"$%&'()*+,-)$&./0+"&!1/2$&

30%"($/-4"&5$"(62"7&./0+"&!1/2$&


beenassignedtoacentralgroupforalternativeenergies.IntheHolcimheadquarter,it

is theirresponsibility todevelopandmaintain thecompanystandards foralternative

energiesandactasaconsultingpartnerfortheimplementationprojects.Sincethiswas

anewareaof investigation forHolcim, thecompanydecidedtoacquireexternalsup‐

port. The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) provided the

specialknowledgetocreatethefundamentalsforthealternativeenergiesbusiness.

Theresponsibility for the implementation is,according toHolcim’sstrategy,assigned

to the local management. Once the decision is adopted, the local management an‐

nouncesadedicatedimplementationteamwhichisaccountableforthewholerealiza‐

tion.Itisalsothelocalalternativeenergiesteamthatinteractswiththesupportfunc‐

tionsinthecountry.

Fig.30:RolesandResponsibilitieswithinHolcim’sCEI.

Duetothefactthatthelocalteamhasthefullresponsibilityandactsastheintegrator,

theroleofstrategicpartnerisassignedtotheteaminthecountry.Itistheroleofthe

headquarters’grouptoprovidethenecessaryrequirementsandguidelinestoinnovate

thelocalproductionsite.Sotheroleoftheinnovatorisgiventothegroupteam,which

includesalsoconsultantservicesforthecountryunits.Sinceitisessentialtoimplement

thewastesolutionbusinessunitwiththeproperskillsandpeople,thestrategicpartner

isincloseinteractionwiththelocalHR.Tohavethenecessarymanpowerinplace,HR

needstorecruitpeoplefromtheexternallabormarket.Besidestherecruitmentofex‐

ternalpeopleitisthetaskofHRtoalignthetrainingprogramsandassurethecultural

integrationofthenewbusinessunit.

!"#$%&

'%()*+$,-)&

.+)*/0)1&2)$3&4*"56&

'%()*+$,-)&

.+)*/0)1&2)$3&

!"#$%&78&

9& :;&

<&#)+(*$%&=5+#,"+& >)#)+(*$%&=5+#,"+&



Theinitiativeexpressestheexperiencesfromthelasttwentyyears.Severalimplemen‐

tationstookplaceallovertheworld,facingdifferentconditions.Theguidelinesforthe

businesshavebeensetuponcompany‐widelevel,butaremaintainedincloseinterac‐

tionwiththerolloutsinthecountriestoensurethefitwiththelocalrequirements.As

oneexample,theimplementationofHolcimPhilippinescanbementioned.6Inthispro‐

duction plant, the alternatives energies business unit was implemented in the year

2005.Sincethen,theplantuseswastefortheproductionofenergyforthecoreprocess.

Thisexampleshowsthatwastecanhavemanymeanings.ThePhilippinescentralbank

wasatthattimelookingforadisposalpossibilityfortheirpaperbanknotesremoved

form the circulation. Instead of landfilling,Holcimoffered their services for burn the

banknotes and gain energy for the production process. Since then, Holcim produces

cementwiththehelpofoldbanknotes.Thisexampleillustratesthesuccessoftheini‐

tiatives,butalsothatrequirementsandprerequisitescandifferovertheworld.


The lessons learnedwilldescribe themost importantmessageswhichwerereported

about thesustainability initiativeatHolcim.The findingscanbesummarized in three

areas.

The first aspect considers the situation thatwith this initiative, the corebusiness re‐

mainsthesame,butanadditionalvaluedriverisputinplace.Thecorecementprocess

stays unaffected, but an additional value chain is created. The implementation of the

wastesolutionclearlyleadstocapitalexpensesandinvestments,butontheotherhand

alsobringsnewsourcesofincomeandsavingspotentialinthecoreprocess.Toputthe

upsidesanddownsidesononepaper,itisimportantintheviewoftheinterviewpart‐

nertosetupaclearbusinesscase.Itisthecombinationofeconomicalvaluesandeco‐

logicalgainsthatattheendshowsthebenefitoftheCEI.Andthereforeitisessentialto

bringthenumberstogetherandconvincethestakeholderswithsoundarguments.This

isonlypossiblewithaclearbusinesscase,whichalsoallowsthesupportfunctionsas

HRtoinvestigatewiththenecessarybackupfromtheorganization.

6 For more information about the Holcim Philippines case see the following website:http://www.holcim.com/CORP/EN/id/1610640023/mod/7_7/page/case_study.html, visitedonJuly21st2010.


Fig.31:LessonsLearnedformHolcim’sCEI.

Asasecondpointitismandatorytoannouncethenewbusinessunitasintegralpartof

thecompanyandequallyimportant.Itcanbetheperceptionoftheemployeesthatthe

corebusiness ismore important than thewastesolution, forexample.Therefore it is

crucialtohavethebusinessunitintegratedintheorganizationmodelofthecompany

atahighlevel,nearthetopmanagement.Thisdemonstratestheimportanceoftheen‐

vironmentalbusinessunitandallowsthemanagementattentionandthedirectsteering

formtheseniorexecutives.FromanHRview,theinternaltraining,atleastforthesen‐

iormanagement,isimportanttoraisetheawarenessfortheimportanceandtheunder‐

standingforthenewbusinessunit.

And as a third point, the collaboration with external know‐how providers has been

denoted.Holcimwasinthesituationwhereknowledgeaboutanon‐corebusinessmat‐

terwasrequired.Thedevelopmentoftheregulationsforwastesolutionswasinnova‐

tivetoHolcimandalsocrucialintermsofexternalacceptance.Whenthelocalcommu‐

nitiesorregulatorygovernmentaladministrationwouldnotacceptthestandards, the

rollout of the initiative and also the potential benefit form the CEIwould be endan‐

gered.ThereforeitwasvaluabletocooperatewiththeGTZtodevelopthestandardand

guidelinesforthewasteco‐productionprocessatHolcim.Withthehelpoftheexternal

support,Holcimwasabletoevidentlyprovethebenefitfromtheenvironmentalinitia‐

tiveforwastesolutionstotheinternalbutalsoexternalstakeholdersofthecompany.

Theexternal expertise enabledgaining thenecessaryacceptanceand support for the

initiative.

!"#$%&'()&$(*+%),((

-./#&%//(*)/%(

0%12&/',)'%('3%(4152,')&6%(27(

'3%(8%9(-./#&%//(:%6;2&(

!<'%,&)+(=&29>329((

72,(!<5%,'(?25#6/(

@%//2&/(@%),&%$(

A( B(

C(


5.4.4 DiscussionandConclusionformtheHolcimCase

Seeing thesuccessofHolcim’s initiative thequestionarises, towhichcontext theCEI

couldbetransferred.Theprerequisiteforaninitiativelikethewastesolutionisanop‐

portunity in the core process, to substitute environmentally bad components with

moreenvironmentalfriendlysolutions.Inthecaseofthewastemanagementinitiative,

fossil fuelwas theenvironmentalbadaspect in theproductionprocess.Butaddition‐

ally,analternativetothefossilfuelhastoexist.Theavailabilityofwastenearthepro‐

ductionsiteprovidedtheopportunitytoincludewasteasco‐processing.Situationslike

thismay occur in almost every production process in the industry. From a technical

pointofview,theinitiativecouldbetransferredtoalmosteveryproductionfirm.

Besides the technical aspects, themanagement and soft‐factor side has to be consid‐

eredtodecideaboutthepossibilityfortransfertoothercompanies.Thecriticalsuccess

factors form the lessons learnedhave shown the importanceof theunderstandingof

theimportanceandthevalueofanenvironmentalinitiative.Thelocalmanagementhas

to be able to understand and implement the global execution plan according the re‐

gionalrequirements.Thereforeanunderstandingandopennesson localmanagement

level is crucial for the implementation of the initiative in other firms, in cooperation

withandaccordingtotheincentivesandtargetsetting.Whenthenecessaryprecondi‐

tionsareset for therolloutof the initiative,a companycanachieveabetterenviron‐

mentalperformanceandadditionalfinancialbenefitatthesametime.

ThereforetheinitiativeclearlysupportsHolcim’sstrategytotakeenvironmentalmat‐

tersintoaccount.ThestrategyofHolcimwasdescribedasahybridforminthemodel

ofCES.Holcimfocusesonbusinessopportunitiesandriskmitigationatthesametime.

Thisinitiativerepresentsanexamplewhereabusinessopportunitylikewastesolution

goes together with risk mitigation. The risk mitigation took place, because Holcim

achievedahighersubstitutionratefromfossilfuelsandthereforeloweredthedepend‐

encyontraditionalpowersources.Theenvironmentalimpactofthecementproduction

decreasedwithoutchangingthecore‐processincrementally.Itisastrategywhereenvi‐

ronmentalimpactreductioninthecoreprocessgoesalongwithanewbusinesssector.

Thecoexistenceoftheoldproductionprocessandthenewbusinessopportunityleads

toasituation,whereinequalitybetweenthetwosectorsmayoccur.Thereforeitisim‐

portantforthesupportfunctions,namelyHR,tocreateandmaintainevenpossibilities

forboth‘worlds’,theoldcore‐processandthenewsupportingvaluechain.


6 DiscussionoftheLessonsLearnedfromtheCaseStudies

Thischapterwillreviewanddiscussthefindingsformthethreecasestudiespresented

inthechapterbefore.Itisthefocusofthissectiontoanalyzeacrossthedifferentcases,

andnotwithinthecasesasbefore.Inthismanner,thecasestudieswillbecomparedto

find similarities between the cases, but also to analyze the differences that can be

found.Doingso,itistheaimtogaingeneralfindingsandhypothesesforfurtherinves‐

tigationonthebasesofthecases.

Thesection is structured in foursubchapters.The firstparagraphwill showthe indi‐

viduallessonslearnedformthedifferentcasestudiesinoneoverview.Thispicturewill

providethebaselineforfurtheranalysisofcommunalitiesandinterestingfindings.And

furthermore,thepicturewillprovidethebaseforthediscussionofthedifferentroles

beingtakenbyHRMinthedifferentCEI.

Inthesubchapterafterwards,basedontheoverallpictureandthecorrespondingroles

of the lessons learned, some interesting findingswill be discussed inmoredetails to

deepentheanalysisofthelessonslearnedacrossthecases.Thespotofthisparagraph

willbeonthetopicofmanagementsupportandtrainingfortheemployeesinthecon‐

textoftherespectiveCEI.

ThethirdsectionwillfocusonthereviewoftherolesbeingtakenbyHR.Basedonthe

information of the case studies, the roles of the functions involved in the lessons

learnedwillbeassessedinthemodelforthekeyroles,whichcanpossiblybeentaken

byHRasderivedinchapter4.Thisassessmenttakesplacealsounderattentionofcen‐

tralizationanddecentralizationaspects.

Tocompletethecross‐analysisof the lessons learnedthe focusof the lastsubchapter

liesontheareaswherenolessonslearnedwerederivedformthecases.Theso‐called

whitespotinspectionwillcomparetheareasoftheoreticallyaffectedfieldsofHRwith

theobservedlessonslearned.Doingso,possiblespotsforfurtherresearchcanbede‐

duced.

It is theobjectiveof thewholechapter toprovide theevaluationof thecasesstudies,

startingnowwiththepresentationoftheoverviewfromthelessonslearned.

6.1 SummaryoftheLessonsLearned

In each case study, three to four main lessons learned were presented. The lessons

learnedweredeductedbythequestion,whatintheviewoftheinterviewpartnersen‐

suredorenforcedthesuccessoftheCEIinthecompany.SincethecontextsoftheCEI


werequitedifferentandalsodrivenbyspecificCES,theareasofthelessonslearnedare

fairly diverse.However the big scope of lessons learned, some common findings and

groupscanbeidentified.Thefollowingillustrationshowsthebigpictureofthelessons

learnedformthecasestudies.Therespective lessons learnedofthefirmaregrouped

aroundthecompanyname.Thenumbersofthelessonslearnedmatchtothenumera‐

tioninthedescriptionofthecasesinthechapterbefore.

Fig.32:OverviewoftheLessonsLearnedintheCaseStudies.

The first simularity that standsout is the importanceof themanagement support. In

eachofthethreecases,theaspecthasbeenrecognizedascrucialforthesuccessofthe

initiatives.OnelessonlearnedofHolcimstatedtheimportanceofanevidentbusiness

casetoconvincethelocalmanagement,whichcanbeseenasapreconditionforaccu‐

ratemanagementsupport.Furthertwolessonslearnedstandforthecrucialfactorofa

successful transfer to thehuman resources of the company. In theGalenica case, the

crucialfactorhasbeenfoundtobetheemployeeparticipation,whichensuredtheiden‐

tificationoftheemployeeswiththetopicandattractedmanypeopleforparticipation.

The same topichasbeenencountered in theGeberit case.Tohave the importanceof

theenvironmental topicunderstoodby the staff,Geberit suggest the specific applica‐

tionof the topic to theunique specialties of the respective jobof the employee. Like

!"#$%&'"( !$)$*&+(

,-#'&.(

/.0#-1$$(2"*3'&0"3-%(

"%4(/.0-5$*.$%+(

6(

7-0(8"%"9$.$%+(

:;00-*+(<-*(+=$(>%&3"3?$(

@(

A$%+*"#(:;00-*+(<-*(

:+*;'+;*&%9B(C#&9%.$%+(

"%4(:;00-*+(-<(+=$(A/>(D(

7-0(8"%"9$.$%+(

:;00-*+(<-*(

/%?&*-%.$%+"#(

:;E+"&%")&#&+1(

6(

C00#&'"3-%(-<(+=$(7-0&'(

+-(+=$(E0$'&F'(G-)(H(

7"EIE(-<(+=$(/.0#-1$$E((

@(

A/>(.;E+()$(&%+$9*"+$4(

&%(+=$(J?$*"##(7*"&%&%9(

2*-9*"..(D(

/E+")#&E=("%($K+$%E&?$((

L$"*%&%9(A;#+;*$(

M(/?&4$%+("%4('#$"*((

N;E&%$EE(A"E$(

6(

O$.-%E+*"+$(+=$(

>.0-*+"%'$(-<(+=$(%$5(

N;E&%$EE(:$'3-%(

@(

/K+$*%"#(P%-5Q=-5((

<-*(/K0$*+(7-0&'E(

D(


that,themeaningofenvironmentalsustainabilitycanbememorizedanddeeplyunder‐

stoodbythepeople.

TwootherlessonslearneddescribethesuccessfulguidanceoftheCEIfromthesupport

function. In the case of Galenica themanagement accentuated the importance of the

centralguidanceofaCEI,whichisdrivenonthelocallevel.TheGeberitcasesshowed

the importanceof integratingtheenvironmental training in theoverallprocessofHR

ascompensationsandtalentmanagement,toensuretheoptimaleffectiveness.

The remaining two lessons learned play in the field of knowledge and culturalman‐

agement.InthecaseofHolcim,theinterviewpartnersacknowledgedthepossibilityto

strengthenspecificknow‐howthroughexternalpartners,as theydidthroughthecol‐

laborationwithGTZ.Andaslastbutnotleast,theGeberitmanagementaccentuatedthe

importance of an open‐minded, well established learning culture and willingness to

anticipatechangesforasuccessfulimplementationofdeep‐goinggreeninitiatives.

As alreadymentioned, the importance of certain topics across the caseswill nowbe

analyzedinmoredetails.

6.2 LessonsLearnedcomparedindifferentContexts

Sofarthe,thelessonslearnedhavebeenconsideredasawhole.Now,theanalysisfo‐

cusesoncertainspecialtopics.Interestingfindingswillbediscussedinadeeperman‐

ner.Onetopicwasfoundineachofthethreecases.Therefore,thefocusofthefirstsub‐

jecttobetreatedindetal liesonthemanagementsupport.Thisareawillbeanalyzed

withregardstotheunderlingCESandpreconditions.Second,thecontextofthelessons

learnedregardingemployeetrainingwillbeconsidered.

6.2.1 ImpactofManagementSupport

Theimportanceofmanagementsupportwasbeyondcontroversyacrossallcases.The

supportfromtopandseniormanagementismandatoryforthesuccessofaCEI.Butthe

mannerofsupportdiffersacrossthecasessignificantly.Thewayofsupportwillnowbe

analyzedregardingthestrategicbackgroundofthecompany.Therefore,wereconsider

theframeworkforCES.Thethreedifferentapproachestoenvironmentalsustainability

weredescribed.Tocatchupwiththemodelpresentedinthiswork,hereashortrepeti‐

tion:thecontinuumofpossibleCESisreflectedthroughtwoidealtypes.TypeAinter‐

pretsenvironmentalissuesasthreats.Therefore,companiesfollowingidealtypeAsee

environmental matters as risk and try to implement a control strategy as reaction.

CompaniesfollowingtypeB,whichsee‘green’asanopportunitydoitdifferently.They

are aimed at environmental‐friendly value‐chains and process. Moreover they see


‘green’asapartof theircorestrategyandarewilling to transformtheirbusiness for

newbusinessopportunitiesinthisfield.Furthermore,ahybridformofthetwostrate‐

giesexists.ThisiswhenelementsofbothtypesareincludedintheCESofacompany.

The illustrationbelowshows the lessons learnedregardingmanagementsupport,ex‐

tracted form the overall picture. In the case studies, Galenica represented a CES that

ratherreflectsatypeAstrategy.Here,thelessonslearnedregardingmanagementsup‐

portistostrengthentheconcreteinitiative.Thismakessense,sinceinitiativesintypeA

ratherfollowapunctualplanthananoverarchingtransformation.Thefocusofsupport

isthereforeontheconcreteinitiative.

Fig.33:DifferentApproachesforManagementSupport.

The second case studywas the caseofGeberit. In themodel forCES,Geberit follows

moreofatypeBstrategy.Thisrepresentsthetransformationofthebusinesstowards

eco‐friendlybusinessopportunities.Regarding the lessons learned,here themanage‐

mentsupport liesmoreonthesustainabilitymatter itselfratherthanontheconcrete

initiative. It is about creating the awareness and the understanding for the general

topic.TheseveralCEIbenefitindirectlyofoverallimportance,thatisseeninthetopic

bytheemployeesandlinemanagement.

The third case is Holcimwith the hybrid strategy. Here an ‘old’ value chain coexists

with a ‘green’ value chain. To ensure a proper implementation and operation of the

eco‐friendly business section it is the focus of themanagement support to create an

understandingandacceptanceforthenew‘green’model.Thenewmodelhastowork

parallel tothetraditionalbusiness. It ismoreofabalancetobefoundbetweentradi‐

tionalvaluesandinnovativeatmosphereofa‘green’businesssection.

Theanalysisofmanagementsupportreflectedasetoflessonslearnedwhichhavetobe

interpreted in thespecificcontextof thecompany. Itshowsthat theanalysisofaCEI

alwayshas to consider the strategic backgroundof the company to gain valuable re‐

sults.Anadditionalcase,wheretheCESbackgroundmatters,willnowbepresented.

!"#$%&'&()*)'+$

,-##".+$/".$+0)$1'23&34)$

5&6)'27&$

!"#$%&'&()*)'+$

,-##".+$/".$

8'42."'*)'+&6$

,-9+&2'&:262+;$

5):).2+$

<)*"'9+.&+)$+0)$

1*#".+&'7)$"/$+0)$')=$

>-92')99$,)73"'$

?"672*$

!;#)$@$ !;#)$>$ 0;:.2A$


6.2.2 EmployeeTrainingfor‘CorporateGreening’

ThecasestudyofHolcimandGeberitincludedthetopicofstafftraining.Thefollowing

sectionwilloutlinethespecialtiesofthetrainingtopicswithregardtoenvironmental

initiatives.Thefollowingfigureshowsthetwolessonslearnedinthisfield.Theboxon

theleftrepresentsthelessonlearnedformGeberit.Ontherightside,themessageform

theHolcimcasestudyisshown.

Fig.34:LessonsLearnedintheAreaofEmployeeTraining.

ThetraininginthecontextofthetypeBstrategyofGeberithasthefocustoestablish

‘green’behaviorasthepreferred,acceptedandrewardedactingoftheemployees.The

objectiveisvalidforallemployeesandfollowsadeepunderstandingofenvironmental‐

matters.Thetopicenvironmentalsustainabilitymustbeentakenasgrantedbytheem‐

ployeesand thereforealsobe integrated in the technicalandeconomicalpartsof the

training.

On the other side the situation of the hybrid strategy of Holcim. At the production

plants, where the eco‐friendly co‐production has been established, the focus of the

trainingistoshowtheneedforthecoexistenceofthetwoworlds.Itistheaimtoestab‐

lish an understanding for the ‘green’ business section and to ensure the knowledge

transferacrosstheboundaries.Themissionofthetrainingistoguaranteeaminimum

know‐howandunderstandingonbothsidesforthehybridwayofoperation.

With theexampleof the lessons learnedaround training, twodifferentpreconditions

forHRhavebeenpresented.AccordingtotheCES,thetrainingthatgoeswiththeCEI

mustfollowdifferentobjectivesandcontents. It istheperceptionforsuchpointsthat

has tobesharpenedtoestablishaneffectivetraining,whichenforces theskillsof the

employees according the environmental strategy. This is one further factor,why the

roleandthescopeoftheHRinterventiondifferacrossCEI.Thenextparagraphthere‐

forefocusesontherolesbeingtakenbytheseveralHRfunctions.

!"#$%$%&'('

)*+*,-./*%0'

123'/450'6*'$%0*&"#0*7'

$%'08*'9+*"#,,'!"#$%$%&'

:"-&"#//'

)*+*,-.';%7*"50#%7$%&'

<-"'=>"**%?'@45$%*55'

A*BC-%'

!D.*'@' 8D6"$7'


6.3 Human Resource Management’s Roles in Corporate Environmental

Initiatives

ThissectionwillfocusonthedifferentrolesofHRMencounteredinthethreecasestud‐

ies.Theempiricalparthas shown three specific contextsof aCEI and corresponding

rolesandresponsibilities.Theanalysisherewillsumupthefindingsfromthecasesand

assesstheminthemodelforkeyrolesoftheHRM,aspresentedinthechapter4ofthis

work. Based on the findings, some general advice for role taking and assignment of

responsibilitiesinthecontextofCEIwillbederived,alsowithregardtocentralization

anddecentralizationofcertainfunctions.

6.3.1 AssessmentoftheLessonsLearnedintheKeyRolesModel

Inthetheoreticalpartofthework,asetofpossiblerolesofHRMinthecompanyhas

beenpresented.Each function, involved in thedevelopment and theexecutionof the

CEI,cantakeadifferentrolewithintheprocess.Therangeofrolesreachesfromchange

facilitator to the strategic partner. The change facilitator is only responsible for the

executionwithin a fixed planwithout high involvement. The strategic partner steers

the process by bringing together all necessary stakeholders and skills. The strategic

partner reflects the highest level of involvement. In between, two other roles exist.

First, the innovatorbringsnew, groundbreaking ideasand concept to the team.With

thatknow‐how,theteamisabletodeveloptheCEIaccordingly.Second,thecollabora‐

tor shares with the team of the CEI the necessary know‐how for the execution and

thereforeactivelyhelpsinintegratingtheCEIintothecompany.

Accordingtheschemaforpossibleroles,theCEIfromthecasestudieshavebeenana‐

lyzedandassigned to the four rolesof themodel.The following table listsall theHR

function,whichwereinvolvedintheCEIofthecases.Basedontheinformationofthe

investigations,anassessmentoftheirroleaccordingthemodeltakesplace.Thecolumn

ontherightsideprovidesadditionalinformationfortherespectivefunction.


Table5:AssessmentofRolesbeingtakenintheCaseStudies.

Nameofthecase,affectedHRMfunc‐tionandrolesymbol:

Assessmentinthekeyrolesmodelandexplanations:

Galenica HRPolicies

Collaborator:GuidancefortheconductionoftheCEI,theenvi‐ronmentalcodeofconductisrecognizedasanof‐ficialpolicyfortheemployees

HRTraining

StrategicPartner:Thedecentralizedtrainingfunctionactsasaco‐ordinator,integratorandfacilitatorforthewholetrainingprogram

Geberit

HRCompensations,TalentMgmt

Collaborator:ThegroupHRintegratesthetrainingsintheover‐allHRprocessesascompensationsandtalentmanagement

Holcim HRTraining,Re‐cruiting,Policies

Collaborator:ThelocalHRactsasanexecutionpartnerfortheCEIinthecountryintermsofrecruitmentofnewemployees,trainingandaccordingHRpolicies.

As itcanbeseen,mostof theHR functions involved in theactivitiesof the initiatives

tooktheroleofthecollaborator.Theysupportedtheexecutionandimplementationof

theCEIwiththeirspecialknowledge.Inonecase,theHRfunctionplaystheroleofthe

strategicpartner.ItistheinitiativeformGeberit,wheretheemployeetraininghasbeen

analyzed.Inthatcase,theHRfunctionbroughttogetherthenecessaryskillsandman‐

agedtheprocessholistically.

Moregenerally,theidealroledependsonthescopeoftheinitiative.Whenthescopeof

theCEIcompletelyaffects thecorecompetencesof theHR function, then the lead for

theinitiativeshouldlieintheirhands.Anexampleforthisisthetraininginitiativefrom

Geberit.Ontheotherhand,whenaCEIonlyaffectsthecompetencespartly,acontribu‐

tion to the initiativeascollaborator isadequate.Anexample for thiscasereflects the

wastesolutionfromHolcim,wheretrainingwasnecessarybutnotthemainobjective

oftheCEI.

Asthecasestudiesshow,theroleoftheinnovatorisalwaysoutsidetheHRarea.The

innovatorswereexpertgroupswithknowledgeaboutsustainability.Onepossibilityfor

gaininginnovativeknow‐howontheHRsidewouldbetobuildvirtualcommunitiesto

developinnovativeideasintheareaofHR,whichcouldbetransferredintocorporate

initiatives.


6.3.2 DifferencesinCentralizationversusDecentralizationofHRFunctions

Regarding theorganizational structureof the involvedHR functions, thecasesdistin‐

guishedoftenbetweencentralgroupfunctionsanddecentralizedlocalfunctions.From

atheoreticalpointofview,functionsthatareabletocreatesynergiesintheirworkthat

can be multiplied to other departments should be organized centrally. Functions,

where local specialties and requirements are crucial, the decentralized approach ap‐

pearsmost effective. The following illustration shows the findings from case studies

regardingtheorganizationalframeworkofthefunctions.

Fig.35:OrganizationalAspectsoftheHRFunctions.

Functionstypicallylocatedinthegroupheadquarteraretopicsrelatedtopoliciesand

strategies. This is in linewith the theoretical standard since the central steering can

create synergieshereby applying thework to several departments. Training and re‐

cruitinghavebeenseenasdecentralizedresponsibilitiessince,especiallywithregards

toenvironmentalmatters,theskillsandtherequirementsdiffersignificantlyacrossthe

locations. According to the position, the required competences of the functions have

beenlistedintheillustrationabove.Forcentralfunctions,knowledgetransferandsup‐

porthavebeenseenascrucial.Fordecentralizedfunctions,theawarenessoflocalspe‐

cialtiesrepresentsthekeysuccesspoint.

!"#$%&'(&

)*+*&,#-./.)01&23"43)+.)0&

5#/4-&'(&

)*+*&6"4.7.7+1&()/"$.87+1&

!"#$%&-)9)-1&/)73"4-& 5#/4-&-)9)-1&:)/)73"4-&

();$."):&<#=%)3)7/)0>&

•! ?7#@&3A)&B79."#7=)734-&&

2C.--0&#D&3A)&B=%-#E))0&

•! B79."#7=)734-&6"4.7.7+&47:&

F7D#"=48#7&2)00.#70&

•! ?7#@&3A)&5#/4-&54G#"&H4"C)3&

D#"&B79."#7=)734-&0C.--0&

•! I/3&40&/#=%)3)73&BJ)/$8#7&

,4"37)"&D#"&<BF&

();$."):&<#=%)3)7/)0>&

•! <##":.743)&47:&4-.+7&'(&

,"#/)00)0&@.3A&<BF&

•! F73)+"43)&B79."#7=)734-&

,#-./.)0&.7&'(&K"4=)@#"C&

•! B7/#$"4+)&B=%#@)"=)73&

D#"&L#M#=N$%&F7.8489)0&

•! B70$")&6#%NH474+)=)73&

2$%%#"3&D#"&<BF&&

<)73"4-.O48#7&& P)/)73"4-.O48#7&9)"0$0&

P)/)73"4-&:)/.0.#7&=4C)"0&

<)73"4-&:)/.0.#7&=4C)"0&


6.4 WhiteSpotsintheLessonsLearned

For thepreparationof the case studies, a rangeofHRactivitieshavebeen identified,

whichareaffectedbyaCEIfromatheoreticalpointofview.Thefollowingillustration

addstothefigureandassessesthethreecasestudiesonthatframework.

Fig.36:AffectedHRActivitiesintheCaseStudies.

ThefigureshowsthatallactivitiesidentifiedasrelevantforCEIhavebeenaffectedat

least trough one case of the empirical part of thework. The employee trainings that

wereincludedintheHolcimandintheGeberitcasestudyaswell,werealsosubjectof

cross‐analysisinthesectionsbefore.

The illustration uncovers aswell that in two of the cases several HR functionswere

involvedandinthecaseofGalenica,HRwasonlypartlyinvolved.Fromapuretheoreti‐

calpointofview,each initiative thataffects theemployeesof thecompany,everyHR

activity should be involved in some extends. This has several reasons. First, in each

initiative, where employee behavior is subject to change, the according incentives

shouldbeadaptedtoo.Thishasanimpactonthecompensationsactivitybutalsoonthe

talentmanagement,becausenewmanagementskillsarerequired.Ontheotherhand,a

newdesiredemployeebehaviorhasanimpactontheskillsoftheemployees.Herethe

recruitingbutalso the traininganddevelopmentactivity isaffected.Andas thecases

showed,initiativeshaveoftenalsoanimpactonthepolicies.So,thefullrangeofactivi‐

tiesistheoreticallyaffectedbytheinitiatives.Thisrepresentsaspotforfurtherinvesti‐

gation.Thequestionis,ifthemissingactivitieswereinvolvedinahiddenwayorreally

outofscopefortheinitiatives.Andfollowingthatquestion,whattheeffectofthemiss‐

inginvolvementwas.

!"#$

!%&'()*$

+%,-.-/0$

12(-)-)3$4$

5/6/,%'&/)7$

!%&'/)8

0(9%)0$

1(,/)7$:3&7$

;(,/)-.($

;/</2-7$

=/.2>-9)3$

?%,.-&$


7 Conclusion

ThethesishasfocusedonCEIandtheirimplementationindifferentstrategiccontexts.

Environmental strategies canbe represented through ideal typesof strategies,which

weredescribed in themodel forCES.Here the typeA strategydescribeda corporate

riskmitigationandcontrolstrategy,whereenvironmental issuesareseenasathreat.

ThetypeBstrategyoutlinedasituation,whereenvironmentalmattersarerecognized

asanopportunity fornewenvironmental‐friendlybusinessmodels.Thesecondstrat‐

egy leads to a deep transformation of the core processes and values. In situations,

wherepiecesoftypeAandBareatthesametimepartoftheCES,ahybridstrategycan

occur.Inthiscase,theco‐existenceoftheoldandnewbusinessmodelsisdesired.

Asthewayofputtingstrategyintopractice,theCEIhavebeendescribed.Aninitiative

alwayscoverscertainneedsandobjectives.Fromaconceptualpointofview,thescope

differs between typeA andB initiatives. CEI form typeA target certain issues of the

businessactivities,identifiedthroughthecorporateriskmanagement.CEIfromtypeB

arepartofanoveralltransformationalplan,whichaimstorebuildthecoreprocesses

andthevaluesintoaneco‐friendlysystem.

Basedonthedifferenttypeofinitiatives,therequirementstowardsHRhavebeeniden‐

tified.ArolemodelshowedtherangeofrolesthatcouldbetakenbyHRintheprocess

ofaCEI.Therolesreachfromchangefacilitatortothestrategicpartneroftheinitiative.

Theframeworkofdifferentinitiativesandtheconsiderationsabouttheinvolvementof

HRintheCEIrepresentedthebaselinefortheempiricalpartofthethesis.

In the empirical part of the thesis, three cases involving a Swiss companyhavebeen

identified.Thecasestudiesarebasedondeskresearchandextendedinterviewswith

professionalsformthecompanies.Itwastheaimtodescribetheinitiativesfromdiffer‐

entangles,ideallyformthecorporatesustainabilityside,thelocalimplementationside

andtheHRview.ThecasestudieshaveresultedinthreedescriptionofaCEIrelatedto

theirunderlyingenvironmentalstrategy.Withinthespecificcontextofthecompanies,

lessonslearnedformthecaseshavebeenderived.

Afterwards, the caseshavebeen analyzed across eachother.The findingswere com‐

pared, forexample inthefieldof training.Thecaseshaveshownmajordifferences in

thescopeandtheintentionofthetrainings,whichcouldbeexplainedbythestrategic

background of the initiative. Additionally, the form of effectivemanagement support

hasbeenanalyzed.Here, thefocusofmanagement involvementgoesaccordingtothe

CES.WhereasfortypeAstrategytheconcreteinitiativeisinscopeofthesupport,the


typeBstrategycreatesageneralunderstanding for theenvironmentalmatter ingen‐

eral rather than thesupport for theconcrete initiative.And in theviewof thehybrid

strategy,itistheaimofthemanagementsupportistocreateanatmosphereofunder‐

standingandawarenessoftheco‐existenceofthetwoworlds.

Tosumuptheresultsofthiswork,theclassificationofthestrategiesandtheinitiatives

intothreetypeshashelpedtoderiveandexplainconcrete lessonslearned,whichhas

beendiscussedinthecorrespondingstrategiccontextofthecompany.

Althoughthemodelfortheclassificationofthethreetypesisbasedonawiderangeof

literature,themodelhasnotbeenassessedwithabiggernumberofcasesyet.Afield

forfurtherinvestigationwouldthereforebetochecktheappropriatenessofthemodel

toabiggersample.

Withthetreecases,awiderangeofHRactivityhasbeencoveredbytheseveralcases.

However,thewhitespotanalysisstatedthehypothesisthateveryactivityshouldoccur

ineverycase.Thereforeanadditional fieldof furtheranalysiswouldbe toassess the

impactofmissingHRactivitiesinthescopeofCEI.

Howeverthesequestionsremainopen,thethesishashelpedtoanalyzeandunderstand

thematterofenvironmentalsustainabilityinthecontextofthecorporatestrategy.Fur‐

thermore,aframeworkforanalysisofCEIhasbeendevelopedandappliedtothecase

studies. The interaction ofHR andCEI has been described form a theoretical and an

empiricalpointofview.Thederivedlessonslearnedallowanapplicationforpractitio‐

nersbutalsoforfurtherresearchofscientists.Thisworkcontributedtothediscussion

of the involvementand the roleofHRwith concreteempirical examplesandderived

general leanings, includingthe levelofstrategybutalsotheexecutionof theenviron‐

mentalmatterthoughCEI.


ListofLiterature

Amber,S.&Lanoie,P.(2008):DoesItPaytoBeGreen?ASystematicOverview.The

AcademyofManagementPerspectives,22(2008)4,p.45‐62.

Ashforth,B.E.(2001):Roletransitionsinorganizationallife.1stEdition.Mahwah:Law‐

renceErlbaumAssociates.

Bowen,D.E.&Ostroff,C.(2004):UnderstandingHRM‐FirmPerformanceLinkages:The

Roleofthe“Strenght”oftheHRMSystem.TheAcademyofManagementReview,

29(2004)2,p.203‐221.

Brass,B.M.&Riggio,R.E.(2006):Transformationalleadership.2ndEdition.Mahwah:

LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Brundtland,G.H.&Khalid,M.(1987):ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnviron‐

mentandDevelopment:OurCommonFuture.In:

http://www.un‐documents.net/wced‐ocf.htm,visitedonMai25th2010.

Campbell,J.L.(2007):WhywouldCorporationsbehaveinsociallyresponsibleways?

AninstitutionaltheoryofCorporateSocialResponsibility.AcademyofManage

mentReview,32(2007)3,p.946–967.

Crosbie,L.,Knight,K.(1995):StrategyforSustainableBusiness.1stEdition.London:

McGraw‐Hill.

DelmasM.A.&Montes‐SanchoM.J.(2010):VoluntaryAgreementstoImproveEnvi‐

ronmentalQuality:SymbolicandSubstantiveCooperation.StrategicManage

mentJournal,31(2010)6,p.575‐601.

Doppelt,B.(2003):Leadingchangetowardsustainability:achange‐managementguide

forbusiness,governmentandcivilsociety.1stEdition.Sheffield:GreenleafPub‐

lishing.

Doppelt,B.(2008):Thepowerofsustainablethinking:howtocreateapositivefuture

fortheclimate,theplanet,yourorganizationandyourlife.1stEdition.London:

Earthscan.

Drucker,P.F.(1988):TheComingoftheNewOrganization.HarvardBusinessReview,

66(1998)1,p.3‐11.

Dunphy,D.,Benveniste,J.,Griffiths,A.&Sutton,P.(2000):Sustainability–Thecorpo‐

ratechallengeofthe21stcentury.1stEdition.CrowsNest:Allen&Unwin.


Dunphy,D.,Griffiths,A.&Benn,S.(2007):OrganizationalChangeforCorporate

Sustainability‐Aguideforleadersandchangeagentsofthefuture.2ndEdition.

MiltonPark:Routledge.

Ehrenfeld,J.R.(1998):Culturalstructureandthechallengeofsustainability.In:Seton,

K.(ed.):BetterEnvironmentDecisions.1stEdition.Washington:IslandPress.

ElkingtonJ.(1994):Towardsthesustainablecorporation:win–win–winbusiness

strategiesforsustainabledevelopment.CaliforniaManagementReview,

36(1994)2,p.90‐100.

Elkington,J.(1999):CanibalswithForks‐Thetriplebottomlineof21stcenturybusi‐

ness.2ndEdition.Oxford:CapstonePublishingLimited.

Figge,F.,Hahn,T.,Schaltegger,S.,&Wagner,M.(2002):Thesustainabilitybalanced

scorecard:Linkingsustainabilitymanagementtobusinessstrategy.Business

StrategyandtheEnvironment,11(2002)5,p.269‐284.

Galenica(2010):AnnualReport2009.In:

http://www.galenica.com/wAssetsGalenica/bin/en/publikationen/anual‐

report/2009/geschaeftsbericht2009‐E.pdf,visitedonJuly15th2010.

Glavas,A.,Senge,P.&Cooperrider,D.L.(2010):BuildingaGreenCityonaBlueLake–

AModelforBuildingaLocalSustainableEconomy.People&Strategy,

33(2010)1,p.26‐33.

Geberit(2010):SustainabilityReport2010oftheGalenicaGroupandGalenicaLtd.In:

http://www3.geberit.com/sustainability/_downloads/2010/Geberit_Sustainab

ility_2010_E.pdf,visitedonJune20th,2010.

GRI(2009):G3Guidelines.In:

http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/ReportingFrameworkD

ownloads,visitedonJune15th,2010.

Gubrium,J.F.&Holstein,J.A.(2002):HandbookofInterviewResearch:Context&

Method.1stEdition.ThousandOaks:SagePublicaitions.

Halme,M.&LaurilaJ.(2009):Philanthropy,IntegrationorInnovation?Exploringthe

FinancialandSocietalOutcomesofDifferentTypesofCorporateResponsibility.

JournalofBusinessEthics,84(2009)3,p.325‐339.

Harris,M.&Raviv,A.(2002):OrganizationDesign.ManagementScience,48(2002)7,p.

852‐865.


Hart,S.L.(1997):Beyondgreening:strategiesforasustainableworld.HarvardBusi

nessReview,75(1997)1,p.66‐76.

Henriques,I.&Sadorsky,P.(1996):Thedeterminantsofanenvironmentallyrespon‐

sivefirm:Anempiricalapproach.JournalofEnvironmentalEconomicsandMan

agement,29(1996)1,p.11‐23.

Hofstra,N.A.,Timar,J.A.,Verdonk,H.R.&deWalle,F.B.(1990):Milieubedrijfsvoering,

ProblemenenPerspectieven.Rotterdam:SamsomTjeenkWillink.

Holcim(2008):FactSheet‐AlternativeFuels&RawMaterials(AFR),in:

http://www.holcim.com/holcimweb/gc/CORP/uploads/Holcim_FactSheet_AFR

_2008.pdf,visitedonJune22nd2010.

Holcim(2010):AnnualReport2009HolcimLtd,in:

http://www.holcim.com/holcimweb/gc/CORP/uploads/AR_2009.pdf,visited

onJune22nd2010.

Holcim(2010a):CorporateSustainabilityDevelopmentReport2009,in:

http://www.holcim.com/holcimweb/gc/CORP/uploads/SD_report.pdf,visited

onJune22nd2010.

Huselid,M.A.(1995):TheImpactofHumanResourceManagementPracticesonTurn‐

over,Productivity,andCorporateFinancialPerformance.AcademyofManage

mentJournal,38(1995)3,p.635‐672.

Huselid,M.A.,Jackson,S.E.&Schuler,R.S.(1997):TechnicalandStrategicHumanRe‐

sourceManagementEffectivenessasDeterminantsofFirmPerformance.Acad

emyofManagementJournal,40(1997)1,p.171‐188.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)(2007):ClimateChangeSynthesis

Report.In:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessme

nt_report_synthesis_report.htm,visitedonJune26th2010.

ISO(2009):Environmentalmanagement‐TheISO14000familyofInternationalStan‐

dards.1stEdition.Geneve:ISOCentralSecretariat.

Jabbour,C.J.C.,Santos,F.C.A.,Nagano,M.S.(2010):ContributionsofHRMthroughout

thestagesofenvironmentalmanagement:methodologicaltriangulationapplied

tocompaniesinBarzil.TheInternationalJournalofHumanResourceManage‐

ment.21(2010)7,p.1049‐1089.


Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.R.(2005):Thebalancedscorecard:Measuresthatdriveper‐

formance.HarvardBusinessReview,83(2005)7/8,p.172‐180.

Kolk,A.&Mauser,A.(2002):TheEvolutionofEnvironmentalManagement:FromStage

ModelstoPerformanceEvaluation.BusinessStrategyandtheEnvironment,

11(2002)1,p.14‐31.

Lashley,C.(2001):Empowerment–HRStrategiesforServiceExcellence.1stEdition.

Oxford:Butterworth‐Heinemann.

Lai,K.,Cheng,T.C.E.&Tang,A.K.Y.(2010):GreenRetailing:FactorsforSuccess.Cali

forniaManagementReview,52(2010)2,p.6‐31.

Länsiluoto,A.&Järvenpää,M.(2010):Greeningthebalancedscorecard.BusinessHori‐

zons.53(2010)4,p.385‐395.

Losey,M.,Meisinger,S.&Ulrich,D.(2005):Thefutureofhumanresourcemanagement:

64thoughtleadersexplorethecriticalHRissuesoftodayandtomorrow.1st

Edition.Alexandria:SocietyforHumanResourceManagement.

Lubin,D.A.&Esty,D.C.(2010):TheBigIdea:TheSustainableImperative.Harvard

BusinessReview,88(2010)5,p.42‐50.

Malone,T.W.(1999):Is‘empowerment’justafad?Control,decision‐making,andin‐

formationtechnology.BTTechnolJournal,17(1999)4,p.141‐144.

Marcus,A.A.&Fremeth,A.R.(2009):GreenManagementMattersRegardless.Academy

ofManagementPerspectives,23(2003)3,p.17‐26.

Marschan‐Piekkari,R./Welch,C.(2004):Handbookofqualitativeresearchmethods

forinternationalbusiness.1stEdition.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishing.

Nidumolu,R.,Prahalad,C.K.&Rangaswami,M.R.(2009):WhySustainabilityisNow

theKeyDriverofInnovation.HawardBusinessReview,87(2009)9,p.56‐64.

Pedersen,E.R.(2010):ModellingCSR:HowManagersUnderstandtheResponsibilities

ofBusinessTowardsSociety.JournalofBusinessEthics,91(2010)2,p.155‐166.

Petulla,J.M.(1987):EnvironmentalProtectionintheUnitedStates.1stEdition.San

Francisco:SanFranciscoStudyCenter.

Porter,M.E.(1996):America’sGreenStrategy.In:Welford,R.&Starkey,R.(ed.).Busi‐

nessandtheenvironment–areader.1stEdition.WashingtonDC:Taylor&

Francis.


Porter,M.E.&Kramer,M.R.(2006):Strategy&Society–TheLinkBetweenCompeti‐

tiveAdvantageandCorporateSocialResponsibility.HarvardBusinessReview,

84(2006)12,p.78‐92.

Porter,M.E.(2008):OnCompetition.11thEdition.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool

Publishing.

Rosen,C.(2001):EnvironmentalStrategyandCompetitiveAdvantage:AnIntroduction.

CaliforniaManagementReview,43(2001)3,p.8‐15.

Rugman,A.M.&Verbeke,A.(1998):CorporateStrategiesandEnvironmentalRegula‐

tions:AnOrganizationalFramework.StrategicManagementJournal,19(1998)4,

p.363‐375.

SAM(2010):TheSustainabilityYearbook2010.In:http://www.sam‐

group.com/htmld/yearbook/downloads/The_Sustainability_Yearbook_2010_FI

NAL.pdf,visitedonJuly15th,2010.

Schuler,R.S.&Jackson,S.E.(2001):HRManditsLinkwithStrategicManagement.In:

JohnStorey(ed).HumanResourceManagement:ACriticalText.2ndEdition.

London:InternationalThomson.

Shari,A.(2010):Perspectives–Counterpoints.People&Strategy.33(2010)1,p.14.

TheDailyHerald–Tribune(2010,June17th):GulfofMexicooilspillfiascopopularin

socialnetworking.ThursdayJune17th,2010,p.2.

TheNewYorkTimes(2010,June26th):Day66:TheLatestOntheOilSpill.Saturday

June26th,2010,p.10.

UNGlobalCompact(2004):EmbeddingHumanRightsinBusinessPractices.In:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Embeddingen.pdf,visitedon

June2nd2010.

UNCTAD(1993):EnvironmentalManagementinTransnationalCorporations.Research

ontheBenchmarkCorporateEnvironmentalSurvey.1stEdition.NewYork:

UnitedNations.

VanMarrewijk,M.,Wuisman,I.,DeCleyn,W.,Timmers,J.,Panapanaan,V.&Linnanen,

L.(2004):APhase‐wiseDevelopmentApproachtoBusinessExcellence:To‐

wardsanInnovative,Stakeholder‐orientedAssessmentToolforOrganizational

ExcellenceandCSR.JournalofBusinessEthics,55(2004)2,p.83‐98.

Weathington,B.L.,Cunningham,C.J.L.,Pittenger,D.J.(2010):ResearchMethodsfor

theBehavioralandSocialSciences.1stEdition.Hoboken:JohnWiley&Sons.


Winn,M.I.&Angell,A.C.(2000):Towardsaprocessmodelofcorporategreening.Or

ganizationStudies,21(2000)6,p.1117‐1147.

Wirtenberg,J.,Harmon,J.,RussellW.G.&Fairfield,K.(2007):HR'sroleinbuildinga

sustainableenterprise.HumanResourcePlanning,30(2007)1,p.10‐20.

WorldCouncilforSustainableDevelopment(ed.)(2007):DrivingSuccess–Human

resourcesandsustainabledevelopment.In:

http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/hr.pdf,visitedonJune28th2010.

Wright,P.M.,Dunford,B.B.&Snell,S.A.(2007):Humanresourcesandtheresource

basedviewofthefirm.In:Schuler,R.S.&Jackson,S.E.(ed.):StrategicHuman

ResourceManagement.2ndEdition.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.

Wright,P.M.&Boswell,W.R.(2002):DesegregatingHRM:AReviewandSynthesisof

MicroandMacroHumanResourceManagementResearch.JournalofManage

ment,28(2002)3,p.247‐276.

Zyglidopoulos,S.C.(2002):TheSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibilitiesofMultina‐

tionals:EvidencefromtheBrentSparCase.JournalofBusinessEthics,

36(2002)1/2,p.141–151.


AppendixI:ListoftheInterviewPartners

CaseStudyGalenica

Contactdetailsofthecompany:

GalenicaLtd.

Untermattweg8

CH‐3027Bern

Phone:+41588528111

Contact:[email protected]

Name RoleandDescription

Mr.Henzi HeadofLegalandResponsible forSustainabilityatGalenicaGroup

Ms.Tanner Responsible for ProcessManagement for the division Logistics, in‐

volvedintheCEIfortheenvironmentalcodeofconduct

Mr.Clémençent Head of Business Sector Logistics, where the CEI was conducted


CaseStudyGeberit


GeberitInternationalAG

Schachenstrasse77

CH‐8645Jona

Phone:+41552216300

Contactemail:[email protected]


Mr.Hoegger HeadofEnvironmentandSustainability

Ms.Huber TeammemberofSustainabilityFunction

Mr.Held HeadCorporateHumanResources

Mr.Wylder HeadofTechnicalTrainingGeberitProductionAG


CaseStudyHolcim


HolcimGroupSupportLtd

Hagenholzstrasse85

CH‐8050Zurich

Phone+41588585858

Contact:[email protected]


Ms.Dubach HolcimGroupSupportLtd,

SustainableDevelopment

Mr.Awcock HolcimGroupSupportLtd,

VPCorporateLeadershipDevelopment

Mr.Wögerbauer HolcimGroupSupportLtd,

DeputyHeadofDivisionforAlternativeEnergies


AppendixII:DocumentsformtheEmpiricalProcess

Examplesofopenquestioncollection(inGerman):

HeadofSustainability:

Frageleitfaden zur Untersuchung “Environmental Sustainability and HRM” Verantwortlich: Serafin Bäbler, Tel. +41 76 421 21 46, E-mail: [email protected] Fallstudie: Geberit AG, G1 Interviewpartner: Herr Högger, Responsible for Sustainability at Geberit Group Zeit und Ort: Dienstag, 3.8.2010 Dieser Frageleitfaden umfasst Fragen für ein Interview im Rahmen der Untersuchung der Universität Zürich. Weitere Informationen zur Untersuchung sind im beigelegten Informationsbrief ersichtlich. Wir danken Ihnen sehr herzlich für die Teilnahme und die Bereitschaft, Ihr Wissen mit uns zu teilen. 14.7.2010 Teil 1: Einstiegsfragen: - Was ist Ihre genaue Position und Funktion im Unternehmen? - Was gehört zu den Aufgaben Ihrer Position? - weiteres: Teil 2: Allgemeine Informationen zur Corporate Environmental Strategy von Geberit: - Welchen Stellenwert hat Nachhaltigkeit für Geberit? - Wie hat sich das Verständnis von Nachhaltigkeit über die letzten Jahre für Geberit verändert? - Was sind die strategischen Grundpfeiler der Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie von Geberit? - Wie ist die Verantwortung für das Thema Nachhaltigkeit grundsätzlich bei Geberit organisiert? - Was für Initiativen im Bereich Environmental Sustainability hat die Geberit in der Vergangenheit verfolgt und was für Initiativen sind im Moment aktuell? - Über was für Kanäle wird Nachhaltigkeit den Mitarbeitern vermittelt? Teil 3: Umwelt und Recycling Training der Geberit Produktions AG - Was waren die Auslöser und die Bedürfnisse für die spezifische Schulung in der Produktions AG? - Lässt sich ein Bezug zu Indikatoren im Nachhaltigkeitsreporting herstellen?

z.bsp. Energieverbrauch, Abfallmenge, Wasserverbrauch


- Wie würden Sie die Auswirkung der Schulung auf die Mitarbeiter beschreiben? - Wie haben Vorgesetzte und das Management auf die Schulung reagiert? Teil 5: Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen - Wie kann eine solche Nachhaltigkeitsschulung das Verständnis für die Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie beein-flussen? - Was würden Sie einem Unternehmen raten, welches eine ähnliche Schulung durchführen möchte? - Wie hat die Organisation durch die Schulung profitiert? - Was sind Ihre persönlichen „Lessons Learned“ aus der Schulung?


QuestiontoaTeamMemberoftheCEI:

Frageleitfaden zur Untersuchung “Environmental Sustainability and HRM” Verantwortlich: Serafin Bäbler, Tel. +41 76 421 21 46, E-mail: [email protected] Fallstudie: Geberit AG, G1 Interviewpartner: Herr Wydler, Schulungsleiter Produktion Rapperswil-Jona Zeit und Ort: zu bestimmen Dieser Frageleitfaden umfasst Fragen für ein Interview im Rahmen der Untersuchung der Universität Zürich. Weitere Informationen zur Untersuchung sind im beigelegten Informationsbrief ersichtlich. Wir danken Ihnen sehr herzlich für die Teilnahme und die Bereitschaft, Ihr Wissen mit uns zu teilen. 14.7.2010 Teil 1: Einstiegsfragen: - Was ist Ihre genaue Position und Funktion im Unternehmen? - Was gehört zu den Aufgaben Ihrer Position? - weiteres: Teil 2: Allgemeine Informationen zur Schulung: - Für welchen Bereich wird die Schulung durchgeführt? - Wie ist der Bereich im Groben organisiert (Aufbau- und Ablauforganisation)? - Wie ist die Verantwortung für das Thema ökologische Nachhaltigkeit in diesem Bereich geregelt? - Was prägt die Unternehmenskultur in diesem Bereich aus Ihrer Sicht? - Wie würden Sie die allgemeine Einstellung der Mitarbeiter gegenüber dem Thema Nachhaltigkeit be-

schreiben? - Was war der Auslöser / die Gründe für die Nachhaltigkeitsschulung? - Wie würden Sie die Einstellung des Managements gegenüber dieser Schulung beschreiben? - Wer war der Auftraggeber der Schulung? Wer hat bei der Ausarbeitung der Schulung mitgearbeitet? - weiteres: Teil 3: Form und Inhalt der Schulung: - Wie ist der offizielle Name respektive wie lässt sich die Schulung am ehesten bezeichnen? - Seit wann wird die Schulung in dieser oder ähnlicher Form durchgeführt?


- Wer ist das Zielpublikum der Schulung? - Was ist das Ziel der Nachhaltigkeits-Schlung? Besteht eine Verbindung zum Nachhaltigkeitsreporting

von Geberit? - Welche Form der Schulung wird angewandt (Präsenz, Selbststudium, Online) und was umfasst die

Schulung zeitlich? - Was sind die Lernziele der Schulung? Wie werden die Lernziele überprüft? - Was für Dokumente werden den Teilnehmenden abgegeben? - Wie ist die Schulung in andere Aktivitäten (andere Schulungen) oder Kommunikation (z.bsp. Mitarbei-

terkommunikation) integriert? - Wie unterstützt die Schulung das Verständnis der Unternehmensstrategie des Mitarbeitenden? - Was sind die Kosten, die im Zusammenhang mit der Schulung entstehen? Teil 4: Resultate der Schulung - Wie hat sich die Schulung Ihrer Meinung nach im Betrieb ausgewirkt? - Lässt sich ein Bezug zu Indikatoren im Nachhaltigkeitsreporting herstellen?

z.bsp. Energieverbrauch, Abfallmenge, Wasserverbrauch - Wie würden Sie die Auswirkung der Schulung auf die Mitarbeiter beschreiben? - Wie haben Vorgesetzte und das Management auf die Schulung reagiert? - Was waren die Schwierigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit der Planung und Durchführung der Schulung? Teil 5: Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen - Was sind die Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Schulung? - Auf welche Bereiche würde sich diese Schulung übertragen lassen? - Was würden Sie einem Unternehmen raten, welches eine ähnliche Schulung durchführen möchte? - Wo sehen Sie die möglichen Stolpersteine / Gefahrenquellen einer solchen Schulung? - Wie hat die Organisation durch die Schulung profitiert? - Was sind Ihre persönlichen „Lessons Learned“ aus der Schulung?


HeadofCorporateHR:

Frageleitfaden zur Untersuchung “Environmental Sustainability and HRM” Verantwortlich: Serafin Bäbler, Tel. +41 76 421 21 46, E-mail: [email protected] Fallstudie: Geberit AG, G1 Interviewpartner: Herr Held, Head of HR at Geberit Group Zeit und Ort: Dienstag, 3.8.2010 Dieser Frageleitfaden umfasst Fragen für ein Interview im Rahmen der Untersuchung der Universität Zürich. Weitere Informationen zur Untersuchung sind im beigelegten Informationsbrief ersichtlich. Wir danken Ihnen sehr herzlich für die Teilnahme und die Bereitschaft, Ihr Wissen mit uns zu teilen. 14.7.2010 Teil 1: Einstiegsfragen: - Wie ist Ihre genaue Position und Funktion im Unternehmen? - Was gehört zu den Aufgaben Ihrer Position? - weiteres: Teil 2: Wahrnehmung von Environmental Sustainability und Human Resource Management (HRM) - Welchen Stellenwert hat Nachhaltigkeit für Geberit aus Ihrer Perspektive? - Welche Anknüpfungspunkte hat die Strategie von HR mit der Corporate Sustainability Strategy? - Was für Initiativen im Bereich Environmental Sustainability haben Sie aus HR verfolgt, durchgeführt oder unterstützt? Teil 3: Umwelt und Recycling Training der Geberit Produktions AG - Wie ist die Verantwortung für Trainings von Mitarbeitern im Allgemeinen bei Ihnen organisiert? Was sind die Rollen der verschiedenen HR Einheiten im Bereich der Trainings und insbesondere der Nachhal-tigkeitsschulungen. - Was sind die Anknüpfungspunkte von anderen HR Bereichen wie Talentmanagement, Beförderungs-entscheide oder Lohnsystemen zu den Schulungen?


- Wie würden Sie die Auswirkung der Schulung auf die Mitarbeiter beschreiben? - Wie haben Vorgesetzte und das Management auf die Schulung reagiert? Teil 5: Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen - Wie kann eine solche Nachhaltigkeitsschulung das Verständnis für die Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie beein-flussen? - Was würden Sie einem Unternehmen raten, welches eine ähnliche Schulung durchführen möchte? - Wie hat die Organisation durch die Schulung profitiert? - Was sind Ihre persönlichen „Lessons Learned“ aus der Schulung?


AppendixIII:SupplementaryDocumentsformtheCaseStud‐

ies

Materialsprovidedbythecompaniesascontributiontothecasestudies.

CaseStudyGalenica:

Galexis, ein Unternehmen der Galenica Gruppe

ÖKO-VERHALTENSKODEX Niederbipp, 01. Juli 2010


Öko-Verhaltenskodex Niederbipp, 01. Juli 2010 2

Titel

Datum

Seite

Öko-Verhaltenskodex GALEXIS AG 01. Juli 2010

I. ALLGEMEINES

Art. 1.1 Einleitung 3 Art. 1.2 Geltungsbereich 3

II. ARBEITSPLATZ

Art. 2.1 Bildschirm 3 Art. 2.2 Druckoptionen 4 Art. 2.3 Rechner 4 Art. 2.4 Drucker / Kopierer 4/5

IlI. TRANSPORT

Art. 3.1 Betriebsfahrzeuge 5 Art. 3.2 Reisen 5 Art. 3.3 Fahrten zur Galexis 6

IV. GEBÄUDE / INFRASTRUKTUR

Art. 4.1 Kaffeeautomat / Wasserspender 6 Art. 4.2 Abfalltrennung 6 Art. 4.3 Beleuchtung 6 Art. 4.4 Heizung 7

V. INKRAFTTRETEN

Anhang



Titel

Datum

Seite

I. ALLGEMEINES

Art. 1.1 EINLEITUNG

_Das vorliegende Reglement konkretisiert den Verhaltenskodex der Galenica-Gruppe (Kapital Schutz der Umwelt, Sicherheit und Gesundheit) in Bezug auf das Sparen von Energie im Sinne von Minimalanforderungen.

Art. 1.2 GELTUNGSBEREICH

_Der Öko-Verhaltenskodex gilt grundsätzlich für alle Mitarbeitenden der Galexis.

II. ARBEITSPLATZ

Art. 2.1 BILDSCHIRM

Art. 2.1.1 Bildschirm während der Mittagspause ausschalten

_Während der Mittagspause, Besprechungen und am Feierabend ist der Monitor unbenutzt und kann am AUS-Schalter ausgeschaltet werden. Energieverschwendung durch unnützes Laufen des Monitors kann somit vermieden werden.

Art. 2.1.2 Frist in den Systemeinstellungen für die Bildschirmabschaltung, wenn PC unbenutzt

_Mit den Energieoptionen in den Systemeinstellungen am PC kann der Bildschirm nach einer definierten Frist auf Standby geschaltet werden und dadurch Energie sparen. Bitte prüfen Sie, ob Sie diese Frist verkürzen können (Anleitung 1).

Art. 2.1.3 Helligkeitseinstellung am Monitor verringern, damit Energie gespart werden kann

_Schon durch geringe Änderungen der Helligkeitseinstellungen am Bildschirm kann der Energieverbrauch nennenswert gesenkt werden. Bitte prüfen Sie, ob die Verringerung der Helligkeit Ihres Monitors möglich ist.

Art 2.1.4 Bildschirmschoner ausschalten

_Verzichten Sie auf Bildschirmschoner (Bildschirmschoner auf „Eigenschaften von Anzeige“ deaktivieren). Bildschirmschoner verbrauchen mehr Energie als der Monitor im normalen Arbeitsgebrauch. Beim deaktivierten Bildschirmschoner ist es besonders wichtig den Monitor abzuschalten, wenn er nicht benutzt wird (gem. Art. 2.1.1).



Titel

Datum

Seite

Art. 2.2 DRUCKOPTIONEN

Art. 2.2.1 Druckereinstellungen auf Doppelseitendruck als Standard festlegen

_Beim Drucken von Dokumenten kann durch Doppelseitendruck der Papierverbrauch halbiert werden. Bei einigen Druckern ist dies bereits so vordefiniert. Bitte prüfen Sie diese Einstellungen bei Ihrem Drucker und passen Sie sie gegebenenfalls an (Anleitung 2).

Art. 2.2.2 Vor dem Druck auf A4 formatieren

_Viele zu druckende Dokumente passen beim Ausdrucken nicht auf eine A4 Seite. Hier kann durch Anpassungen bzw. Verkleinerung des Druckformates auf A4 der Verbrauch von Papier gesenkt werden.

Art. 2.2.3 Präsentationen als Handouts, Doppelseitendruck vor dem Druck einstellen

_Beim Ausdrucken von Handouts bei Präsentationen ist oft der Zweiseitendruck ausreichend, um die Informationen nachlesen zu können. Durch entsprechende Änderungen in den Druckoptionen (Anleitung 2) kann hier der Papierverbrauch halbiert werden.

Art. 2.2.4 Druckereinstellung der Qualität von optimal auf normal

_Durch die Verringerung der Druckqualität von „optimal“ auf „normal“ kann teuere Druckertinte eingespart werden. Bitte ändern Sie bei Ihrem Standarddrucker die Druckereinstellung (Anleitung 2).

Art. 2.3 RECHNER

Art. 2.3.1 Rechner abends herunterfahren, damit Updates gemacht und Strom gespart werden können

_Bitte achten Sie darauf, dass Sie Ihren Rechner vor dem Feierabend herunter fahren. Dadurch wird nicht nur der Energieverbrauch gesenkt, sondern auch die Installation von Software-Updates durch das morgendliche Hochfahren des Rechners ermöglicht.

Art. 2.4 DRUCKER / KOPIERER

Art. 2.4.1 Bedrucktes Papier ein zweites Mal oder als Notizpapier benutzen

_Bedrucktes Papier muss nicht sofort entsorgt werden. Es kann ein zweites Mal benutzt oder als Notizpapier Verwendung finden.

Art. 2.4.2 Drucker über Nacht ausschalten

_Viele der Team-Drucker laufen nachts und am Wochenende auf Standby. Bitte schalten sie diese Drucker abends aus, denn sie haben selbst im Standby-Modus einen sehr hohen Stromverbrauch.



Titel

Datum

Seite

Art. 2.4.3 Drucker in Einzelbüros nur bei Bedarf anschalten

_Drucker, die von Einzelpersonen benutzt werden (Einzelbüros), sollten nur bei Bedarf angeschaltet werden, um unnötige Standby-Stromverbräuche zu minimieren.

Art. 2.4.4 Frage: Ist das Ausdrucken nötig?

_Bitte stellen Sie sich vor jedem Ausdrucken die Frage, ob Sie diese Dokumente in der Anzahl wirklich benötigen. Sie sollten den Druckauftrag nur starten, wenn Sie sich sicher sind, die aktuelle Version in der richtigen Menge zu drucken.

Art. 2.4.5 Nach jedem Einsatz des Kopierers muss die Energiesparoption eingeschaltet werden _Die grossen Kopierer in den Kopierräumen haben eine „Energiesparoption“, bei deren Betätigung der Kopierer in einen energiesparenden Standby-Modus gesetzt wird. Bitte wählen Sie die „Energiesparoption“ nach jedem Druck bzw. jeder Kopie (gem. Anleitung in den Druckerräumen).

III. TRANSPORT

Art. 3.1 BETRIEBSFAHRZEUGE

Art. 3.1.1 Neue Modelle als Betriebsfahrzeuge sollen sparsam sein

_Bei der Beschaffung der Betriebsfahrzeuge achten wir auf verbrauchsarme Modelle, sofern betriebswirtschaftlich vertretbar. Fahrzeuge mit geringerem Verbrauch und CO2-Ausstoss leisten nicht nur einen erheblichen Beitrag zum Umweltschutz, sondern verringern auch die Treibstoffkosten der Galexis.

Art. 3.2 REISEN

Art. 3.2.1 Vermeidung unnötiger Reisen - als Ersatz kann oft eine Telefonkonferenz gemacht werden.

_Besprechungen mit externen Personen können oft auch durch Telefonkonferenzen abgehalten werden. Unnötige Reisen und damit auch Belastungen der Umwelt können somit vermieden werden.



Titel

Datum

Seite

Art. 3.3 FAHRTEN ZUR GALEXIS

Art. 3.3.1 Mitarbeiter, welche in der Umgebung des Arbeitsortes wohnen, sollten in Zukunft mit dem Velo zur Arbeit erscheinen.

_Mit dem Velo zur Galexis fahren ist nicht nur gesünder als mit dem Auto, Sie vermindern damit auch die Belastungen der Umwelt. Sollte es Ihnen möglich sein mit dem Velo zur Galexis zu kommen, leisten Sie einen nicht unerheblichen Beitrag zum Umweltschutz. Weitere Möglichkeiten wie man gesund und umweltfreundlich zur Arbeit kommt sind: zu Fuss, Trottinett, Inline-Skates etc.

Art. 3.3.2 Bildung von Fahrgemeinschaften als Verminderung des CO2-Austosses

_Heute kommt zumeist jede und jeder mit dem eigenen Auto zur Arbeit. Durch Fahrgemeinschaften können Fahrten in die gleiche Richtung vermieden werden. Fragen Sie Ihre Arbeitskollegen, die denselben Fahrweg haben wie Sie, ob sie zusammen zur Galexis fahren können. Damit wird nicht nur die Umwelt geschont, sondern auch Ihr Geldbeutel.

IV. GEBÄUDE / INFRASTRUKTUR

Art. 4.1 KAFFEEAUTOMAT / WASSERSPENDER

Art. 4.1.1 Benutzen Sie in den Pausen ein Glas oder eine Tasse

_Bitte nutzen Sie an den Getränkeautomaten, in den Pausenecken und in der Kantine Gläser und Tassen. Somit können unnötige Papp- und Plastikbecher-Abfälle vermieden werden.

Art. 4.2 ABFALLTRENNUNG

Art. 4.2.1 Papiersammlung am Arbeitsplatz für Recycling

_Erleichtern Sie sich die Papierentsorgung und stellen Sie sich eine Papier-Entsorgungskiste an den Arbeitsplatz. Papier kann so bequem dort entsorgt werden wo es entsteht. So verringern wir den Kehrichtmüll und können mehr Altpapier zum Recycling geben.

Art. 4.3 BELEUCHTUNG

Art. 4.3.1 Licht in nicht dauernd benutzten Räumen ausschalten

_Schalten Sie bitte in allen Räumen, in denen nicht eine ständige Beleuchtung nötig ist (Kopier- oder Entsorgungsräume etc.), das Licht aus. So können wir energieverschwendendes Dauerlicht vermeiden.



Titel

Datum

Seite

Art. 4.4 HEIZUNG

Art. 4.4.1 Stellen Sie die Temperatur der Heizkörper an Ihrem Arbeitsplatz sinnvoll ein

_Die Beheizung der Administrations-Räume kann mittels Heizkörpereinstellung individuell reduziert werden. Bitte minimieren Sie die Temperatur auf das für Sie notwendige Mass. Achtung: Am Wochenende und in der Nacht wird die Temperatur bereits automatisch durch die Haustechnik reduziert.

V. INKRAFTTRETEN

_Der vorliegende Öko-Verhaltenskodex tritt am 01.07.2010 in Kraft.


CaseStudyGeberit:

!

Elisabeth Huber / Michael Kühne / wyd August 10

Umwelt und Recycling A02_02

Umweltschutz Produktion –

Luxus oder Innovationsvorsprung?


!"#$%&'()*'+$,-,%.)/'

'

!"# ! 2/5

1 Kursziele

Alle Mitarbeitenden ...

" verstehen was Umweltschutz bedeutet.

" wissen wer für Umweltschutz verantwortlich ist.

" Wissen was Nachhaltigkeit bedeutet.

" Können „Abfall“ richtig entsorgen.

2 Nachhaltigkeit

" Nachhaltigkeit heisst Bedürfnisse befriedigen, ohne zu riskieren, dass

künftige Generationen ihre eigenen Bedürfnisse nicht befriedigen können.


!"#$%&'()*'+$,-,%.)/'

'

!"# ! 3/5

3 Stoffkreislauf

4 Umweltmanagement

Ziel vom Umweltmanagement ist es:

" die Kosten zu reduzieren

" die Risiken zu senken

" die Umweltbelastung zu reduzieren

5 Umweltbelastung

Umweltbelastung nach Verbrauchsgrössen Geberit Jona 2009

Entsorgung

3%

Wasser

2%

Prozesse

0%

Treibstoffe

7%

Brennstoffe

6%

Strom

82%


!"#$%&'()*'+$,-,%.)/'

'

!"# ! 4/5

6 Massnahmen

Energie: optimale Nutzung der Maschinen, langlebige Produkte herstellen und verwenden

Wasser: wassersparende Produkte herstellen

Abfall: vermeiden, trennen und wiederverwerten

Gefahrenstoffe: möglichst geringe Mengen und sorgfältiger Umgang

Mitarbeiter: Weiterbildung, Gesundheit und Zufriedenheit fördern

Gesellschaft: soziale Projekte in der Schweiz und im Ausland unterstützen

7 Recycling

Saubere und artenreine Trennung bedeutet:

Weniger Neumaterial

Geringere Materialkosten

Kleinere Entsorgungskosten

Umweltschonendes Verhalten


!"#$%&'()*'+$,-,%.)/'

'

!"# ! 5/5

Sammelplätze

Allgemeine Sammelplätze in der Fabrikation für Industrieabfall, PE-Folie, Karton, Styropor, div. Metalle, vermischtes Material, Elektro- und Elektronikmaterial. Querbau UG Container Vermischtes Material, Elektro- und Elektronikmaterial, Kupfer, verchromtes Messing, Messing Späne, Messing roh, rostfreier Stahl. Querbau UG bei der Innenrampe vor der Tür Aluminium: Abschnitte und Späne Im Innenhof auf der Rampe Presse für Karton und PE-Folie (geordnet deponieren), Styropor, Meplarohr Sonderabfälle

Sonderabfälle werden separat entsorgt. Für die Entsorgung muss ein Entsorgungsschein mit der Stoffdefinition erstellt werden. Zu diesem Zweck bitte darauf achten, dass der Abfall artenrein gesammelt wird. Vor dem vorbeibringen des Materials bitte mit den entsprechenden Stellen Kontakt aufnehmen. " Sammlung beim Elektriker HT

Leuchtstoffröhren

" Sammlung beim TU Altöl, Erosionsöl, Öl – Wasser – Schlämme

" Sammlung im Werkzeuglager Restliche Materialien wie Reinigungsmittel, Lösemittel sowie Spül- und Kühlwasser

" Für private Abfälle sind die Entsorgungsmöglichkeiten in der Wohngemeinde

zu benützen!!

Wir alle bei Geberit tragen die Verantwortung für die Umsetzung der

Umweltgrundsätze.


CaseStudyHolcim

CSR/SD Coordination

Holcim Group Support Ltd

Hagenholzstrasse 85

CH-8050 Zürich

Phone +41 58 858 8273

Fax +41 58 858 8234

1/3

Fact Sheet - Environment

Introduction

Our world is precious. Natural resources are finite. The notion that we must tread lightly on the

planet, and minimize our environmental footprint for the benefit of all - now and into the future

- cannot be questioned as an important responsibility for today's business. In fact, it is at the

heart of the concept of sustainable development - 'to meet the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.

It has been more than 40 years since environmental issues were first thrust into the headlines

by NGOs - soon to be followed by attention from more mainstream institutions. The UN's 1972

conference in Stockholm was instrumental in highlighting the importance of our natural capital.

Twenty years later, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, a strong link was made between the

environment and development - and business was invited to the table to discuss its role.

Then, in 2002 in Johannesburg, a global summit looked at all three pillars of sustainable

development in an integrated way - and business, in cooperation with others in society, was

seen as part of the solution to environmental degradation, not just part of the problem.

Why this issue is important

When one considers that concrete is second only to water as the most consumed substance

on earth - accounting for a staggering two to three tonnes of product for each person on the

planet - and that cement is the chief ingredient in concrete, it is clear that minimizing the

environmental impacts of cement production must be a high priority for a company committed

to sustainable development.

However, reducing impacts is only one part of the picture. Environmental factors are no longer

seen as risk factors, but also as opportunities - sources of efficiency improvement and

competitive advantage. The term 'eco-efficiency' which describes the process of 'making more

with less' is central to this idea. Businesses which embrace the concept find that they can

reduce their environmental footprint while at the same time improving their financial bottom

line.

Challenges for Holcim

As the main ingredient in concrete, cement is a key requirement of modern society but its

manufacture is a resource and energy-intensive process. Cement production causes



2/3

emissions of dust, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and other substances to the atmosphere and

is a significant contributor to global man-made CO2 emissions. Cement plants, quarries and

transport operations may also have adverse impacts on local ecology, water quality and local

communities.

Our challenge is to minimize these impacts - by reducing emissions and applying the

principles of eco-efficiency. For example, several wastes and by-products of industrial and

human society can be used as fuel or alternative mineral material to make cement, thus

reducing our reliance on finite natural resources. Many combustible wastes, such as waste oil,

solvents, used tires, plastics, paint sludge, waste wood and paper sludge can be used to

substitute fossil fuels. Slag from the steel industry and fly ash from coal-fired power stations

can be used to partially replace clinker in composite cements. Furthermore, introduction of

new technology to the cement-making process has led to significant reductions in energy

consumption, raw material consumption as well as some emissions to the air.

We have other challenges which must be met, however. In order to use the cited methods to

minimize our impacts, we need to engage our stakeholders. Customers, for example, must be

assured that cement quality is not compromised by alternative methods of production.

Communities around our plants must be assured that their health and well-being remains

unaffected; and authorities in various countries must be engaged to ensure regulations are of

a high standard and take account of the cement industry's ability to provide environmental

benefits to society.

Our commitment

At Holcim, our goal is to continually demonstrate our commitment to sustainable

environmental performance, actively working to improve our performance and to increase our

understanding of the challenges that we - and our industry - face in this area. We aim to

understand our current performance through consistent measurement and reporting

techniques, as well as the implementation of management systems to monitor progress

toward our goals. To work effectively, these systems are integrated into overall business

processes and supported by appropriate training.

We are committed to the implementation of ISO 14001-compatible management systems at all

Group cement plants, grinding stations and AFR-pretreatment platforms. Although a moving

target because of ongoing acquisitions by the Group, 93% of our facilities had achieved the

target by year-end 2007. In addition, we have developed a global emissions monitoring and

reporting (EMR) standard and set emission reduction targets for key substances – NOx, SO2

and dust.

To support our commitment to 'produce more with less', we measure the efficiency of our

process against four key performance indicators - clinker factor, specific heat consumption,

thermal substitution rate, and cement kiln dust (CKD) rate. We must improve our performance

on each of these parameters in order to achieve our objective of a 20% reduction in CO2

emissions by 2010.



3/3

As part of our engagement with the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), we are actively

involved in the key environmental commitment areas of its Agenda for Action - such as climate

protection, fuels and raw materials, emissions reduction and local impacts.

Related publicly available information

Holcim publishes Corporate Sustainable Development Reports (CSDRs) each second year,

with performance information and data updated annually on our website. Together with

additional fact sheets and other SD-related information, this can be found at:

www.holcim.com/sustainable/

More information on the CSI is available at: www.wbcsdcement.org/