waste management disclosure on corporate websiteslib.ugent.be/fulltxt/rug01/001/893/425/rug01... ·...

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE

ACADEMIEJAAR 2011 – 2012

Waste Management Disclosure on Corporate Websites

Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van

Master of Science in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen

Aurianne Lambert

onder leiding van

Professor Dr. P. Everaert

PERMISSION

Ondergetekende verklaart dat de inhoud van deze masterproef mag geraadpleegd en/of

gereproduceerd worden, mits bronvermelding.

I hereby declare that the content of this thesis may be consulted, and/or reproduced on

condition that the source is quoted.

Aurianne Lambert

I

Acknowledgement

I am very grateful to my promoter professor P. Everaert. Her valuable advice and guidance

made it possible for me to perform my research in the best possible way.

Special thanks to Bart Vangilbergen and Kristien Huygh from OVAM who consecrated their

time in order to make this study possible. Their help was very much appreciated.

II

Table of Content

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... I

Table of Content ............................................................................................................................ II

Acronyms Used in this Study ......................................................................................................... V

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. IV

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ V

1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2

3. Contribution of this Study ..................................................................................................... 4

4. Background and Literature Review ....................................................................................... 5

4.1. Mandatory and Voluntary Environmental Disclosure in Belgium ................................. 5

4.2 Fundamental Theories .................................................................................................. 5

4.3. Prior Research on Voluntary Environmental Reporting ................................................ 6

4.3.1. Voluntary Environmental Disclosure on the Internet ........................................... 6

4.3.2. Reasons for Voluntary Environmental Disclosure ................................................. 7

4.4.3. Voluntary Environmental Disclosure Frameworks ................................................ 8

4.5. Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 9

4.5.1. Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................................................... 9

4.5.2. Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................................................ 10

4.5.3. Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................................................ 10

4.5.4. Hypothesis 4 ........................................................................................................ 10

5. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 12

5.1. Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 12

5.2. Empirical Model .......................................................................................................... 13

5.2.1. Dependent Variable ............................................................................................ 14

5.2.2. Explanatory Variables .......................................................................................... 14

5.2.3. Control Variables ................................................................................................. 15

III

6. Results of the Experiment ................................................................................................... 17

6.1. Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................... 17

6.2. Covariance Analysis ..................................................................................................... 21

6.3. Results of the Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 21

6.3.1. Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................................................ 21

6.3.2. Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................................................ 22

6.3.3. Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................................................ 23

6.3.4. Hypothesis 4 ........................................................................................................ 25

6.3.5. General Regression Analysis ............................................................................... 26

7. Additional Analyses ............................................................................................................. 28

7.1. Additional Problem Statement 1 ................................................................................. 28

7.1.1. Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................... 28

7.1.2. Covariance Analysis ............................................................................................. 29

7.1.3. Results ................................................................................................................. 30




7.2.3. Results ................................................................................................................. 33




7.3.3. Results ................................................................................................................. 37

8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 39

9. Limitations and Future Research......................................................................................... 41

10. References ......................................................................................................................... V

11. Appendices ....................................................................................................................... IX

Appendix I: OVAM (November, 2011). Interview about mandatory reporting in Flanders.

Mechelen, Belgium................................................................................................................... IX

IV

Appendix II: VED on Waste Policy on Corporate Websites ..................................................... XII

Appendix III: Covariance Analysis – Hypotheses Testing .................................................... XXVII

Appendix IV: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 1 .............................. XXVIII

Appendix V: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 2 ................................. XXIX

Appendix VI: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 3 ................................ XXIX

V

Acronyms Used in this Study

CER Corporate Environmental Reporting

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

FEE Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens

GRI The Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines

IMJV Integraal Milieujaarverslag

ISO The International Organisation for Standardisation

OVAM Openbare Afvalstoffenmaatschappij

VED Voluntary Environmental Disclosure

IV

List of Tables

Table 1a: Descriptive Statistics – Hypotheses ............................................................................. 17

Table 1b: Descriptive Statistics – Hypotheses ............................................................................. 17

Table 2: T-test for Equality of Means .......................................................................................... 22

Table 3: VED * DUMMY_DANW Cross-tab .................................................................................. 23

Table 4a: Logit Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................... 23

Table 4b: Logit Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................... 24

Table 5: T-test for Equality of Means .......................................................................................... 24

Table 6: VED * IND Cross-tab ...................................................................................................... 25

Table 7a: Logit Regression Analysis (Without Dummy’s): Hypothesis 4 ..................................... 26

Table 7b: Logit Regression Analysis (With Dummy’s): Hypothesis 4 .......................................... 26

Table 8a: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 1 ............................................ 28

Table 8b: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 1 ............................................ 29

Table 9: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_EP ............................................................................. 30

Table 10: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_DANW .................................................................... 30

Table 11: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * IND......................................................................................... 31

Table 12: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_FIN_PER ................................................................. 31

Table 13: Ordered Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 1 ........................ 31

Table 14: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 2 ............................................ 33

Table 15: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 2 ...................................... 34

Table 16: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 3 – Construction ................... 34

Table 17: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 3 – Food ................................ 35

Table 18: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 3 – Construction .............. 37

Table 19: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 3 – Food ........................... 38

V

List of Figures

Figure 1: Number of firms per Industry ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: Firms with VED presence per Industry ......................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Total Volume of Different Types of Waste ................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Presence of Dangerous Waste in a Company .............................................................. 18

Figure 5: Number of Companies per Employee Dimension ........................................................ 19

Figure 6: Construction - Dangerous Waste ................................................................................. 20

Figure 7: Construction - Safe Waste ............................................................................................ 20

Figure 8: Food - Dangerous Waste .............................................................................................. 20

Figure 9: Food - Safe Waste ........................................................................................................ 20

Figure 10: The extend of VED per Industry ................................................................................. 29

Figure 11: Number of Companies that are Minor/Major Polluters ............................................ 33

Figure 12: Number of Companies per Dimension and Industry ................................................. 35

Figure 13: Types of waste in the Construction Industry ............................................................. 36

Figure 14: Types of waste in the Food Industry .......................................................................... 36

1

1. Abstract

Deze masterproef beschrijft de vrijwillige milieurapportering van bedrijven op hun website.

Specifieke afvalrapportering werd hierbij onderzocht. Er werd bestudeerd of bedrijven

vrijwillig rapporteren over hun afvalbeleid en welke de redenen zijn wanneer ze dit doen. Voor

deze studie werd er gebruik gemaakt van een steekproef van Vlaamse bedrijven uit de

bouw -en voedingssector. Van deze bedrijven werden de gegevens bekomen die zij verplicht

moesten doorgeven aan de Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij. Bijkomende

analyses werden verricht om de mate van de afvalrapportering te achterhalen. Ook de

verschillen tussen de twee sectoren werden geanalyseerd. Resultaten wijzen er op dat het

type afval (gevaarlijk - ongevaarlijk) dat een bedrijf produceert, de sector waarin een bedrijf

actief is en de grootte van een bedrijf de meest doorslaggevende factoren zijn wanneer een

bedrijf moet beslissen om vrijwillig te rapporteren over haar afvalbeleid.

2

2. Introduction

Over the last decade, environmental reporting has been the subject of much research.

Environmental reporting can be defined as ‘the preparation and provision of information, by

management, for the use of multiple stakeholder groups (internal and external), on the

environmental status and performance of their company or organisation.’ (FEE, 2000, p. 3) Its

objective is to be ‘the provision of information about the environmental impact and

performance of an entity that is useful to stakeholders in assessing their relationship with the

reporting entity.’ (FEE, 2000, p. 9)

Even though, in some countries, companies are required to provide environmental reports to

the country’s authorities, they are never required to make these reports publicly available. In

the last decade, however, the public’s demand for and interest in environmental information

has risen (Bebbington, Gray, and Larranniga, 2000). This rising demand is due to, among others,

environmental disasters caused by companies (Deegan, Rankin, and Vought, 2000). A recent

example of such a disaster is the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Other reasons are

the expansion in environmental regulations, pressure groups’ right to know about social and

environmental effects of a firm’s activities, the increase of environmental risk, the raising

awareness of companies that marketing benefits and reputation advantages can be obtained

by telling the world about beneficial environmental actions… (Dixon, Mousa and Woodhead,

2005). Globalisation is also a factor not to be ignored. Due to globalisation, many companies

expanded, and their impact on the environment in which they operate haven’t remained

unnoticed (White, 1999).

Two main stages can be identified in the ‘corporate environmental movement’ (Jose and Lee,

2007). The early stage can be described as the stage where advantageous environmental

actions of organisations can be explained by the fact that they merely wanted to comply with

legal and regulatory requirements (Li, 2001). In the second stage, companies started to realise

which advantages they could obtain by having a superior environmental performance

(Rosen, 2001).

Since the beginning of the 21st century (Raiborn, Butler and Massoud, 2011), an increasing

number of firms started displaying environmental disclosure in their annual reports on a

voluntary basis, to show their concern with environmental issues. It has been reported that

this is a common phenomenon in non-industrial sectors and in various regions in the world

(KPMG, 2002).

3

This paper will focus on one specific area of environmental reporting by companies, namely

reporting on waste management. The association between mandatory reporting, addressed to

the government, and voluntary reporting, addressed to the public through a corporate website,

of Belgian firms will be analysed.

In this study, the following research question can be formulated: “Do firms make their waste

policy publicly available on their corporate website?” Or stated differently: Do firms make

waste information publicly available, and if they do so, what are the factors influencing the

decision to publicise this information. Different predictors can be identified, such as companies’

environmental performance, the industry in which a company operates and the type of waste

a company is producing. In addition, an analysis on the extent of voluntary waste disclosure is

relevant.

4

3. Contribution of this Study

Today, the environment is a hotter topic than ever and environmental issues are

much-discussed. Stakeholders ask for more information and transparency on companies’

activities. People want to know if there are any risks in living near factories and they want

companies to communicate about their impact on the environment and public health.

Through the years, firms have begun to understand the need and advantages of

communicating about environmental responsibility. Besides the general public’s demand, it

happens more and more that financial organisations partially base their decisions to grant

credits on a company’s environmental performance. Furthermore, governments sometimes

need environmental information when giving out grants (FEE, 2000). Therefore, all this

information needs to be easily accessible.

The data about mandatory waste reporting used in this study, were obtained from a

government institution. This institution collected the information from Flemish companies. As

the companies needed to gather the information to hand it on to the government anyway, it is

interesting to see if they will make the small step to communicate this information to the

public in an attempt to increase their transparency.

There have been many studies about general environmental reporting. However, specific

studies on waste management disclosure have, to our knowledge, never been done. Studying

one specific area of environmental reporting is relevant to find out to which extent companies

will report about their environmental impact. Will they give a condensed overview about

environmental management in general or will they go into detail about every existing aspect,

such as waste management, which will be analysed in this paper, water management, energy

management ...

5

4. Background and Literature Review

4.1. Mandatory and Voluntary Environmental Disclosure in Belgium

In Belgium, Flanders in particular, companies have many information obligations towards the

government with regard to environmental performance. Through the ‘Integraal

Milieujaarverslag’1 (IMJV) companies have to report about their environmental performance.

The IMJV consists of five forms. Each form treats a different subject such as air pollution,

energy, water and waste. Different authorities are responsible for each form. This study will

focus on the mandatory reporting of waste. It is the ‘Openbare Afvalstoffenmaatschappij’2

(OVAM) which attends to this specific form. Every year, selected companies need to report on

the amounts of every kind of waste they have produced. After collecting all waste data, OVAM

processes all this information and can tune Flanders’ waste policy in on the results (OVAM,

2011). The information collected by OVAM is not publicly available. Hence, stakeholders can’t

use these reports to analyse the environmental performance of companies.

Public environmental disclosure is entirely voluntary in Belgium. Companies can disclose

environmental information via their annual report, CSR 3 reports or a stand-alone

environmental report. Companies can publicise a hard copy version and/or add an online

version to their corporate website. Reasons to decide to disclose environmental information

on a voluntary basis are various. Section 4.3.2. will give a detailed account on this matter.

4.2 Fundamental Theories

In this study, an attempt is made to clarify the presence of voluntary environmental reporting

on waste management with the use of 2 opposing theories, namely the voluntary disclosure

theory (Dye, 2001) and the legitimacy theory (e.g., Patten, 2002). The voluntary disclosure

theory states that there is a positive association between environmental performance and the

level of voluntary environmental disclosure (VED). The statement is based on the fact that

superior environmental performers might want to inform their stakeholders of their valuable

performance to differentiate themselves from poorly-performing firms. Although many studies

1 The ‘Integraal Milieujaarverslag’ (IMJV) is an integrated annual report which combines all the

environmental obligations firms are subjected to. <http://milieujaarverslag.milieuinfo.be/> 2 The ‘Openbare Afvalstoffenmaatschappij’ (OVAM) is a Flemish public corporation that works on issues

of waste management and soil remediation. <http://www.ovam.be/jahia/Jahia/pid/973> 3 Corporate Social Responsiblity

6

have proven this theory to be true (e.g., Clarkson, Li, Richardson and Vasvari, 2008), studies on

the legitimacy theory (e.g., Cho, Patten and Roberts, 2006) have contradicted these results.

The legitimacy theory claims a negative association exists between environmental

performance and the level of voluntary environmental disclosure. This conclusion is based on

the increasing attention to environmental performance results and, consequently, the

pressure inferior performers are experiencing. As a reaction, firms performing below standards

may disclose even more than is requested to try to soothe their stakeholders’ worries (Raiborn

et al., 2011). This way, stakeholders will focus on the company’s positive actions and their

attention will be diverted from the bad news. This can be an attempt to improve the

company’s reputation and change the stakeholders’ expectations (Clarkson et al., 2008).

Clarkson et al. (2008) claim that these mixed results are due to the different utility of both

theories: ‘The legitimacy theory is useful in predicting what is disclosed, but inaccurate in

predicting how much is disclosed’ (Dawkins and Fraas, 2011, p.385)). In this study, it will be

investigated whether the voluntary disclosure theory and the legitimacy theory can be applied

on waste reporting and if so, which theory of the two is applicable on this research.

4.3. Prior Research on Voluntary Environmental Reporting

4.3.1. Voluntary Environmental Disclosure on the Internet

Over time, most companies included environmental information with the firm’s annual report

(Sumiani, Halsinda and Lehman, 2007) or they publicised a separate environmental report

(Morhardt, 2010). Over the last few years, however, there has been an increasing trend in

environmental disclosure on the firms’ corporate website. Between 2000 and 2008, there was

a rise of more than 15% of firms that disclosed environmental information on their website.

The internet has become an important tool to companies to inform their stakeholders about

their activities to improve their impact on the environment (Razeed, 2010). The use of

websites for environmental disclosure may imply some disadvantages (occurrence of technical

problems, uncertainties about the information being up to date …), but these don’t weigh up

against the many advantages the internet provides. Some examples are the lower costs that

are needed to report on the internet, the ability to reach a large group of stakeholders, the

ease of use … (Scott and Jackson, 2002). Companies report on their environmental policies in

many different ways. Some give a short and simple overview, others give a much more

detailed and lengthy statement (Jose et al., 2007). The subjects of these reports are

widespread. The most common topics are the company’s environmental policy, which

environmental targets the company has reached and the follow-up of objectives that are still

7

in place, the activities the company has established to improve its environmental behaviour,

whether (internal or external) environmental audits have been undertook … (Stray, 2008; Jose

et al., 2006; Tagesson, Blank, Broberg, and Collin, 2009)

4.3.2. Reasons for Voluntary Environmental Disclosure

In contrast with mandatory reporting, that is referred to as something annoying companies

must do, voluntary reporting is perceived to be much more acceptable (Gilges, 1991). Unless

companies are participating with the EMAS4 regulation, which requires companies to publicly

provide environmental information to their stakeholders5, firms can disclose environmental

information to the public on an entirely voluntary basis. In this respect, it has been found that

Western European countries and Japan are providing more voluntary environmental disclosure

than the United States. Moreover, besides the expansion in quantity, VED in European

countries has also increased in quality. This is due to the fact that European firms experience,

more than in the U.S., VED to be a value-added tool (KPMG, 1999). Another finding is that

industries that are identified to be more environmentally sensitive, such as manufacturing

industries, deliver more environmental disclosure than less environmentally sensitive

industries, such as the finance or media sector (Jose et al., 2007). This is the result of

companies from environmentally sensitive industries wanting to appease their stakeholders

and show them that, although they’re perceived to be big polluters, they’re doing everything

to minimise the pollution as much as possible. This can also have a positive outcome with

regard to their reputation (Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006).

Hence, the reasons to supply environmental disclosure are clearly scattered. To many

companies, environmental disclosure is a way to show that they take their stakeholders’

concerns into account and that they take considerate actions to preserve the environment.

Furthermore, public disclosure is a mean to indicate which targets they have been able to

achieve and to give the opportunity to stakeholders to make a reliable analysis of companies

after which they can be ranked (KPMG, 1999). This shows that, when being environmentally

responsible, companies are not only driven by laws and regulations, but also by non-legal

factors, such as ethical values (Jose et al., 2007).

4 Eco-Management and Audit Scheme: an EU management tool for companies and other organisations

to evaluate, report and improve their environmental performance. Companies take part in this scheme on an entirely voluntary basis. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm> 5 Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on

the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC

8

On the other hand, environmental reports that are voluntarily disclosed need to be analysed

with some caution. Some reports may not be that accurate. Companies could report about

activities they are not executing in reality or it could be possible that companies only report

positive information while having a lot of negative affairs going on as well. It is clear that

companies would be reluctant to disclose information that could jeopardise their reputation

(Dixon et al., 2005). In the literature, this phenomenon is called ‘greenwash’. Lyon and

Maxwell (2011) define greenwash as the ‘selective disclosure of positive information about a

company’s environmental or social performance, without full disclosure of negative

information on these dimensions, so as to create an overly positive corporate image.’ (Lyon

and Maxwell, 2011, p. 9)

4.4.3. Voluntary Environmental Disclosure Frameworks

Even though voluntary environmental disclosure has grown, there is no consensus on how

companies should report about environmental reporting. One globally accepted framework

that guides companies in doing so, doesn’t exist. However, over the years, several

organisations have taken initiatives in an attempt to elucidate the matter. Some examples are

The British Standard, The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), The

Copenhagen Charter, The Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI)… Nevertheless, these

initiatives don’t offer generally accepted rules concerning the abundance of issues, such as the

content of environmental reports, how environmental data should be collected and analysed,

how the verification should be done… (Dixon et al., 2005). In August 2000, ‘De Tijd’ reported

that the FEE6 concluded that voluntary environmental reports needed much improvement and

that because of the lack of globally accepted guidelines, there was a gap between ideal

reporting and reality. As a reaction, the FEE had publicised a paper (‘Towards a generally

accepted framework for environmental reporting’) in July 2000 (Barrezeele, 2000). This paper

proposed a general framework that could be applied by every company. Yet, to this day,

companies can still choose their own method of reporting. Nevertheless, reporting

environmental information in accordance with praised initiatives as mentioned above, will

increase the report’s credibility (Tagesson et al., 2009). This explains the growing popularity of

external certifications such as ISO 14001 and EMAS. What’s more, when companies follow a

clear and understandable pattern, it will be easier for stakeholders to consult the reports.

Never-ending and elaborate texts are often perceived as irrelevant and will hardly ever be

6 Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens

9

analysed (Raiborn et al., 2011). To be efficient an environmental report should meet a certain

number of characteristics: ‘First and foremost, the information must be understandable to

‘reasonable astute’ readers such that they may use it in making decisions regarding desired

outcome objectives. The information must also be relevant, reported in a timely manner, and

provide users with information that will help them confirm past decisions or make decisions

about the future. Simultaneously, the information must be reliable by truthfully representing

occurrences in an unbiased and verifiable manner. Information should be reported

consistently from period to period, so that users may make comparisons between periods for

the reporting entity.’ (Raiborn et al., 2011, p. 429)

4.5. Hypotheses

After extensive literature research, it is now clear that there are quite a lot of motives why

companies decide to disclose environmental information publicly. To our knowledge, research

on reasons to disclose voluntarily about a company’s waste policy in particular, has never been

done. In line with this paper’s research question, the intent of the study is to seek the factors

that influence the voluntary disclosure of waste information and management. To this end

four hypotheses are formulated, based on the general environmental reporting literature.

4.5.1. Hypothesis 1

Razeed (2010) notes that, even though companies use the internet for environmental

disclosure, the level of disclosure stays quite low. CSR reporting is done extensively, but

companies won’t include more detailed information about the different aspects. Therefore, it

can be assumed that companies will often make a general statement about their

environmental position and maybe mention certificates they have obtained as a result of good

environmental performance. However, the corporate websites are not used to provide a more

thorough covering of the matter. For this reason, it can be supposed that a separate section

about waste won’t be presented a lot. This was already confirmed after a first, brief

observation of the data which revealed a very small number of firms disclosing about waste on

their corporate website.

Hypothesis 1: In general, firms do not voluntarily report about waste policy on their corporate

website.

10

4.5.2. Hypothesis 2

Based on the legitimacy theory, that states that companies with an unfavourable

environmental performance disclose more than superior performers, it can be deduced that

companies with a high level of waste production are disclosing more environmental

information (Patten, 2002). Those companies are scrutinised with much more attention by

their stakeholders and through environmental disclosure, firms could attenuate stakeholders’

concerns and change their perception about the company’s performance

(Clarckson et al., 2008).

Hypothesis 2: Companies that are disclosing have a worse environmental performance than

companies which are not disclosing.

Or stated differently, the chance of disclosure on waste policy on the corporate website is

linked with a company’s environmental performance.

4.5.3. Hypothesis 3

In general, people want to know if companies in their neighbourhood could be responsible for

any negative consequences to their health. Examples of dangerous waste are asbestos, acids,

oil… Companies could react to this, by ensuring their neighbours they have a well-developed

waste policy to make sure that none of these materials can harm them. Hence, waste policy

reporting can depend on the level of dangerous and safe waste a company produces.

Hypothesis 3: Waste reporting on corporate websites depends on the type of waste firms

produce.

4.5.4. Hypothesis 4

The development of one extra hypothesis is relevant to this study. As this research clearly

analyses the behaviour of two different industries, it can be interesting to study how industry

membership can influence environmental reporting. As stated earlier, according to previous

research (Adams, Hill and Roberts, 1998; Cowen, Ferreri and Parker, 1987), corporations in

environmentally sensitive industries disclose much more environmental information than

corporations operating in less environmentally sensitive industries. In Flanders, the

construction industry produced about 41% of the total volume of waste in 2008. The food

industry produced 8% of this total volume (OVAM, 2010). In se, the construction sector isn’t a

much more environmentally sensitive industry than the food industry is, but in Belgium there

are about 16 times more firms in the construction industry than in the food industry

11

(FOD Economie, 2011, Confederatie Bouw, 2010). This explains the high volume of waste

produced in the construction sector. That’s why this industry could be perceived to be much

more environmentally sensitive by the public, than the food industry. As a conclusion,

voluntary waste reporting could be of a higher level in the construction industry than in the

food industry. However, as the construction industry isn’t explicitly defined as being an

environmentally sensitive industry, we don’t really expect this theory to be applicable in this

study.

On the other hand, firms in the food industry produce other types of waste than those in the

construction industry. Firms in the construction industry may not want to high-lighten the fact

that they produce dangerous and poisonous waste. Therefore, it is possible they wouldn’t

voluntarily mention anything about a waste policy on their website to not attract more

attention on the subject. Since minimal chemicals and other pollutants are used in food

manufacture (Darlington, Staikos, and Rahimifard, 2009), wastes in the food industry are

considered to be much safer and not that harmful to general health. Firms in this industry

might want to emphasise this fact to assure their customers about their products’ quality.

Disclosure about waste information could be a good tool to do this.

At last, in the different industries, different standards are set. Awards, fines, regulations … are

specific for each industry. Therefore, firms of the separate sectors might behave differently

according to the requirements of the sector in which it operates (Aerts et al., 2006).

Consistent with this discussion, it can be concluded that there might be a relationship between

industry membership and waste disclosure. After a brief observation of the data and keeping

in mind the fact both industries aren’t that different when it comes to be environmental

sensitiveness, a negative association is set. As in this study, industry is identified by a dummy

variable (1 = construction industry, 0 = food industry), a negative relationship would mean that

firms in the food industry, report more about their waste policy than firms in the construction

industry.

Hypothesis 4: There is a negative relationship between the industry in which a firm operates

and waste disclosure on its corporate website.

12

5. Research Methodology

5.1. Data Collection

In this study, a collection of both mandatory and voluntary information has been made of firms

in the construction and food industry. These two industries were chosen because they’re the

industries that produce the most waste (OVAM, 2010). In Belgium, the food industry contained

about 5100 companies and there were about 82 660 companies in the construction industry in

2009 (FOD Economie, 2011, Confederatie Bouw, 2010). The mandatory data was acquired

from OVAM. Waste information of a sample of 567 companies, was obtained from the year

20097, 265 firms in the food industry and 302 firms in the construction industry.

For each company in the sample, an amount of every single type of waste it produced, was

given. Overall, 195 types of waste in the food industry and 152 types of waste in the

construction industry, were identified. To make a clear and more valuable distinction between

all those types of waste, the waste was subdivided into two categories. Dangerous types of

waste were classified in the first category (72 types in the construction industry/80 in the food

industry), safe types of waste were classified in the second category (80 in the construction

industry/116 in the food industry). The safety of a type of waste has been determined based

on the list of waste products publicised in the VLAREA8. This list is placed at the public’s

disposal and can be consulted freely. According to the VLAREA, dangerous waste is defined as

products that can be exceptionally harmful to humans and the environment or materials that

need to be processed in special establishments.

As for the voluntary disclosure, the corporate website of the companies were checked. The

choice of using website was easily made. Firstly, it is the easiest tool for companies to disclose

environmental information and from earlier studies it has become clear that many companies

7 OVAM used the following method to set their sample: A specific parameter was determined (it wasn’t

permitted to publicise the method used to determine this parameter). This parameter estimates the maximum number of firms to be questioned. This way a percentage is assessed to each sector and employee dimension (=number of employees within a company), and the number of firms to be assigned to communicate their waste production can be known. Every firm from the 2 biggest dimensions were assigned and the percentage declines as the dimension decreases. After this, producers are randomly picked until the maximum number of firms was reached. 8 VLAREA: ‘Vlaams Reglement voor Afvalvoorkoming en –beheer’. This is the Flemish regulation on waste

prevention and management. It is part of the Flemish environmental law and gives an overview of all the types of waste companies can report about. <http://navigator.emis.vito.be/milnav-consult/>

13

use their website to communicate about their environmental behaviour (Morhardt, 2010).

Secondly, it is the least time consuming way to gather the information needed in this research.

First, for each company the existence of a corporate website was checked. This was done in

January and February 2012. After this check-up, companies that didn’t have a functioning

website, companies that were closed or had gone bankrupt between 2009 and 2012 and

companies that had changed nationalities due to a take-over were deleted from the database.

This resulted into a final sample of 227 companies in the construction industry and 218

companies in the food industry. Finally, the websites of each company within this data base

was controlled in order to search for disclosure of any information about waste.

This is an extensive data collection which will raise the reliability of the results.

Figure 1: Number of firms per Industry

5.2. Empirical Model

In order to test the hypotheses, a general linear model is constructed9. To this end, a

regression equation is formulated10.

VED = β0 + β1 EP + β2 DANW + β3 SAFW + β4 IND + β5 AGE + β6 SIZE + β7 FIN_PER + µ

9 In order to obtain more statistically significant results, the most extreme outliers of all the variables

were removed from the data set. 10

Besides these main variables shown in the equation, some other variables will be constructed throughout the study. Below, these auxiliary variables will be displayed in italics.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Construction Food

Nu

mb

er

of

Firm

s

Industry

14

5.2.1. Dependent Variable

VED: Voluntary environmental disclosure about waste on the corporate website as of January

and February 2012. The presence of voluntary waste disclosure is measured by a dummy

variable. 1 meaning there is some waste information disclosed on the corporate website, 0

meaning there is no waste information whatsoever disclosed on the corporate website.

VED_DEGREE: When waste information is disclosed, the extent with which this is done is

measured with a coding scale designed by Cormier and Magnan (2003).

‘CER11 content is rated in terms of information quality level, with a score of three (3) for an

item described in monetary or quantitative terms, two (2) when an item is described

qualitatively but in specific terms, one (1) for an item discussed in general, indicative terms

and zero (0) when there is no mention of an item.’ (Cormier and Magnan, 2003, p. 49)

In this study, this method is applied on waste reporting. In appendix II, an overview of all the

disclosed waste information is given with their appropriate score.

While other studies have used word/page counts (e.g., Campbell, Craven and Shrives, 2003),

presence of topics/items (e.g., Cormier et al., 2003) or a combination of both (e.g., Wiseman,

1982), a coding scale is found to be more relevant in this study. After a first observation of

waste disclosure on corporate websites, it became clear that if firms disclosed waste

information, they would do it either in a very compressed manner or in a very elaborate

manner. In this situation, it is preferred to use a coding scale in order to both detect the

presence of waste disclosure and rate the value and quality of the disclosure made by a firm

(Aerts, Cormier and Magnan, 2008).

5.2.2. Explanatory Variables

EP: Environmental performance per company, concerning waste production. To measure the

environmental performance, a proxy was constructed by dividing the total volume of waste of

each company by its number of employees. Companies having a low score are good

environmental performers, companies with a high score are bad performers.

DUMMY_EP: The degree of environmental performance. 1 meaning a company has a bad

environmental performance, 0 meaning a company has a good environmental performance.

To construct this dummy, EP was divided into two groups. Companies having an environmental

11 Corporate Environmental Reporting

15

performance score less than 10 were identified as being good performers, companies with an

environmental performance score higher than 10 were identified as being bad performers.

DANW: The total volume of dangerous waste per company. This is calculated by adding the

volume of all the different types of waste in the first category, produced by a company. The

unit of measurement is tonne.

DUMMY_DANW: The presence of dangerous waste in a company’s waste production. As more

than 90 % of the companies produced very little or no dangerous waste, a dummy variable was

constructed. 0 meaning a company produced little or no dangerous waste, 1 meaning a

company produced dangerous waste. The limit between the two values (0-1) was set on 25

tonne.

SAFW: The total volume of safe waste per company. This is calculated by adding the volume of

all the different types of waste in the second category, produced by a company. The unit of

measurement is tonne. As the total volume of safe waste was highly skewed, a log-

transformation (LN) was employed on this variable to flatten the distribution.

IND: The industry in which a company operates. As this study merely analyses 2 industries, this

characteristic was measured by a dummy variable. Companies in the construction industry are

given the value of 1, companies in the food industry are given the value of 0.

5.2.3. Control Variables

In this study, control variables are in order because from previous research, it became clear

that some characteristics can’t be ignored when analysing environmental disclosure. If ignored,

results could be biased. Three control variables were taken up. Age, size and financial

performance seemed, after thoroughly analysing existing literature, to be most relevant

(Clarckson et al., 2008; Cormier et al., 2003; Tagesson et al., 2009). Media visibility, which gives

companies an incentive to perform above average, is also a relevant variable (Cormier et al.,

2003). However, data collection concerning this variable is very time consuming and therefore

media visibility couldn’t be identified as an extra control variable. Another indicator that could

predict VED, is the presence of some sort of external certification such as an ISO 14001

certificate (Sumiani et al., 2007). However, the only way of verifying the existence of such

certifications in a company, would be to interview each company one by one. Considering the

extension of the employed data base, this was practically impossible.

16

AGE: The age of a company. In order to know the age, the founding date of each company was

looked up in the Belfirst Database.

SIZE: The size of each company. This variable is proxied by the number of employees employed

in the company. In order to simplify the interpretation, 9 dimensions were created12 in which

the number of employees were classified:

1: 1-4 (or no employees)

2: 5-9

3: 10-19

4: 20-49

5: 50-99

6: 100-199

7: 200-499

8: 500-999

9: >1000

FIN_PER: The financial performance per company. This variable is proxied by the return on

capital employed (ROC) which was found using the Belfirst Database for each company. ROC

was chosen as this was the parameter that gave the least missing values for this sample.

(ROC =

)

DUMMY_FIN_PER: The financial performance per company, remodelled into a dummy variable.

Companies with a negative ROC are given the value 0, companies with a positive ROC are given

the value 1.

12 These dimensions were created by OVAM and were communicated as such.

17

6. Results of the Experiment

6.1. Descriptive Statistics

VED EP DANW SAFW IND AGE SIZE FIN_PER

Mean (a) 14.5727 20.5498 5.3467 30.8123 4.6488 14.0212

Median 0.0000 4.7825 0.0000 5.5723 1.0000 26.00 5.00 11.6900

Maximum 1 258.00 1 9.2504 1 90.00 9.00 84.9700

Minimum 0 0.0013 0 -1.2874 0 3.00 1.00 -104.530

Std. Dev. 0.3412 32.4657 87.1105 2.3045 0.5006 18.2928 1.8411 18.0407

Observations 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 373 Table 1a: Descriptive Statistics - Hypotheses

Dummy_EP Dummy_DANW DUMMY_FIN_PER

Mean (a)

Median 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000

Maximum 1 1 1

Minimum 0 0 0

Std. Dev. 0.4688 0.2993 0.3353

Observations 373 373 373 Table 1b: Descriptive Statistics - Hypotheses

(a) As the mean of a dummy variable isn’t something valuable, this box is left open when it’s concerning a dummy

variable.

A number of graphs can clarify some aspects of tables 1a and 1b more thoroughly. These

graphs make an analysis easier and can already highlight some phenomena.

Figure 2: Firms with VED presence per Industry

0

50

100

150

200

250

Construction Food

Nu

mb

er

of

Firm

s

Industry

Total Number of Firms

Firms with VED

18

Figure 2 shows a first sign that companies in the food industry disclose more often on waste

policy than companies in the construction industry.

Figure 3: Total Volume of Different Types of Waste

The figure above shows us that the volume of safe waste is much bigger than the volume of

dangerous waste. The following graph confirms this finding. It states that only 10 % of all

companies in the database produce dangerous waste.

Figure 4: Presence of Dangerous Waste in a Company

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Presence of Dangerous Waste No Presence of Dangerous Waste

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

mp

anie

s

19

Figure 5: Number of Companies per Employee Dimension

From figure 5, we can conclude that a majority of the companies in this data base are small or

medium sized. This reflects the typical Belgian scenery. About 44 % of the companies in this

data base are rather small, having less than 50 employees. 39 % of the companies employ

between 50 and 200 employees, being medium sized. Only 17 % can be identified as big

companies.

Some extra graphs illustrate which specific types of waste the two main categories, safe waste

and dangerous waste, contain. As these types are different in the separate industries, multiple

graphs are constructed so that everything remains clear. These additional graphs are

reproduced on the next page.

20

73%

11%

16%

Figure 7: Construction - Safe Waste

Concrete and Stones

Construction and Destruction Waste

Other

25%

21%

54%

Figure 8: Food - Dangerous Waste

Materials Containing Chlorine-Fluorine-Hydorcarbon

Packaging Containing Dangerous Material

Other

32%

17%

51%

Figure 9: Food - Safe Waste

Material not Suitable for Consumption

Dredgings of Water Treatment

Other

42%

29%

29%

Figure 6: Construction - Dangerous Waste

Soil and Stones Containing Dangerous Materials

Contruction Material Containing Asbestos

Other

21

6.2. Covariance Analysis

A covariance analysis gives us a first look of what we may expect after elaborate testing of the

data base. In order to test the hypotheses, we compute two different correlation tables

(appendix III). One table without using the dummy variables, in another table we do include

the dummy variables.

From those tables, we can conclude that VED is correlated (on a 0.05 level of significance) with

the total volume of safe waste, the presence of dangerous waste, industry and size.

Environmental performance and industry are also correlated separately with dangerous waste

and safe waste. This isn’t surprising as the environmental performance of a company logically

depends on the amount of safe and dangerous waste it produces. The type of waste is also a

result of the industry in which a company operates, as described in section 4.5.4., giving the

introduction to hypothesis 4.

There are some correlations between other variables as well. The correlation between size and

safe waste is the highest with a coefficient of 0.66. This is understandable as bigger companies

will consequently produce a higher volume of waste. Other correlations appearing in this table

aren’t as problematic as their correlation coefficient never exceeds 0.35.

6.3. Results of the Hypotheses

6.3.1. Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1: In general, firms do not voluntarily report about waste policy on their corporate

website.

Descriptive statistics about the presence of waste disclosure on companies’ corporate websites

give a first indicator on the results we might expect. From the figure below, it is quite clear that,

overall, companies do not make waste information publicly available.

22

Figure 2: Firms with VED presence per Industry

A binomial test confirms our expectations arisen from the descriptive statistics. The hypothesis

of equality is rejected on a 0.05 level of significance (p-value = 0.000). This means that the two

categories of VED (1 and 0) don’t occur with probabilities of 0.5 and 0.5.

6.3.2. Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2: Companies that are disclosing have a worse environmental performance than

companies which are not disclosing.

Or stated differently, the chance of disclosure on waste policy on the corporate website is

linked with a company’s environmental performance.

In order to test hypothesis 2, a test of equality was run. We considered the companies that

disclosed and those that didn’t as two separate groups so that the mean of the environmental

performance of both groups could be compared. It is clear from table 2, that these means are

not statistically different (P-Value = 0.455). This means that the environmental performance

don’t significantly differ between the groups. As a result, hypothesis 2 needs to be rejected as,

in this case, there is no clear relationship between environmental performance and waste

disclosure.

VED N Mean P-Value

EP 0 327 14.94 0.455

1 52 11.35 Table 2: T-test for Equality of Means

0

50

100

150

200

250

Construction Food

Nu

mb

er

of

Firm

s

Industry

Total Number of Firms

Firms with VED

23

6.3.3. Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3: Waste reporting on corporate websites depends on the type of waste that firms

produce.

To test this hypothesis, first of all, a 2x2 cross-table with VED and DUMMY_DANW was

computed. This could allow us to find out if there was an association between VED and the

mere presence of dangerous waste in a company. By running a Chi-square test simultaneously,

evidence was given that the results in the cross-table were statistically significant (P-Value of

0.009 on a 0.05 level of significance).

DUMMY_DANW

VED

0 1

0 N 324 29

% within VED 91,8 % 8,2 %

1 N 46 11

% within VED 80,7 % 19,3 %

Table 3: VED * DUMMY_DANW Cross-tab

From this cross-table, we can decide that companies producing no dangerous waste disclose

more often than companies which do produce dangerous waste (80,7 % VS 19,3 %). However,

when running a regression analysis (Table 4), including more explanatory variables, producing

dangerous waste does seem to have an influencing effect. This can be explained due to the

inclusion of these independent and control variables which, through a regression analysis, give

a more valuable and overall picture of the matter. A cross-table can, at least in this case,

reflect an image that seems too limited.

Variable Coefficient z-Statistic P-Value

C -5.5029 -5.6403 0.0000

DUMMY_EP -0.7972 -1.5852 0.1129

DUMMY_DANW 0.8776 1.8118 0.0700(a)

SAFW 0.3938 2.2033 0.0276

IND -0.8362 -2.1799 0.0293

AGE -0.0050 -0.5613 0.5746

SIZE 0.3045 1.7876 0.0738

DUMMY_FIN_PERF 0.2992 0.5971 0.5504

McFadden R² 0.1901

LR statistic 55.8741

P-Value 0.0000 Table 4a: Logit Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 3

(a) Significant on a 0.1 level of significance

24

Computing another regression analysis, which takes the total volume of dangerous waste a

company produces into account instead of the fact of simply producing dangerous waste, is

interesting. From this additional regression analysis, it becomes clear that apparently,

disclosing waste information’s not a question of producing a greater volume of dangerous

waste. The mere fact of producing dangerous waste is enough for companies to disclose waste

information.


C -5.7700 -5.8525 0.0000

DUMMY_EP -0.8201 -1.6231 0.1046

DANW 0.0008 0.4353 0.6633

SAFW 0.4172 2.3258 0.0200

IND -0.6932 -1.8491 0.0645

AGE -0.0039 -0.4543 0.6496

SIZE 0.3193 1.8792 0.0602

DUMMY_FIN_PERF 0.3648 0.7277 0.4668

McFadden R² 0.1800


P-Value 0.0000 Table 4b: Logit Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 3

As for the safe waste, we use a continuous variable, which represents the volume of safe

waste produced by a company. A t-test for equality states that the mean of the volume of safe

waste in the un-disclosing group is statistically different from the mean of the volume in the

disclosing group. The mean in the un-disclosing group is significantly lower than the one in the

disclosing group. This means that the disclosing group produces more safe waste than the

other group. We can hereby conclude that the produce of safe waste has a significant

influence on VED.

VED N Mean P-Value

SAFW 0 37 2.14 0.0000 (a)

1 58 3.68 Table 5: T-test for Equality of Means


From the regression table below, it is also clear that the produce of safe waste has a bigger

influence on VED than the produce of dangerous waste. We can conclude this due to the fact

that the safe waste coefficient is much more significant than the dangerous waste coefficient

(0.028 versus 0.07).

25


C -5.5039 -5.6403 0.0000

DUMMY_EP -0.7972 -1.5853 0.1129

DUMMY_DANW 0.8776 1.8118 0.0700(a)

SAFW 0.3938 2.2034 0.0276(b)

IND -0.8362 -2.1800 0.0293

AGE -0.0050 -0.5613 0.4746

SIZE 0.3045 1.7876 0.0738

DUMMY_FIN_PERF 0.2992 0.5971 0.5504

McFadden R² 0.1901


P-Value 0.0000 Table 4a: Logit Regression Analysis: Hypothesis 3

(a) Significant on a 0.1 level of significance (b) Significant on a 0.05 level of significance

Hence, we can accept hypothesis 3. The type of waste a firm produces does have an decisive

influence on VED.

6.3.4. Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4: There is a negative relationship between the industry in which a firm operates

and waste disclosure on its corporate website.

To test this hypothesis, a 2x2 cross-table with the variables VED and IND was computed. This

could allow us to find out if there is an association between the presence of voluntary waste

disclosure on corporate websites and the industries in which companies operate. By running a

Chi-square test simultaneously, evidence was given that the results in the cross-table were

statistically significant (P-Value of 0.002 on a 0.05 level of significance).

IND

VED

0 1

0 N 163 190

% within VED 46,2 % 53,8 %

1 N 39 18

% within VED 68,4 % 31,6 % Table 6: VED * IND Cross-tab

From the companies that are disclosing, 68.4% are companies from the food industry against

only 31.6% from the construction industry. Therefore, hypothesis 4 can be considered to be

true; there is a relationship between the industry in which a company operates and its

26

disclosure status. Moreover, in this case it is a negative association as there is more reporting

in the food industry than in the construction industry.

6.3.5. General Regression Analysis

Running a general regression, including all the explanatory and control variables into one

analysis, is a very efficient manner to have an overall view of the matter. This way, it can be

proven that the components which seemed to be influencing from the earlier hypotheses

analyses, keep having this effect when other relevant factors are introduced into the same

model. With this regression analysis, we can also find out if other elements have an influencing

effect on companies’ decision to voluntarily disclose waste information.


C -5.0842 -6.0913 0.0000

EP -0.0166 -1.3251 0.1851

DANW 0.0015 0.7665 0.4433

SAFW 0.3793 2.3666 0.0180(a)

IND -0.7920 -2.1606 0.0307(a)

AGE -0.0057 -0.6564 0.5116

SIZE 0.3122 1.8284 0.0675(b)

FIN_PERF -0.0070 -0.7748 0.4385

McFadden R² 0.1813


P-Value 0.0000 Table 7a: Logit Regression Analysis (Without Dummy’s): Hypothesis 4


C -5.5029 -5.6403 0.0000

DUMMY_EP -0.7972 -1.5853 0.1129

DUMMY_DANW 0.8776 1.8118 0.0700(b)

SAFW 0.3938 2.2034 0.0276(a)

IND -0.8362 -2.1799 0.0293(a)

AGE -0.0050 -0.5613 0.5746

SIZE 0.3045 1.7876 0.0738(a)

DUMMY_FIN_PERF 0.2992 0.5970 0.5504

McFadden R² 0.1901


P-Value 0.0000 Table 7b: Logit Regression Analysis (With Dummy’s): Hypothesis 4


27

As we can see, the results from the hypotheses analyses are supported by both regression

analyses. This gives us a less biased and more valuable view of this study. This regression also

reveals the effect of the control variable ‘Size’. It concludes that the bigger the company is, the

greater the chance of having waste information present on a company’s corporate website.

28

7. Additional Analyses

During the research for this study, we have found some additional interesting phenomena,

which we hadn’t predicted when starting this paper. Therefore, some additional analyses are

in order.

7.1. Additional Problem Statement 1

Previous research (e.g. Aerts et al., 2008), has proven that the extent with which a company

discloses environmental information has, like the presence of VED, many causes. As the degree

of waste information on corporate websites can clearly be identified in this study, it is

interesting to try and find those influencing factors. The following problem statement is

identified:

What are the factors influencing the degree with which companies report on waste policy on

their corporate websites?

7.1.1. Descriptive Statistics

In order to solve this problem, only the companies that report on waste policy on their

corporate websites were selected. The extent of the disclosures was identified for each of the

companies.

VED_Degree EP DANW SAFW IND AGE SIZE FIN_PER

Mean (a) 11.7112 13.2286 6.9784 35.6512 6.0233 10.5640

Median 2.000 6.4834 2.1690 7.3948 0.0000 27.0000 6.0000 10.6600

Maximum 3 82.6672 209.682 9.2504 1 90 9 39.4000

Minimum 1 0.0062 0.0000 2.7537 0 3 1 -104.53

Std. Dev. 0.6530 16.1412 33.2319 1.5972 0.4415 22.2174 1.5506 20.7999

Observations 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Table 8a: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 1

29

Dummy_EP Dummy_DANW DUMMY_FIN_PER

Mean (a)

Median 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000

Maximum 1 1 1

Minimum 0 0 0

Std. Dev. 0.6530 0.4992 0.3244

Observations 43 43 43 Table 8b: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 1

(a) As the mean of a dummy/categorical variable isn’t something valuable, this box is left open when it’s concerning

a dummy/categorical variable.

Figure 10: The extend of VED per Industry

Figure 10 represents the extent of VED on the corporate websites in de food and construction

industry. The scores refer to the degree of VED, their meaning are explained in section 5.2.1.

As there is a higher frequency of company with a VED score of 1 in the construction industry

than in the food industry, the graph gives a first sign that companies in the former industry

report in a less extensive way than companies operating in the latter. Moreover, there are a

higher number of food companies with a VED score of 2 or 3, which indicates a more extensive

way of disclosing waste information in the food industry.

7.1.2. Covariance Analysis

In appendix IV, a correlation table, without using dummy variables, of this additional problem

analysis can be found. There are only a few correlations between some independent variable,

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Construction Food

% o

f fi

rms

Industry

1 1

2 2

3 3

30

but these are not problematic (correlation coefficient < 0.6). The table doesn’t identify any

correlation between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables.

A correlation table (appendix IV), including dummy variables, does reveal some correlations

between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables. As VED_DEGREE correlates

with both being a good or bad performer and with having a positive or negative ROC, this

might give a first indication that these are both factors that have an effect on the degree with

which companies disclose waste information.

7.1.3. Results

To solve this additional problem, a distinction is made between various analyses including

dummy variables and one analysis without using dummy variables.

When working with dummy variables, ANOVA tests can be used to compare means of the

different groups. Each dummy variable from our data set can be placed opposite the degree of

VED on corporate websites.

In this data set, four dummy variables can be identified, making four different ANOVA tests

possible. In what follows, a description of each tested variable is given.

DUMMY_EP N Mean P-Value

VED_DEGREE 0 29 2.21 0.001(a)

1 16 1.56 Table 9: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_EP


This ANOVA test (table 9) reveals that the means of the good and bad environmental

performance of companies do significantly differ (P-Value = 0.001 on a 5 % level of

significance). According to the results, the group having a good environmental performance

score (DUMMY_EP = 0), report in a more extensive way than companies being identified to be

bad environmental performers. Therefore, it’s clear that having a good or bad score on

environmental performance has a decisive influence on the degree with which companies

report.

DUMMY_DANW N Mean P-Value

VED_DEGREE 0 30 2.07 0.372

1 20 1.90 Table 10: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_DANW

31

From this ANOVA test (table 10), we can conclude that the means of both groups don’t differ

significantly. It can be deduced that companies that produce dangerous waste don’t report in a

less or more exhaustive way than companies not producing dangerous waste.

IND N Mean P-Value

VED_DEGREE 0 36 2.03 0.625

1 14 1.93 Table 11: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * IND

After analysing this test (table 11), we can conclude that the means of both groups don’t differ

significantly. Companies in the different industries don’t report in a more or less elaborate

manner when it comes to voluntary disclosure on waste policy.

DUMMY_FIN_PER N Mean P-Value

VED_DEGREE 0 5 2.60 0.017(a)

1 38 1.87 Table 12: ANOVA VED_DEGREE * DUMMY_FIN_PER


The mean of the group with a positive ROC do differ significantly from the mean of the group

with a negative ROC. Consistent with the test’s results, companies with a negative ROC report

more extensively about waste management than companies with a positive ROC.

At last, a general regression analysis is run without dummy variables. In this regression, all

relevant variables are included in the same model, which can give valuable results.


EP -0.0106 -0.3524 0.7245

DANW 0.0281 1.7568 0.0790(a)

SAFW -0.3368 -1.0395 0.2986

IND -1.6834 -1.9550 0.0506(a)

AGE -0.0283 -1.7663 0.0773(a)

SIZE 0.2787 0.8622 0.3886

FIN_PERF -0.0289 -1.5135 0.1301

McFadden R² 0.1840


P-Value 0.0322 Table 13: Ordered Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 1


32

Dangerous waste, industry and age are important elements to take into account when

identifying the critical factors of the extent of VED. Industry wasn’t an influencing indicator

when analysed on its own. However, in the regression analysis above (table 13), it gained more

importance. This is probably because, in the same model, other variables are taken into

consideration.

It is curious that, unlike when we analysed the presence of VED, in this analysis, size is not a

crucial factor anymore. Age has become a critical influencing component. It shows us that the

younger the company is, the more extensively it discloses on waste information.


In the previous analyses of this paper, we have concluded that in general, companies don’t

voluntarily disclose about waste policy. Therefore, it is interesting to try to find one

overarching reason why companies don’t engage in VED. It is quite obvious why small waste

producers don’t disclose on waste policy, they simply don’t have the incentive to do so. But

major waste producers should be more transparent towards their stakeholders. Apparently

they aren’t since, in this data base, only 27 % of the major producers have information on their

waste policy on their corporate websites. In this additional analysis, we will try to find out

which motives there are for majors polluters not to voluntarily disclose waste information.

Why do heavy waste producers not report on waste policy on their corporate website?


In order to solve this problem, only the companies that are major polluters were selected.

Major polluters are companies producing more waste than average. In both industries, 85

major polluters were identified. There are 39 companies in the construction industry

producing more waste than the average of this industry, and 46 major polluters in the food

industry.

33

Figure 11: Number of Companies that are Minor/Major Polluters

VED IND AGE SIZE FIN_PER DUMMY_FIN_PER

Mean (a) 36.8974 6.0513 12.0022

Median 0.0000 0.0000 28.0000 6.0000 10.3350 1.0000

Maximum 1 1 132 8 139.220 1

Minimum 0 0 6 1 -259.87 0

Std. Dev. 0.4395 0.5006 23.3470 1.3666 39.2747 0.3631

Observations 78 78 78 78 78 78 Table 14: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 2


variable.


A correlation table (appendix V) shows that the dependent variable VED is correlated with

both size and industry. We will probably find the same results when running a regression

analysis. Some other independent variables are mutually correlated but the correlation

coefficients aren’t high enough to raise any complications during further analysis.

7.2.3. Results

A regression analysis is computed to find out which factors drive major polluters to report on

their waste policy13.

13 No significant results were found when computing a regression analysis including dummy variables.

Therefore, this analysis won’t get further attention in this paper.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Minor Polluters Major Polluters

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

mp

anie

s

34


C -3.7423 -1.8810 0.0600

IND -1.6967 -2.4263 0.0153(a)

AGE -0.0025 -0.2102 0.8335

SIZE 0.5295 1.7600 0.0784(b)

FIN_PERF -0.0017 -0.1735 0.8622

McFadden R² 0.1593


P-Value 0.0069 Table 15: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 2


This additional analysis doesn’t really give us extra information about reasons to disclose. The

regression states that the same factors than those in the analysis on the presence of VED

(section 6.) need to be taken into account when analysing only the major polluters. More

major polluters will disclose if they’re operating in the food industry than when they operate in

the construction company. The size of a company is also an element that needs to be kept in

mind. The smaller the company, the less it will voluntarily disclose on waste.


As in this study, a clear distinction is made between 2 different industries, an additional

analysis of those industries separately, is recommended.

Do the elements having a crucial role on a general analysis combining both industries, have the

same important influence when analysing both construction and food industry separately?


Construction industry:

VED EP DANW SAFW AGE SIZE FIN_PER

Mean (a) 21.8591 33.9371 5.0567 28.9792 4.3698 17.4296

Median 0.0000 5.9773 0.0000 5.2895 26.0000 4.5000 14.5450

Maximum 1 711.115 818.892 10.1138 75 8 78.4400

Minimum 0 0.0027 0 -0.7657 4 1 -49.910

Std. Dev. 0.2691 64.2733 116. 2.4924 15.3616 1.9099 19.4816

Observations 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 Table 16: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 3 – Construction


variable.

35

Food industry:

VED EP DANW SAFW AGE SIZE FIN_PER

Mean (a) 13.5729 4.3973 5.7589 32.5217 4.9674 10.4949

Median 0.0000 3.9973 0.0020 5.8040 25.0000 5.0000 9.1750

Maximum 1 209.1415 96.1760 10.1502 90 9 46.8600

Minimum 0 0.0013 0.0000 -1.2874 3 1 -25.450

Std. Dev. 0.3892 29.8965 13.1862 2.1515 20.8416 1.7302 12.3369

Observations 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 Table 17: Descriptive Statistics – Additional Problem Statement 3 – Food


variable.

Figure 12: Number of Companies per Dimension and Industry

Figure 12 gives us a comparison of both industries concerning the companies’ dimensions. 50 %

of the construction companies are small. This is in contrast with only 38% of the food

companies. In comparison with the construction industry, companies from the food industry

are more concentrated in the medium and big sized area (61 %). These observations can have

an influence on the analysis of the separate industries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er

of

Firm

s

Number of Employees

Construction

Food

36

Figure 13: Types of waste in the Construction Industry

Figure 14: Types of waste in the Food Industry

The construction industry produces 5 times more dangerous waste than the food industry. Just

as with the differences of dimensions of the companies described above, this can have an

effect on the separate analyses of the industries.


From the covariance analysis in appendix VI, we can see that in the construction industry the

presence of VED on corporate websites is correlated with the size of a company. In the food

industry, the presence of VED is correlated with both the size of a company and the volume of

waste it produces. Other correlations present in this table do not imply any problematic

5%

95%

Construction

Dangerous Waste

Safe Waste

1%

99%

Food

Dangerous Waste

Safe Waste

37

situation. Further analysis will indicate if the results from this correlation table are really

significant.

7.3.3. Results

In order to solve this new problem statement, two regression analyses were computed14. One

for both industries.

Construction industry:


C -4.2601 -3.4440 0.0006

EP -0.0068 -0.4817 0.6300

DANW 0.0017 0.0021 0.4386

SAFW 0.0718 0.3866 0.6990

AGE -0.0355 -2.5705 0.1163

SIZE 0.5157 2.0612 0.0393(a)

FIN_PERF -0.0115 -0.8288 0.4072

McFadden R² 0.1345


P-Value 0.0279 Table 18: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 3 – Construction


According to the regression analysis above, size is an influencing factor to VED when analyzing

the construction industry separately.

14 No extra significant results were found when computing a regression analysis including dummy

variables. Therefore, this analysis won’t get further attention in this paper.

38

Food industry:


C -6.0522 -5.2985 0.0000

EP -0.0075 -0.8958 0.3703

DANW 0.0020 0.1403 0.8884

SAFW 0.5227 2.4152 0.0157(a)

AGE 0.0033 0.3403 0.7336

SIZE 0.2127 0.9752 0.3294

FIN_PERF -0.0022 -0.1189 0.9053

McFadden R² 0.1798


P-Value 0.0000 Table 19: Logit Regression Analysis: Additional Problem Statement 3 – Food


According to the regression analysis above, the volume of safe waste a company produces is

an influencing factor to VED when analyzing the food industry separately.

39

8. Conclusion

From all the results described in the previous paragraphs, some conclusions can be drawn.

First of all, consistent with hypothesis 1, companies in general, don’t report on waste policy on

their corporate websites. Only a small minority of the companies do so and the majority of the

companies that disclose are operating in de food industry (hypothesis 4).

In contrast with the voluntary disclosure theory and the legitimacy theory (paragraph 4.2.),

the environmental performance of a company has no influence whatsoever on the decision to

voluntarily disclose waste information. Hence, these theories that apply on general

environmental reporting, don’t apply on waste reporting (hypothesis 2).

The mere fact of producing dangerous waste has more effect on waste reporting than the total

volume of dangerous waste production in a company. The production of safe waste has an

effect as well. Thus, we can conclude that the type of waste a company produces does have an

important effect on a company’s decision to disclose waste information (hypothesis 3).

However, as there is such a large volume of safe waste present in both industries and that the

amount of dangerous waste can be almost neglectable (figure 3), we can presume that it is the

total of overall waste produced by a company which has such an influencing effect.

When analysing the control variables, only the size of a company seems to have an important

effect on waste disclosure. This might be the result of the larger economies of scale big

companies can achieve and that, therefore, detailed reporting is less costly for them. Bigger

companies might also be aware of their high visibility towards the public and the media and

publicise more information as a reaction (Al-Tuwaijri, Christensen and Hughes II, 2004).

During additional analyses other interesting findings were identified. When studying the

degree of waste reporting, other influencing variables than those found in the main analysis,

were identified. In this additional analysis, unlike in the previous findings, the voluntary

disclosure theory was consistent as it seemed that good performers disclosed in a more

extensive way than bad performers. This can be due to the eagerness of companies to

announce ‘good news’. Furthermore, having a negative or positive ROC appear to have an

influencing effect. Companies having a positive ROC have more elaborate disclosures, probably

because they have more resources which makes reporting less costly for them than their peers

having a negative ROC. Moreover, the presence of dangerous waste in a company doesn’t

have the same importance than in the main analysis. However, the volume of dangerous waste

40

produced by a company has now significant influence. The most curious finding in the first

additional problem statement, is that size has completely lost its influencing effect. Age has

gained in importance now. When reporting, the younger the company, the more extensively it

will do so. This might be because young starters are less conservative and more aware of the

added value elaborate communication has towards stakeholders.

Apparently, not even a third of the major polluters disclose about waste policy. We tried to

find a reason why major polluters don’t disclose despite of the incentive they have to be

transparent and the accountability they have to justify their major waste production.

Nevertheless, size and industry keep being influencing factors and major polluters won’t report

on waste management if they are small companies. Major polluters from the food industry do

disclose a little more than polluters in the construction industry.

In a last additional analysis, we have found that companies from the two industries have

different stimulants to disclose. In the construction industry, size is important. This can be

explained because construction companies are generally smaller than food companies. Food

companies are bigger by nature and won’t be exposed to this effect as much as the

construction companies. In the food industry, the total volume of safe waste is a decisive

factor. As described in section 4.5.4., this is probably because food companies want to

reassure their clients no dangerous substances are used in their food manufacturing and

guarantee that their products are completely safe and cause no health damage.

When taking a closer look at the results of this last analysis, some thoughts came forward. The

influencing factors that come forth in the regressions, are not the same as the critical

components the general regression of the main experiment reveals (tables 7a – 7b). Both

industries have only one decisive factor that influences voluntary disclosure and it is different

for both industries. Size has a crucial role in the construction industry and the volume of safe

waste is fundamental in the food industry. As both elements are also essential factors in the

main analysis, this means that the results of the separate analyses are strong enough to have

an impact when combining both industries in one general analysis. When analysing both

industries combined, extra indicators to voluntarily disclose waste information are revealed.

This means that, across the industries’ borders, we can also find components that have an

overall effect.

A general conclusion is that, just like in the general environmental reporting, a lot of factors

are influencing the decision to voluntarily disclose on waste information.

41

9. Limitations and Future Research

This study presents some limitations that need to be mentioned and taken into consideration

when interpreting the results. Future research could offer some solutions to these limitations.

First, only two industries were analysed in this paper. Therefore, a generalisation toward other

industries can hardly be made as different industries can be quite diverse. In future research,

other sectors could be studied to be able to offer a more general view of the matter.

Second, in this study, the reporting behaviour of Flemish companies were investigated. This

entails that we are studying a very homogenous landscape since a majority of Flemish firms

are SME’s. It is possible that these kind of companies don’t report on waste management

merely due to their specific nature. It may be interesting to execute this study on bigger and

listed companies. As those companies are scarce in Belgium, studies across the country’s

borders are in order.

Another implication of studying only Flemish companies is that we can’t know how companies

from Brussels and Wallonia behave. Since other regulations on mandatory reporting exists in

these parts of the country, the voluntary reporting behaviour of companies in Brussels and

Wallonia could be different from the voluntary reporting behaviour in Flanders.

Third, not all the explanatory variables that proved to be influencing in the literature, were

included in this study. It is useful to perform further research including other predictors such

as media visibility and the presence of external certifications (e.g. ISO 14001).

Fourth, making a comparison analysis between what is reported on a company’s website and

the reality, can be a worthy study. The information that needs to be reported to the

government is of a totally different nature than the information that is found on websites.

Finding out if the information disclosed on a company’s website is consistent with the

information the company communicates to the government, can lead to valuable results.

Especially with companies providing quantitative waste information on their website, the

uncertainty of the reliability of this information remains.

Fifth, other specific topics from environmental reporting should be studied. It would be

interesting to compare companies’ reporting behaviour when it comes to water, energy and

emission reporting as well.

42

Finally, an analysis of voluntary reporting behaviour through the years would offer useful

information. Will companies be more willing to report in detail on all the specific aspects of the

environmental matter in the future?

V

10. References

Adams, C., Hill, W.-Y. and Roberts, C. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western

Europe: legitimating corporate behavior? British Accounting review, 30(1):1-21.

Aerts, W., Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2008). Corporate environmental disclosure, financial

markets and the media: an international perspective. Ecological Economics, 64:643-659.

Aerts, W., Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate

environmental reporting: an international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,

25:299-331.

Al-Tuwaijri, S. A., Christensen, T. E. and Hughes II, K. E. (2004). The relations among

environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a

simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29:447-471.

Barrezeele, K. (2000, 18 August) Kwaliteit bedrijfsmilieurapporten kan veel beter. De Tijd,

bijlage KMO-tijd.

Bebbington, J., Gray, R. and Larranniga, C., (2000). Editorial: environmental and social

accounting in Europe. European Accounting Review, 9(1):3-6.

Campbell, D., Craven, B. and Shrives, P. (2003). Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors:

a comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,

16:558-581.

Cho, C., Patten, D. and Roberts, R. (2006). Corporate political strategy: an examination of the

relation between political expenditures, environmental performance, and environmental

disclosure. Journal of Business ethics, 67(2):139-154.

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D. and Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation

between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis.

Accounting, Organization and Society, 33:303-327.

Confederatie Bouw (2010). Kerncijfers.

Cormier, D., and Magnan, M. (1999). Corporate environmental disclosure strategies:

determinants, costs and benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 14(3):429-451.

VI

Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a European

perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(1), 43-62.

Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2007). The revisited contribution of environmental reporting to

investors valuation of a firm’s earnings: an international perspective. Ecological Economics,

62:613-626.

Cowen, S., Ferreri, L. and Parker, L. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social

responsibility disclosure: a typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 12(2):111-122.

Darlington, R., Staikos, T. and Rahimifard, S. (2009). Analytical methods for waste minimization

in the convenience food industry. Waste Management, 29:1274-1281.

Dawkins, C. E. and Fraas, J. W. (2011). Erratum to: beyond acclamations and excuses:

environmental performance, voluntary environmental disclosure and the role of visibility.

Journal and Business Ethics, 99:383-397.

Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Vought, P. (2000). Firm’s disclosure reactions to major social

incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1):101-30.

Dixon, R., Mousa G. A. and Woodhead, A. (2005). The role of environmental initiatives in

encouraging companies to engage in environmental reporting. European Management Journal,

23(6):702-716.

Dye, R.A. (2001). An evaluation of ‘Essays on disclosure’ and the disclosure literature in

accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32:131-235.

Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens (2000). Towards a generally accepted

framework for environmental reporting.

FOD Economie (2011). De Belgische voedingsindustrie: kengetallen per sector - 2010.

Gilges, K. (1991). Eco-audit: green eyeshades take on a whole new meaning. Chemical

Engineering, 98(5):82N-82V.

Guimarães-Costa, N. and Pina e Cunha, M. (2008). The atrium effect of website openness on

the communication of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 15:43-51.

Integraal milieujaarverslag. URL: < http://milieujaarverslag.milieuinfo.be/>. 01/11/2011

VII

Jenkins, H. and Yakovleva, N. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry:

exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production,

14:271-284.

Jose, A. and Lee, S.-M. (2007). Environmental reporting of global corporations: a content

analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72:307-321.

KPMG (1999). KPMG International survey of environmental reporting 1999. DeMeern,

The Netherlands.

KPMG (2002). KPMG International survey of environmental reporting 2002. DeMeern,

The Netherlands.

Li, L. (2001). Encouraging environmental accounting worldwide: a survey of government

policies and instruments. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(1):244-255.

Lyon, T.P. and Maxwell, J.W. (2011). Greenwash: corporate environmental disclosure under

threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1):3-41.

Morhardt, J. E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: reporting on the

internet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19:436-452.

OVAM (November, 2011). Interview about mandatory reporting in Flanders. Mechelen,

Belgium

OVAM. URL: <http://www.ovam.be>. 01/11/2011.

Patten, D. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental

disclosure: a research note. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 27:763-773.

Raiborn, C. A., Butler, J. B. and Massoud, M. F. (2011). Environmental reporting: toward

enhanced information quality. Business Horizons, 54:425-433.

Razeed, A. (2010). Determinants of environmental disclosure practices of US resource

companies: hard copy versus internet reporting. Proceedings of the 6th Asia Pacific

Interdisciplinary Research In Accounting Conference APIRA 2010, University of Sydney,

Australia, 13th July 2010.

Rosen, C. (2001). Environmental strategy and competitive advantage. California Management

Review, 43(3):8-17.

VIII

Russo, M. V. and Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental

performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3):534-559.

Scott, P. and Jackson R. (2002). Environmental, social and sustainability reporting on the web:

best practices. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(2):193-202.

Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: from the for-itself to the for-the-other.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6):541-75.

Stray, S. (2008). Environmental reporting: the U.K. water and energy industries: a research

note. Journal of Business Ethics, 80:697-710.

Sumiani, Y., Haslinda, Y. and Lehman, G. (2007). Environmental reporting in a developing

country: a case study on status and implementation in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production,

15:895-901.

Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P. and Collin, S.-O. (2009). What explains the extent and

content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites: a study of social and

environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental management, 16:352-364.

Vandecruys, J., Rossi, E. and Smeets, K. (2010). Bedrijfsafvalstoffen productiejaar 2008. OVAM.

Verrecchia, R. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of accounting & Economics,

5(3):179 194.

Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual

reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7:53-63.

IX

11. Appendices

Appendix I: OVAM (November, 2011). Interview about mandatory reporting in Flanders.

Mechelen, Belgium.

Interview with Bart Vangilbergen

- Is er een centrale controle over het IMJV die de Vlaamse bedrijven moeten indienen?

Verschillende instanties zijn bevoegd voor bepaalde delen van de wetgeving. Het is

niet zo dat OVAM alles gaat controleren. Het IMJV is onderverdeeld in deelformulieren en elke

partner van het IMJV is verantwoordelijk voor zijn deelformulier en kan de nodige stappen

ondernemen om de relevante informatie te verkrijgen.

Binnen het IMJV is er een stuurgroep waarbij een overleg is met de verschillende

instanties. Daar kan de OVAM aangeven welke informatie zij wilt bekomen en op welke manier

die moet opgevraagd worden. In het IMJV komen dan de deelformulieren, er is een

deelformulier voor LNE, voor VMM is er een deelformulier en dus ook voor OVAM. Deze

formulieren worden opgestuurd naar de bedrijven toe als 1 geheel zodat de bedrijven het

gevoel hebben dat ze maar één bevraging moeten invullen. Zij moeten dit ofwel digitaal ofwel

op papier naar een centraal punt terug sturen in Brussel en van daaruit wordt elk

deelformulier opgestuurd naar de bevoegde instantie. Zijn er bedrijven die de rapportering

niet (volledig) doen, dan krijgen zij een aanmaning om dit alsnog te doen.

- Hoe wordt er bepaald welke bedrijven moeten rapporteren?

Dat zijn de partners die dat bepalen. Voor OVAM zijn er een aantal criteria waarop wij

ons baseren om een aantal bedrijven aan te schrijven. Voor afval gebruiken wij bijvoorbeeld

een steekproef. Vroeger moesten alle bedrijven daarover rapporteren, nu gebruiken wij een

steekproef. Naast de steekproef zijn er nog een aantal bedrijven die verplicht zijn om aan de

rapportering te voldoen. Voor een deel bepalen we het dus zelf, voor een deel wordt het

wetmatig bepaald. Dit jaar is onze steekproef ook erg ingekort omdat wij minder naar Europa

toe moeten rapporteren. Een uitgebreide rapportering naar Europa moet maar om de 2 jaar

gebeuren. Jaren dat er niet uitgebreid gerapporteerd moet worden, zorgt er dan ook voor dat

dat voor ons minder werk is en ook een minder grote werklast is voor de bedrijven. We

proberen de bedrijven zo weinig mogelijk te belasten omdat het voor hen niet altijd evident is

X

om al deze informatie te verzamelen. Het zijn dan ook niet altijd dezelfde bedrijven die in de

steekproef zitten en die dus aangesproken worden.

Het is ook zo dat niet elk bedrijf alle deelformulieren moeten invullen. In functie van

wat hun activiteiten zijn, wordt er besloten welk deelformulier zij moeten invullen. Sommige

bedrijven zullen dus maar 1 of 2 deelformulieren moeten invullen, anderen alle 5.

In onze topjaren zijn er om en bij de 15000 bedrijven die bij OVAM moeten

rapporteren.

- Wat doen jullie met de gegevens die jullie krijgen?

De gegevens worden gebruikt om het afvalbeleid op af te stemmen, waar situeert het

afval zich, in welke sector… Elke sector wordt namelijk aangeschreven, wij weten perfect dat

een bakker met dat aantal werknemers zoveel van welk soort afval produceert. Wij gaan dus

ons beleid hierop afstemmen. De cijfers worden ook gebruikt voor rapportering naar Europa

toe.

- Worden de gegevens naar de pers toe gecommuniceerd?

Er wordt niet als zijnde IMJV naar de pers gegaan. Maar er worden wel algemene

rapporten gemaakt van onze resultaten en die zijn vrij beschikbaar op de website.

- In VLAREM I wordt er bepaald welke bedrijven onder de rapporteringplicht vallen…

In de VLAREA staat dat als wij informatie willen krijgen wij het recht hebben om deze

op te vragen. Op basis van dat artikel vragen wij bijvoorbeeld aan stortplaatsen en

verbrandingsovens bepaalde gegevens op.

- Is er enige mogelijkheid dat ik deze gegevens zou mogen gebruiken in mijn masterproef?

De gegevens worden in een algemeen rapport gegoten en deze mogen opgevraagd

worden. Veel van die rapporten staan ook op de website. De publicaties kunnen dan vrij

geraadpleegd worden over de jaren heen. De specifieke gegeven zou je normaal gezien mogen

gebruiken als dit inderdaad in het kader van jouw masterproef gebruikt wordt en dat de

bedrijven niet bij naam genoemd worden.

- Waarom zou OVAM beslissen om extra informatie bij een bedrijf op te vragen (informatie die

normaal niet opgevraagd wordt maar o.b.v. het VLAREA decreet kan bekomen worden)

XI

Er kan bijvoorbeeld een project zijn over een bepaalde stroom, biomassa, kunststoffen.

We zouden ons dus kunnen focussen op die stroom en deze van naderbij willen bekijken. Dan

wordt daar een enquête over gemaakt en opgestuurd naar bedrijven waarvan wij weten dat zij

daarmee bezig zijn.

- Worden de gegevens van bepaalde bedrijven over de jaren heen vergeleken?

We vergelijken de gegevens van de sectoren over de jaren heen, niet van individuele

bedrijven. Het zou wel kunnen dat bepaalde diensten en teams dit wel doen. Ik kan aannemen

dat bepaalde stortplaatsen en verbrandingsovens individueel worden opgevolgd. Maar voor

bedrijfsafvalstoffen zal er niet individueel naar gekeken worden.

- Als nu een bepaald bedrijf het 1 jaar zeer slecht doet, dat ze overdreven veel afval heeft

geproduceerd, zal ze dan het volgende jaar extra in de gaten gehouden worden?

Ook daarvoor worden enkel de sectoren of afvalstromen opgevolgd. We zouden dus

wel kunnen zien dat een bepaalde sector het in het algemeen slecht doet en dan gaan we ons

beleid daarop toespitsen.

- Worden er sancties opgelegd aan bedrijven die te veel afval zouden produceren?

Neen, het is voor de bedrijven zelf niet interessant om veel afval te produceren, dat is

zeer duur voor een bedrijf. Je moet dat afval dan afvoeren maar ook de verwerking moet je

dan betalen. Er is een beetje zelfregulering, je zorgt er gewoon voor jezelf voor dat er zo

weinig mogelijk afval is.

XII

Appendix II: VED on Waste Policy on Corporate Websites

Company ID Letter

Disclosed Waste information on Website VED Score

Construction Industry

A Milieu heeft bij Aannemingen Janssen nv een dubbele betekenis: enerzijds zijn we actief in de milieusector, meer bepaald in de waterzuivering; anderzijds zijn we ten zeerste begaan met de veiligheid en het respect voor de medemens. Getuige hiervan is ons VCA** veiligheidscertificaat sinds december 1996, het gebruik van bouwmaterialen die zo weinig mogelijk milieubelastend zijn en een selectief beheer van afval.

1

B A policy statement can be found on the corporate website where the company describes their actions for waste reductions qualitatively and in specific terms

2

C A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

D Als recyclagebedrijf van afvalstroom bouw- en sloopafval beschikt over een mobiele breekinstallatie, waarmee betonpuin, asfaltpuin maar ook mengpuin gerecycleerd kan worden.

Gebroken producten worden hergebruikt als verhardings- en/of funderingsmateriaal, al dan niet gestabiliseerd met cement.

2

E Wij engageren er ons toe o.a. :

- in onze car-policy het gebruik van wagens met beperkte CO² uitstoot aan te moedigen;

- zoveel mogelijk op kantoor en op de werven het afval selectief te sorteren;

- zoveel mogelijk gerecycleerd papier te gebruiken en recto-verso kopies te maken;

- onze kantoren en werfketens zoveel mogelijk uit te rusten met energiesparende installaties

2

F A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

G Milieuvriendelijke producten en voorkomen van verontreiniging waar mogelijk door onze zorg voor een verantwoorde afvalstroom en voldoen aan alle wetgeving en regelgeving die op ons van toepassing is.

1

H ‘Bedrijf H’ realiseerde zich als één van de eersten dat men niet ongestraft het milieu kan blijven belasten met bouw- en sloopafval. Het bedrijf draagt milieupreventie, recyclage en kringloopgebruik hoog in het vaandel. Daarom werd in 1985 al het Brussels Recycling Center (BRC) geopend, een onafhankelijke breekwerf die voldoet aan de strengste eisen.

Het Brussels Recycling Center is één van de 9 breekcentrales in België die COPRO-gecertificeerd is. Jaarlijks wordt 130.000 ton aan slooppuin aangevoerd en verwerkt. BRC staat ter beschikking van andere wegenbouwondernemingen en gebouwenslopers die kunnen rekenen op een feilloos verwerkingsproces van

2

XIII

hun bouwafval en sloopafval. Volgende activiteiten vinden plaats in het BRC:

- Sorteren van slooppuin: betonpuin, asfaltpuin en metselwerkpuin

- Verpulveren van grote stukken met betonverpulveraar

- Breken in percutiebeker

- Afzeven van gebroken materiaal in zeefinstallatie

I Als milieubewust bedrijf streven we naar een maximale scheiding van materialen. Zowel het gevaarlijk als het niet-gevaarlijk afval voeren we af in overeenstemming met de milieuwetgeving.

Een maximale recyclage van afbraakmateriaal staat centraal in het milieubeleid van het bedrijf. Sinds 2005 heeft ‘Bedrijg I’ daarom zijn eigen recyclagecentrum, ABR.

2

J Volgens het principe van de LCA is hout een uitermate milieuvriendelijk materiaal.

De Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) meet de impact van een materiaal op de omgeving en de natuur, en dat tijdens de verscheidene stadia van zijn levensloop. Hout scoort in alle stadia zeer hoog: zowel voor de productie, de ontginning, de vernietiging, de verwerking, het gebruik en het recycleren.

Hout is duurzaam, hernieuwbaar en recycleerbaar. Houtverwerking levert amper afval op, en zelfs de kleinste houtspaanders worden opnieuw gebruikt, gerecycleerd of benut als groene brandstof. Van alle bouwmaterialen vereist hout ook het minst energie voor transport en voor de verwerking tot afgewerkte producten. Aangezien hout stevig is en over een lange levensduur beschikt, is het bovendien minder snel aan vervanging toe.

Voor onze woningen gebruiken we uitsluitend Canadese oregon dat afkomstig is uit bossen die speciaal voor dit doel zijn aangeplant. Dankzij het gecontroleerd bosbeheer wordt geen roofbouw gepleegd, en de quota voor verplichte nieuwe aanplantingen zijn strikt vastgelegd.

2

K Environmental protection is one of the core values of ‘Company K’ during the execution of projects worldwide and activities on permanent sites .

‘Company K’s’ activities are therefore executed according the following environmental policy :

- Continuous development and improvement of an Environmental Management System according to the ISO 14001 standard;

- Compliance with current environmental and other national legal requirements ;

- Restriction of disturbance of fauna, flora and soil on projects, where reasonably practicable ;

- Prevention and reduction of waste, soil -, air, - water pollution and disturbance of the surroundings ;

- Correct handling of environmental-threatening products and limitation of their use, where reasonably practicable ;

- Rational use of water, energy, fuels and materials where reasonably practicable;

- Implementation of measures to prevent environmental incidents and emergency situations, and reduction of the consequences;

- Encouragement of environmental awareness of all employees and relevant contractors by education, training and written work instructions or procedures;

- Supply of environmental information to customers, authorities and others

1

XIV

concerned in an open and constructive way.

- Management and all employees are to ensure that they comply with the policies principles daily.

L ‘Bedrijf L’ hecht veel waarde aan een verantwoorde omgang met materialen, we besteden daarom in onze bedrijfsvoering veel aandacht aan het benutten van materialen voor hergebruik. Daarnaast scheiden wij ons afval zorgvuldig. Het vermindert niet alleen de milieubelasting maar levert ons bovendien een besparing op transport- en stortkosten. Met de juiste partners in de keten kijken we ook naar mogelijke hergebruik toepassingen elders. Een afvalbeheersplan geeft daarbij de mogelijkheid om het scheiden van de verschillende afvalstromen goed te organiseren. Hiervoor werken wij samen met enkele afvalverwerkers waarmee wij afspraken hebben gemaakt over het stroomlijnen van ons afvalmanagement.

2

M ‘Bedrijf M’ hecht veel waarde aan een verantwoorde omgang met materialen, we besteden daarom in onze bedrijfsvoering veel aandacht aan het benutten van materialen voor hergebruik. Daarnaast scheiden wij ons afval zorgvuldig. Het vermindert niet alleen de milieubelasting maar levert ons bovendien een besparing op transport- en stortkosten. Met de juiste partners in de keten kijken we ook naar mogelijke hergebruik toepassingen elders. Een afvalbeheersplan geeft daarbij de mogelijkheid om het scheiden van de verschillende afvalstromen goed te organiseren. Hiervoor werken wij samen met enkele afvalverwerkers waarmee wij afspraken hebben gemaakt over het stroomlijnen van ons afvalmanagement.

2

N Afval is ook bij de spoorwegen niet te vermijden. In alle takken van het bedrijf probeert men het afval zo efficiënt mogelijk te beheren.

- Werkplaatsen -

In 2010 is ‘Bedrijf N’ gestart met de opwaardering van het industriële afval van de werkplaatsen en logistieke centra infrastructuur (LCI’s). In een eerste stap start ‘Bedrijf N’ met metingen om een beter zicht te krijgen op de afvalstromen. Daarna zullen containerparken worden geïnstalleerd om het afval te sorteren en te verwerken. ‘Bedrijf N’ kan dan gegroepeerde veilingen organiseren voor bijvoorbeeld schroot, koper, aluminium, gebruikte olie of loodbatterijen.

- Bouwwerven -

Op bouwwerven wil ‘Bedrijf N’ de medewerkers en aannemers in de eerste plaats sensibiliseren om het afval te beperken. In de mate van het mogelijke zal het afval van bouwterreinen worden gecentraliseerd om te worden overgenomen, verwerkt en eventueel verkocht.

- Kantoorafval -

In samenwerking met de NMBS-Holding zal ‘Bedrijf N’ het ‘ecopunten’-concept veralgemenen. Daarbij wordt huishoudelijk afval op elke kantoorverdieping verzameld en gesorteerd. Dat kan onder meer ook gebeuren voor PMD, inktpatronen, papier, TL-buizen en klein elektronisch materiaal.

2

O We hanteren een milieuvriendelijk afvalbeleid conform met de geldende milieuwetgeving

1

P - De 'papierwinkel' onder de loep -

Het verduurzamen van ons dagelijkse leven begint vaak met het stilstaan bij de kleine dingen die bij nader inzien een grote impact hebben. Zoals deze info.

Eén pallet met printpapier van 9 kg bevat 40 dozen en weegt een ton. Uit een boom

3

XV

worden 16,6 pakken printpapier geproduceerd of 8.333 vellen papier. Door dubbelzijdig printen en gescheiden papierinzameling kunnen we tot wel 50% besparen op printpapier. Daarmee besparen wij bomen en maken we onze CO2-voetafdruk kleiner. Ook is het vaak prima mogelijk om 2 pagina’s op één A4 te printen. Steeds meer printers worden dan ook standaard dubbelzijdig ingesteld.

- Maak er geen puinhoop van -

Goed scheiden van restafval levert de grondstoffen voor nieuwe producten. Hout, puin en metalen worden al voor een zeer groot deel gescheiden voor hergebruik. Het goed scheiden van bedrijfsafval is goedkoper en het is goed voor het milieu, het aanleveren van bijvoorbeeld een ton puin is goedkoper dan een ton restafval.

- Cijfers ‘Bedrijf P’ 2009 -

Printen & kopiëren: 25 ton papier

Drukwerk: 30 ton papier

Hiervoor zijn nodig: 1.300 bomen

Bosoppervlakte: 1.400 m2

Dit zijn 5 miljoen A4-tjes, oftewel 30 A4-tjes per netwerkgebruiker per werkdag

Q In het domein van veiligheid en milieu gelden als specifieke aandachtspunten: […], en het herleiden van de productie van afvalstoffen, […] tot een minimum

1

R ‘Bedrijf R’ hecht veel waarde aan een verantwoorde omgang met materialen, we besteden daarom in onze bedrijfsvoering veel aandacht aan het benutten van materialen voor hergebruik. Daarnaast scheiden wij ons afval zorgvuldig. Het vermindert niet alleen de milieubelasting maar levert ons bovendien een besparing op transport- en stortkosten. Met de juiste partners in de keten kijken we ook naar mogelijke hergebruik toepassingen elders. Een afvalbeheersplan geeft daarbij de mogelijkheid om het scheiden van de verschillende afvalstromen goed te organiseren. Hiervoor werken wij samen met enkele afvalverwerkers waarmee wij afspraken hebben gemaakt over het stroomlijnen van ons afvalmanagement.

2

S - ‘Bedrijf S’ is dé specialist op het gebied van recyclage van bouwpuin.

- Aannemers en openbare besturen brengen er puin binnen, t.t.z. opbraak beton, asfalt en mengpuin eventueel vermengd met zand. Deze inerte materialen worden gebroken en gezeefd tot puingranulaten, dewelke als secundaire grondstoffen in de betoncentrale kunnen worden verwerkt. Aldus is ‘Bedrijf S’ een voornaam producent van schraal beton, zandcement en gestabiliseerde steenslag, producten die hoofdzakelijk toegepast worden als gebonden funderingsmaterialen in de wegenbouw.

- De gebroken granulaten hoeven niet steeds gestabiliseerd te worden; zo verkoopt ‘Bedrijf S’ ook gebroken betonpuin, gebroken asfaltpuin en gebroken mengpuin, evenals zeefzand. Deze materialen zijn beschikbaar in verschillende kalibers, al naargelang de behoeften van de klant.

2

T - Milieubewuste afvalverwerking voor de klant -

Onze recyclageafdeling diende één jaar geleden, voor zijn vestiging te Brugge, de aanvraag in voor de ‘Charter duurzaam ondernemen’. Ondermeer door dit charter realiseerden wij verschillende acties rond duurzaam ondernemen. Acties rond tien verschillende thema’s, zoals de opvolging van de sociale en milieuwetgeving –

2

XVI

communiceren en dialogeren – mensvriendelijk ondernemen – duurzaamheid integreren – afval beperken – rationeel waterverbruik – noodprocedures – minimalisatie van de omgevingshinder en reductie van de verkeersimpact werden verwezenlijkt en/of opgestart. Voorbeelden van die ‘groene aanpak’ zijn er teveel om op te noemen. Wat we hier doen is namelijk op zich al groen. Desondanks som ik er toch enkele op:

- alle afvalwater wordt gezuiverd en opnieuw aangewend in het productieproces;

- omgevingshinder door stof, lawaai en trillingen werd tot een aanvaardbaar niveau gebracht;

- het beheer van de groenzone gebeurt op een milieuvriendelijke manier, zonder gebruik te maken van pesticiden;

- alle kuisproducten dragen het eco-label;

- investeringen teneinde het energieverbruik terug te schroeven, zoals het plaatsen van condensatorbatterij en frequentiesturingen, en het opsporen van persluchtlekken, … .”

U Het milieumanagementsysteem is van toepassing op de activiteiten van de hoofdzetel, inclusief de organisatie van het afval en van het transport van en naar de werven, en de verwezenlijking van de sinds 2012 opgestarte projecten in België (Vlaanderen) van : utiliteitsbouw, residentiële bouw, renovatiewerken, bouwkundige onderhoudswerken.

Onze belangrijke milieuaspecten zijn :

- Mobiliteit en transport

- Afval

- Energieverbruik

- Noodsituaties

De doelen taakstellingen van het milieumanagementsysteem richten zich daarom op de volgende onderwerpen :

Het huidige beleid wat bedrijfswagens betreft verder uitwerken (arbeiders en bedienden)

Optimaliseren van afvalscheiding (kantoor en werven)

Monitoren van het verbruik : elektriciteit, gas, water, brandstof en papier (kantoor)

Het huidige aankoopbeleid uitbreiden zodat ook onze onderaannemers en leveranciers zich engageren om meer milieubewust te ondernemen (kantoor en werven)

- Uitwerken van een duidelijk evacuatieplan

- Verkrijgen van het ISO 14001:2004-certificaat

Daarnaast is de beheersing van significante milieuaspecten opgenomen in het milieumanagementsysteem.

1

Food Industry

A - Recycleerbare of herbruikbare materialen -

Van alle stevige drankverpakkingen zorgt Tetra Pak® voor de laagste milieu-impact. Tetra Pak® wordt gemaakt van milieuvriendelijke materialen en tijdens het productieproces worden geen schadelijke stoffen gebruikt. Als jij je Alpro® soya-

2

XVII

drankje op hebt, kan het Tetra Pak® dus volledig worden gerecycleerd.

Onze andere verpakkingsvormen

Bestaat er zoiets als milieuvriendelijk plastic? ‘Bedrijf A’ stelt alles in het werk om de milieu-impact van zijn verpakkingen zo laag mogelijk te houden.

B Our key strategic priorities are to conserve resources, to minimize adverse impacts, to eliminate surplus packaging, and to maximize waste recovery and recycling.

1

C Procedures and standards for waste management, handling and disposal of chemicals and other dangerous materials, emissions and effluent treatment shall at least meet legal requirements or exceed them.

1

D ‘Bedrijf D’ ziet verpakkingen niet als afval, maar als een waardevolle bron voor hergebruik: een grondstof. Verpakkingen spelen trouwens een belangrijke rol in onze activiteiten. Ze laten ons toe onze producten te transporteren, te verkopen en – qua materiaal en grootte – te voldoen aan de wensen van elke individuele consument. Dankzij onze verpakkingen kunnen we ook communiceren met onze consument. Bovendien garanderen onze verpakkingen de kwaliteit van onze producten.

‘Bedrijf D’ engageert zich om de impact van haar verpakkingen op het milieu te beperken en het gebruik van hernieuwbare, herbruikbare en recycleerbare grondstoffen te maximaliseren.

Wereldwijd willen we het equivalent van 100 % van onze verpakkingen terug inzamelen voor recyclage. Om die doelstellingen te realiseren, werken we op vier pijlers:

Alsmaar lichtere verpakkingen

Stimuleren om te recycleren

Hergebruiken als grondstof

Het gebruik van hernieuwbare grondstoffen.

2

E ‘Bedrijf D’ ziet verpakkingen niet als afval, maar als een waardevolle bron voor hergebruik: een grondstof. Verpakkingen spelen trouwens een belangrijke rol in onze activiteiten. Ze laten ons toe onze producten te transporteren, te verkopen en – qua materiaal en grootte – te voldoen aan de wensen van elke individuele consument. Dankzij onze verpakkingen kunnen we ook communiceren met onze consument. Bovendien garanderen onze verpakkingen de kwaliteit van onze producten.

‘Bedrijf D’ engageert zich om de impact van haar verpakkingen op het milieu te beperken en het gebruik van hernieuwbare, herbruikbare en recycleerbare grondstoffen te maximaliseren.

Wereldwijd willen we het equivalent van 100 % van onze verpakkingen terug inzamelen voor recyclage. Om die doelstellingen te realiseren, werken we op vier pijlers:

Alsmaar lichtere verpakkingen

Stimuleren om te recycleren

Hergebruiken als grondstof

Het gebruik van hernieuwbare grondstoffen.

2

F - Milieu en verpakking - 2

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Ontwerp

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Recyclage

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Opnieuw-inzetten

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/PlantBottle

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Ontwerp

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Recyclage

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/Opnieuw-inzetten

http://www.cocacolabelgium.be/PlantBottle

XVIII

‘Bedrijf F’ blijft verder zoeken naar mogelijkheden om de hoeveelheid verpakkingsmateriaal per eenheid product te beperken en is voortdurend op zoek naar materialen, die beantwoorden aan alle veiligheids-,betrouwbaarheids- en consumentenvereisten en tegelijkertijd het milieu minder belasten. Ook wordt actief deelgenomen aan de beheerssystemen van verpakkingsafval, zoals Duales-System in Duitsland, Fost Plus in België, Eco-Emballages in Frankrijk en Eco-verpakking iNederland.

- Milieu en exploitative -

Overal binnen de onderneming wordt gestreefd naar verregaande bewustmaking. De milieueffecten worden systematisch onderzocht en op basis van de uitkomsten worden passende maatregelen genomen: preventief (bijvoorbeeld afvalwater), recuperatie (onder meer van papier en karton), verantwoorde vernietiging (zoals bijvoorbeeld de verbranding van verpakkingsfilmafval in gespecialiseerde centra) en rationeel gebruik van water en energie.

G - Waste -

Waste data is split into non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste. Non-hazardous waste is material such as cardboard, paper, plastics, and general trash. Hazardous waste is any material that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or to the environment such as liquids, solids, contained gases, or sludge. The non-hazardous waste volume decreased by 40 kTons in 2009,mainly as a result of the changed destination of gypsum produced in the lactic acid process. More of this gypsum volume had an interesting sustainable use in agriculture, as fertilizer for land application. The hazardous waste volume decreased by 22% from 422 Tons to 332 Tons. This is mainly caused by a shift in production volumes in several Purac plants, for example the move of lactic acid production from the Netherlands to Thailand.

3

H - Waste -

Waste data is split into non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste. Non-hazardous waste is material such as cardboard, paper, plastics, and general trash. Hazardous waste is any material that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or to the environment such as liquids, solids, contained gases, or sludge. The non-hazardous waste volume decreased by 40 kTons in 2009,mainly as a result of the changed destination of gypsum produced in the lactic acid process. More of this gypsum volume had an interesting sustainable use in agriculture, as fertilizer for land application. The hazardous waste volume decreased by 22% from 422 Tons to 332 Tons. This is mainly caused by a shift in production volumes in several Purac plants, for example the move of lactic acid production from the Netherlands to Thailand.

3

I Zorg dragen voor het milieu is voor ons van het grootste belang. Wij trachten de ecologische voetafdruk van onze producten zo klein mogelijk te houden door grondstoffen en verpakkingen zo dicht mogelijk bij ons bedrijf in te kopen. Door het opmaken van een afvalbeleidsplan zijn onze afvalstromen met 90% gereduceerd door recyclage.

2

J ENVIRONMENT - Planet

We operate with care for the environment and ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

We select our material and industrial processes in such a way that they contribute to the preservation of the environment and protection of the planet by:

- Reducing energy and water consumption (solar panels, collection of rainwater,

2

XIX

proper insulation,

…)

- Reducing carbon footprint (calculation and improvement plan)

- Improving our waste management:

recycling of carton and plastic.

Fruit waste is collected and turned into bio mass and ultimately alternative energy.

Handling and disposure of chemicals and other dangerous materials emissions and effluent treatment are in place.

K - Life cycle assessments -

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) reveal the environmental performance of products during and beyond their life cycle. They can also be used to compare the eco-performances of different products in the same application. As such, they are an important tool in validating the ECO+ scores of our products. They also help us identify ways to minimize our products’ eco-footprints.

The awareness of a product’s total eco-effect stimulates us to develop new products with a lower eco-impact. It also helps us improve performance. For instance, we can use less fossil fuel during production, or reduce losses in the production process, and we can recycle products when they reach the waste stage. At the same time, we can increase a product’s usability lifetime and reduce its energy consumption.

- Creating transparency -

Our goal is to carry out LCAs for all of our products, from the extraction of raw materials until the moment the product leaves the factory gate. At year-end 2010 we determined the ‘cradle to gate’ footprint (that is, from the extraction of raw materials until the moment the product leaves the DSM factory gate). In addition, for all new products we carry out full LCAs, including the use and waste stages, in other words ‘from cradle to grave’.. We provide our customers with access to the outcomes of these assessments so that they can carry out LCAs for their own products. In this way, we contribute to the eco-transparency of the overall value chain.

2

L A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

M A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

N A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

O Our advanced protein engineering techniques are helping to make biorefineries a reality, by using non-food portions of plants and agricultural waste products as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

2

P We use resources that do not adversely influence the climate, and focus on cutting down waste as well as recycling.

1

Q Naast efficiënt te zijn en afval te vermijden, wat een belangrijk deel uitmaakt van onze cultuur, moeten we ook meegaan met de wereld rondom ons en ons steentje

2

XX

bijdragen om gezamenlijke uitdagingen zoals klimaatverandering aan te gaan.

De duurzaamheid van onze activiteiten en de duurzaamheid van het milieu gaan hand in hand. In de praktijk betekent dit dat we de natuurlijke rijkdommen zo efficiënt mogelijk willen gebruiken, zoals het water waarmee we onze bieren brouwen. We recycleren ook onze bij- en afvalproducten en gaan de gezamenlijke uitdagingen aan voor de toekomst, zoals de klimaatwijziging, door onze koolstofvoetafdruk te verminderen. We werken elke dag aan het behalen van onze hoge milieudoelstellingen en het zo diep mogelijk inbedden van onze milieuprocessen in ons bedrijf.

R Naast efficiënt te zijn en afval te vermijden, wat een belangrijk deel uitmaakt van onze cultuur, moeten we ook meegaan met de wereld rondom ons en ons steentje bijdragen om gezamenlijke uitdagingen zoals klimaatverandering aan te gaan.


2

S Naast efficiënt te zijn en afval te vermijden, wat een belangrijk deel uitmaakt van onze cultuur, moeten we ook meegaan met de wereld rondom ons en ons steentje bijdragen om gezamenlijke uitdagingen zoals klimaatverandering aan te gaan.


2

T ‘Bedrijf T’ heeft een enorm brede waaier aan moderne en milieuvriendelijke verpakkingslijnen. Zo bracht ze als eerste in Europa langhoudbare consumptiemelk in grootverpakkingen van 10L tot 1000L. Voor de Nederlandse markt is er de specifieke 2L can verse melk. ‘Bedrijf T’ is stichtend lid van Fost +. Fost Plus promoot, coördineert en financiert de selectieve inzameling, de sortering en de recyclage van huishoudelijk verpakkingsafval in België. Ook in Frankrijk zijn we lid van Eco-emballage en in Nederland van Stichting Retourverpakking. In 2011 zullen al de door ons op de markt gebrachte tetra Brik en Gable Topverpakkingen vervaardigd worden met FSC gekeurd karton “Het FSC –label garandeert de duurzame oorsprong van het papier omdat niet enkel het bos van oorsprong wordt gecontroleerd maar ook de hele handelsketen tot bij de eindconsument. De eindklant krijgt aldus de absolute garantie dat dit papier afkomstig is van goed beheerde FSC gecertificeerde bossen”

2

U ‘Bedrijf U’ produceert on-site HDPE-verpakkingen. Dit reduceert het transport, waardoor er minder vrachtwagens op de weg zijn. Het retourglas is milieuvriendelijk, duurzaam, makkelijk en veelzijdig. Retourglas reduceert de afvalberg en kan zo goed als eindeloos herbruikt worden. Mocht er toch een fles breken, dan blijft het glas

2

XXI

100% recycleerbaar. Een tweede leven zonder verlies.

Niet onbelangrijk is het gebruik van Tetra Pak kartonnen verpakkingen. Niet echt duurzaam zal u zeggen. Toch wel. Deze samengestelde kartonnen verpakkingen worden gemaakt van klein hout en houtafval van zagerijen. Bovendien wordt enkel hout van duurzaam beheerde Scandinavische bossen gebruikt. Gekapte bomen worden voortdurend vervangen door nieuwe. Hierdoor blijven de bossen jong en gezond en neemt de bosomvang toe. Belangrijk, want bossen zijn de motor voor het behoud van ons klimaat.

Alle door ‘Bedrijf U’ gebruikte Tetra Pak verpakkingen zijn voorzien van een FSC-certificatie (Forest Stewardship Council). Dit certificaat geeft zekerheid over verantwoord bosbeheer. Dit betekent een zorgvuldig aanplant-, onderhouds- en kapbeleid, met respect voor ecologische en sociale aspecten, zoals biodiversiteit en arbeidsomstandigheden. Het FSC-keurmerk garandeert de volledige traceerbaarheid van het hout, van bos tot eindproduct. U kan dus opgelucht blijven ademhalen. Tetra Pak verpakkingen zijn niet enkel gemaakt van duurzame grondstoffen. Ze zijn ook 100% recycleerbaar. De kartonvezels krijgen een tweede leven als kartonnen doos, briefpapier of keukenrol. Wist je dat in België al meer dan 75% van de drankkartons wordt gerecycleerd?

V We care deeply about the earth and future generations. So we act responsibly by finding creative and inspired ways to reduce waste, recycle and re-use existing resources.

Demands on the planet are increasing. And in some areas, our natural resources are being depleted faster than they can be replenished. As one of the largest food companies in Europe, we understand the important role we play in respecting our natural resources and using them thoughtfully.

So we’ve cooked up a recipe for reducing our impact on the environment. There are many ways we can make a difference – from using less water in our manufacturing, to reducing product packaging, to producing less waste.

In 2006, we set aggressive five-year global goals*. We expanded them in 2010, after integrating the Cadbury and LU businesses, looking to build and improve upon our successes. For our 2011–2015 goals, we’ve added sustainable agricultural commodities and transportation to what we’re measuring.

2

W We care deeply about the earth and future generations. So we act responsibly by finding creative and inspired ways to reduce waste, recycle and re-use existing resources.



In 2006, we set aggressive five-year global goals*. We expanded them in 2010, after integrating the Cadbury and LU businesses, looking to build and improve upon our successes. For our 2011–2015 goals, we’ve added sustainable agricultural

2

http://www.tetrapak.com/nl

http://www.tetrapak.com/nl/milieu/fsc/pages/default.aspx

http://www.tetrapak.com/nl/milieu/fsc/pages/default.aspx

http://www.fsc.be/

XXII

commodities and transportation to what we’re measuring.

X We care deeply about the earth and future generations. So we act responsibly by finding creative and inspired ways to reduce waste, recycle and re-use existing resources.



In 2006, we set aggressive five-year global goals*. We expanded them in 2010, after integrating the Cadbury and LU businesses, looking to build and improve upon our successes. For our 2011–2015 goals, we’ve added sustainable agricultural commodities and transportation to what we’re measuring.

2

Y o Verbetering van de selectieve inzameling en verwerking van afvalstoffen. 1

Z - Milieu en verpakking -

‘Bedrijf Z’ blijft verder zoeken naar mogelijkheden om de hoeveelheid verpakkingsmateriaal per eenheid product te beperken en is voortdurend op zoek naar materialen, die beantwoorden aan alle veiligheids-,betrouwbaarheids- en consumentenvereisten en tegelijkertijd het milieu minder belasten. Ook wordt actief deelgenomen aan de beheerssystemen van verpakkingsafval, zoals Duales-System in Duitsland, Fost Plus in België, Eco-Emballages in Frankrijk en Eco-verpakking iNederland.



2

AA - Milieu en verpakking -

‘Bedrijf AA’ blijft verder zoeken naar mogelijkheden om de hoeveelheid verpakkingsmateriaal per eenheid product te beperken en is voortdurend op zoek naar materialen, die beantwoorden aan alle veiligheids-,betrouwbaarheids- en consumentenvereisten en tegelijkertijd het milieu minder belasten. Ook wordt actief deelgenomen aan de beheerssystemen van verpakkingsafval, zoals Duales-System in Duitsland, Fost Plus in België, Eco-Emballages in Frankrijk en Eco-verpakking iNederland.



2

XXIII

BB As for waste, we have identified three areas in which to focus attention on waste management. These are solid waste, mortalities and organic waste. Recycling is a good option for solid waste, especially for feed bags. These are recycled in almost all Marine Harvest farming operations. Programmes to reduce waste and increase recycling are in place in all Marine Harvest businesses.

2

CC We hebben ook een aantal groene projecten in onze fabriek in Olen opgestart, zoals het vervoeren van goederen via water in plaats van de weg, het verminderen en recupereren van energie, het sorteren van afval, recycleren, en het installeren van een waterzuiveringsstation waardoor we het verbruik van water kunnen verlagen.

1

DD Het respect voor het leefmilieu en de ontwikkeling van duurzame landbouwpraktijken zijn onontbeerlijk om het voortbestaan van onze landbouw- en voedingssector te verzekeren. We proberen aanhoudend onze criteria voor de productie “van het veld tot op je bord” nog te verbeteren aan de hand van: - het gebruik van duurzame en doeltreffende energiebronnen

- de beperking van het waterverbruik

- het gebruik van recycleerbare verpakkingen

- een uiterst strikt afvalbeheer

- een continu verbeteringsprogramma met betrekking tot onze milieuacties (ISO 14001 certificering)

1

EE Energy, water and waste improvement programmes

The number of sites implementing programmes to improve the consumption of energy and water and the generation and treatment of waste is as follows.

Programme established in 2009

Programme established in 2010

Energy 33% 33%

Water 19% 13%

Waste 36% 28%

Waste generated in ‘Company EE’ operations in tonnes, classified by type and disposal method

Generation of waste at production and processing sites

Total 2009

Total 2010

Non-hazardous organic production waste (rendering)

126,882 113,812

Hazardous waste (non-organic)

335 508

Hazardous waste (organic) 1,739 1,368

Other organic waste 13,468 11,980

Chemical waste 3,37 10,8

Paper & cardboard 2,352 2,505

3

XXIV

Metals 1,080 1,142

Plastics 1,038 1,942

Wood 1,680 2,180

Waste oil and oi-containing products

257 211

Manure 2,696 3,790

Sludge 14,654 14,145

Total 166,184.37

153,596.34

Figures from 10 tonnes upwards are rounded to the nearest whole number. Hazardous waste was defined in accordance with the Basel Convention (annex II) and EURAL. It should be noted, that by law, some returned feed must be classified and treated as hazardous.

FF Als internationaal foodconcern zijn we trots op onze merken die staan voor kwaliteit. We werken er hard aan om ons aanbod van uitstekende voedingsproducten en dranken continu uit te breiden. Die innovatieve spirit gebruiken we ook om energie, water en verpakkingsmaterialen te besparen. Of om een aangename werkomgeving voor onze medewerkers te creëren. Of om te investeren in lokale gemeenschappen. Omdat een gezonde toekomst voor mensen hand in hand gaat met een succesvolle toekomst voor ‘Bedrijf FF’. Dat is onze bedrijfsfilosofie. En die is wereldwijd voelbaar in alle vestigingen.

1

GG Een milieuteam bestudeert dagelijks de genereerde afvalfractie om nieuwe recuperatiemogelijkheden te zoeken. Enerzijds wil de groep hier de totale afvalhoeveelheid reduceren en anderzijds het optimale beheer en de selectieve ophaling van alle andere afvalfracties (karton, hout, metalen, recycleerbare plastic, enz.) door de medewerkers bevorderen

2

HH A policy statement can be found on the corporate website with an extensive description about the company’s waste policy. The volumes of different types of waste are given.

3

II Our daily business implements this commitment through a programme of continual environmental improvement. We will:

- comply with legal requirements and permits

- reduce, in each production unit, the use of energy,water and chemicals per ton of finished product limit the nuisances (odour, noise, particulate emissions)

diminish the disposal of liquid and solid wastes

1

JJ De Ladder van Lansink is een standaard op het gebied van afvalbeheer. De Ladder werd genoemd naar de Nederlandse politicus Ad Lansink. Hij kwam in 1979 op het idee om in het afvalbeleid de prioriteit te geven aan de meest milieuvriendelijke verwerkingswijzen.

Bovenaan de 'ladder' staat preventie, hergebruiken en recycleren. Zijn doel was zo veel mogelijk afval de Ladder van Lansink te laten 'beklimmen'.

2

XXV

Vanaf het moment dat u uw bijproducten uit handen geeft, zorgen wij voor een correcte verwerking ervan. Resultaat? Een voedselveilig en kwaliteitsvol eindproduct.

KK ‘Company KK’ has subscribed to the Flemish Environmental Charter, which requires that maximum efforts be made to ensure the preservation of Nature. This implicates a high-tech wastewater purification system, segregated waste disposals, noise reduction, less paper consumption in offices, etc…

1

LL ‘Company LL’ has subscribed to the Flemish Environmental Charter, which requires that maximum efforts be made to ensure the preservation of Nature. This implicates a high-tech wastewater purification system, segregated waste disposals, noise reduction, less paper consumption in offices, etc…

1

MM A policy statement can be found on the corporate website where the company describes their actions for waste reductions qualitatively and in specific terms

2

NN A policy statement can be found on the corporate website where the company describes their actions for waste reductions qualitatively and in specific terms

2

OO Een milieuteam bestudeert dagelijks de genereerde afvalfractie om nieuwe recuperatiemogelijkheden te zoeken. Enerzijds wil de groep hier de totale afvalhoeveelheid reduceren en anderzijds het optimale beheer en de selectieve ophaling van alle andere afvalfracties (karton, hout, metalen, recycleerbare plastic, enz.) door de medewerkers bevorderen

2

PP We willen dat onze producten mooi en gebruiksvriendelijk worden verpakt, met zorg voor de smaak en de kwaliteit van de inhoud. Onze ingenieurs en leveranciers ontwerpen verpakkingen die het milieu zo min mogelijk belasten. Ze kijken voortdurend naar optimalisatie van de verpakkingen en de processen.

Het afval dat tot stand komt in een productieproces hergebruiken we zo veel mogelijk. We praten hier bijvoorbeeld over het zetmeel dat vrijkomt in het productieproces van de chips dat we verkopen aan de papierindustrie. Er is maar een klein gedeelte dat we niet kunnen recycleren, en moeten verbranden, maar daar zorgen we dat we de energie die bij de verbranding vrijkomt, terugwinnen.

Ook aan de hoeveelheid verpakkingsmateriaal wordt gewerkt. Chipszakjes bevatten een minimum aan aluminium om het product vers te houden, hier kijken we of we de bestaande zakjes niet kunnen vervangen door biologisch afbreekbare verpakkingen die het product nét zo vers houden. Een ander voorbeeld is PET, dat de consument omwille van zijn gebruiksvriendelijkheid verkiest boven glas of karton. We willen deze consumentenvoorkeur respecteren, en analyseren daarom de mogelijkheden om minder materiaal te gebruiken in de productie van PET flessen, en doen onderzoek naar betere recyclagemethoden.

Onze beloftes en initiatieven

- Geen afval storten. -

Recyclage van het overgrote deel van ons afval. Een minimaal deel wordt verbrand, maar met terugwinning van de vrijgekomen energie.

Samenwerking met Fost+ en Val-I-Pac voor de recyclage van blikjes en verpakkingen.

Partner in het Refrigerants Naturally project, waar we met andere voedingsmiddelengroepen samen streven om milieu-onvriendelijke koelvloeistoffen te vervangen door natuurlijke alternatieven.

Onze Elopak-verpakkingen van ‘Bedrijf PP’ dragen het FSC-label, een certificaat dat

2

http://refrigerantsnaturally.com/

XXVI

aangeeft dat het karton dat hiervoor werd gebruikt uit duurzaam beheerde bossen komt.

QQ Milieu vormt een essentieel onderdeel van het totale ondernemingsbeleid van ‘Bedrijf QQ’. De zorg voor het milieu is geïntegreerd in de dagelijkse werkzaamheden en wordt op dezelfde wijze gewaardeerd als alle andere primaire ondernemingsdoelstellingen. Om dit aan te tonen heeft ‘Bedrijf QQ’ het milieucharter ondertekend.

Het milieubeleid van ‘Bedrijf QQ’ is gericht op het continu verbeteren van de milieuaspecten binnen de organisatie.

‘Bedrijf QQ’ zal zich met name op de volgende terreinen gaan richten :

Het verminderen van het energieverbruik door een verhoogde efficiëntie

Preventie van afval en optimalisatie van de afvalscheiding

Duurzaam inkopen

Versterken van het milieubewustzijn van haar eigen medewerkers

Deze doelen worden verder uitgewerkt in het actieplan dat in de milieuverklaring van het milieucharter terug te vinden is.

1

XXVII

Appendix III: Covariance Analysis – Hypotheses Testing

XXVIII

Appendix IV: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 1

XXIX

Appendix V: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 2

Appendix VI: Covariance Analysis – Additional Problem Statement 3

Construction Industry:

XXX

Food Industry:

waste management disclosure on corporate websiteslib.ugent.be/fulltxt/rug01/001/893/425/rug01... ·...

Documents