Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Exploratory Research of ISO 14001:2015 Transition
among Portuguese Organizations
Luis Miguel Fonseca 1, *ID and JoséPedro Domingues 1,2 ID
1ISEP—P. Porto, School of Engineering and CIDEM R&D, Porto 4249-015, Portugal
2Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho, Braga 4710-057, Portugal; jpd@isep.ipp.pt
*Correspondence: lmf@isep.ipp.pt; Tel.: +351-228-340-500
Received: 16 February 2018; Accepted: 10 March 2018; Published: 12 March 2018
Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is the assessment of the ISO 14001:2015 transition process
among Portuguese ISO 14001 certified organizations, including those that successfully have already
achieved ISO 14001:2015 certification. A considerable number of the surveyed companies proceeded
with the transition to the ISO 14001:2015 by introducing slight adjustments and were supported
by external consultants. Nearly all of the respondent companies (97%) intend to transition until
15
th
September 2018. The highest ranked reported benefit is the “integrated approach with other
management sub-systems” with a well-consolidated perception from the surveyed companies. This is
aligned with the ISO 14001:2015 goal of improving the compatibility of management standards
supported on the Annex SL. “Alignment with business strategy”, “improved top management
commitment” and “improved internal and external communication” are also perceived to obtain
significant benefits from ISO 14001:2015. The statistical tests carried out (Kruskal–Wallis) confirmed
that the perception of some achieved ISO 14001:2015 certification benefits is dependent on the size of
the organization. Concerning the motivations to proceed with certification, results suggest that there
is not a particular company profile that is compelled to certify their EMS based on a specific type of
motivation (Internal or External). Due to ISO 14001:2015 novelty, these exploratory results should be
subjected to additional research confirmation.
Keywords:
ISO 14001; ISO 14001:2015; Environmental Management Systems; Benefits; Certification
1. Introduction
Traditional approaches aiming at environmental protection often rely on legal frameworks to
enforce measures and behaviors in organizations. The 1992 Rio de Janeiro summit on Environment and
Development with the approval of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention
on Biodiversity, the Declaration on Forests and the Agenda 21 triggered an increased international
emphasis for the development of environmental sustainability and for more environmental friendly
products and services. Within this context, the demand for voluntary environmental management
systems (EMS) certification has shown a constant rise, which has been depicted by trends of ISO
14001 international standard certification. ISO 14001 has reached 300,000 certificates in 2016 and
seems to mimic the same success path as the widely adopted ISO 9001 Quality Management System
international standard, which has more than 1,200,000 issued certificates worldwide [
1
]. ISO 14001 is
an International Standard supported on the assumption that better environmental performance can be
attained when environmental aspects are systematically identified and managed through pollution
prevention, improved environmental performance and compliance with applicable laws [2].
To ensure that ISO 14001 remains updated and relevant for the marketplace by addressing
the latest trends and improving compatibility with other management system standards, such as
ISO 9001, ISO revised and issued the 2015 ISO 14001 edition [
3
]. ISO 14001:2015 proposed some
Sustainability 2018,10, 781; doi:10.3390/su10030781 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 2 of 16
new and reinforced approaches, such as the adoption of the Annex SL structure; the requirement
demanding organizations to analyze their internal and internal context in order to ascertain the issues
and requirements that may impact the EMS; the assignment of specific responsibilities for leaders to
promote the EMS; more emphasis on the performance improvement by minimizing the water and
energy consumption as well as producing less emission and waste; the introduction of a life cycle
perspective that asks for organizations to extend their control and influence to the environmental
impacts ascribed to product use and end-of-life treatment or disposal; and the development of an
external and internal communications strategy to consider the reporting demanded by regulatory
agencies and the expectations of other interested parties [2].
ISO 14001 international standard was first published on 1
st
September 1996, which established
the requirements for EMS, including the organizational structure and the responsibilities; the planning
of the activities; the definition of practices, processes and procedures; and the allocation of resources to
plan, implement, check and improve the environmental policy [2,4–7].
In the last few decades, many companies aimed to improve the environmental performance of
their processes [
8
] by implementing an EMS. The theoretical literature focusing on the motivations
driving organizations to implement and certify an EMS address both external [
9
–
11
] and internal [
12
,
13
]
factors that lead companies to implement such self-regulatory mechanisms.
Additionally, there is a considerable stream of research addressing the benefits [
14
–
24
] and
the barriers [
13
,
15
–
18
] of ISO 14001 adoption and certification. A systematic review analyzed the
content of 48 articles published between January 2012 and April 2017 that addressed the topic of
“benefits of EMS adoption and certification”. This review provided support for this resulting in
fairly positive benefits (average 2.36 in a 1 to 5 Likert type scale) for the certified organizations,
although there were some observed variations [
20
]. The main reported benefits include the ability
to manage the environmental aspects more effectively and continually improve the environmental
performance; an increased environmental legislation compliance; the prevention of pollution; a lower
risk level of penalties and litigation; the improvement of stakeholder satisfaction and employee morale;
and the potential to access new markets and new business opportunities with environmentally aware
customers. This leads to both lower operating costs and new business opportunities, leveraging the
competitive position of organizations [
2
,
13
,
16
,
18
]. However, there are also some reported negative
consequences of EMS implementation and certification, such as the difficulty in measuring the EMS
efficiency, increased bureaucracy, higher costs, lack of employee and management EMS support and
the generic nature of the ISO 14001 requirements [
6
,
15
,
16
]. Based on an investigation of the benefits
and difficulties of adopting ISO 14001:2004 within Italian organizations, Mazzi et al. [
17
] concluded
that the most useful requirements of ISO 14001:2004 are “environmental aspects”, “legal and other
requirements”, “competence, training, and awareness” and “evaluation of compliance”. According to
this research, the most difficult ISO 14001:2004 requirements to comply with are “legal and other
requirements”, “competence, training and awareness”, “operational control” and “evaluation of
compliance”. These results highlight that the most difficult requirements match and concur with those
considered as the most useful ones.
Boiral, Guillaumie, Heras-Saizarbitoria and Tene [
25
] concluded that whereas the mainstream
literature supports the emergence of positive outcomes after ISO 14001 adoption and certification,
the research is often limited in terms of “sample, scope, variables adopted and contextual aspects”
and is essentially based on managerial perceptions, which may be influenced by respondent bias.
Additionally, according to these authors, positive and negative outcomes of ISO 14001 adoption may
co-exist (e.g., less energy and resource consumption costs, but additional bureaucracy and paperwork).
From a theoretical point of view, the adoption of voluntary management systems standards,
such as ISO 14001, can be traced back to the following theories: Freeman Stakeholder Theory [
26
]
focusing on the importance of a firms’ relationships with critical stakeholders, which may lead to
an improved performance by integrating business and societal considerations that subsequently
creates value for their stakeholders; Barney [
27
] Resource Base View Theory considering the unique
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 3 of 16
combination of resources and capabilities (internal) of each firm allowing it to be unique and different
with improved performance compared to its competitors; and Meyer and Rowan Institutional
Theory [
28
] addressing the mode of behavior of institutions as a result of societal influence, which
explains why organizations converge and become similar (Fonseca et al. [
29
]; Tuczek, Castka and
Wakolbinger [
30
]). By analyzing the changes introduced in the ISO 9001:2015, Fonseca [
31
] pointed out
that it brings a stronger open systems approach (influence of the environment, dynamic perspective,
need for survival) when compared with the 2008 version. Due to the commonalities of both
International Standards 2015 edition, this can be generalized to the ISO 14001:2015 when compared to
the 2004 version.
As of 15 September 2018, all ISO 14001:2014 certificates will be no longer valid, so ISO 14001
certified organizations should proceed with the transition process until that date. After this time,
they should demonstrate their compliance in being successfully audited and certified accordingly to
ISO 14001:2015 international standard by a credible and recognized certification body. This is a relevant
research issue, both for scholars (since previous research did not address ISO 14001: 2015 edition) and
for practitioners (that need to migrate the ISO 14001:2004 EMS to the new edition).
As part of a broader research project to study the phenomenon of the management systems
standards certification, an empirical study, supported by an online survey, was designed, developed
and made available to the potential respondents, which had the specific purpose of gathering
knowledge of the ISO 14001:2015 transition process. The survey was carried out throughout May 2017
and yielded a total of 108 valid responses.
The next section is devoted to Materials and Methods. In Section 3, the authors present, discuss
and dissect the empirical results. Section 4summarizes the soundest results and point out the
implications of the research.
2. Materials and Methods
Data was collected by the means of an online survey among ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 Portuguese
certified organizations by the leading Portuguese certification body. This approach is consistent
with those adopted by other researchers, such as Mazzi et al. [
17
]. An e-mail was sent to the
companies in April 2017, followed by a second call in May 2017. The data were collected anonymously
through an automatic online database. The sample comprised a total of 108 Portuguese organizations
simultaneously certified according to the clauses of both the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards.
The overall response rate was 18%, encompassing 19 organizations already certified against ISO
14001:2015 and the remaining against ISO 14001:2004. This research is included in a broader research
project that aims to achieve deeper understanding of the phenomenon of management systems
standards certification (e.g., Hypotheses 4 and 11 relate to an ongoing parallel research addressing
Quality Management Systems—QMS). The survey was designed to include several sections, which is
shown in Table 1. The detail is presented for the sections relevant to this research. IBM Social Sciences
Statistical Package (SPSS) v. 22 software was adopted to conduct the statistical tests and calculations
(after ordinal to numerical transformation of the Likert scale type of answers). The non-parametric
Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance statistical test was used to determine whether some
variables, measured on an ordinal scale, differed based on other variables (namely those related to the
characterization of the company). Hence, the following research hypotheses were raised:
Dimension 1—Benefits
Research Statement: The assessment of some benefits derived from the implementation of the ISO
14001:2015 standard differ according to the . . .
Hypothesis 1 (H1). . . . activity sector where the organization operates.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). . . . dimension of the organization (N◦of employees).
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 4 of 16
Hypothesis 3 (H3). . . . exposure to international markets.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). . . . maturity (years) of the QMS.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). . . . maturity (years) of the EMS.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). . . . organizational role of the respondent.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). . . . experience (years) of the respondent.
Dimension 2—Motivations
Research Statement: The motivations (internal or external) driving organizations to implement
the ISO 14001:2015 standard differ according to the . . .
Hypothesis 8 (H8). . . . activity sector where the organization operates.
Hypothesis 9 (H9). . . . dimension of the organization (N◦of employees).
Hypothesis 10 (H10). . . . exposure to international markets.
Hypothesis 11 (H11). . . . maturity (years) of the QMS.
Hypothesis 12 (H12). . . . maturity (years) of the EMS.
Hypothesis 13 (H13). . . . organizational role of the respondent.
Hypothesis 14 (H14). . . . experience (years) of the respondent.
Table 1. Survey structure.
Section Variable(s) ID Item Assessed Typology
1—Characterization of
the company.
Var_Num_1.1 Activity Sector Structured (S.O)
Var_Num_1.2 Dimension (N◦of employees) Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_1.3 International market activity (%) Structured (S.O.)
3—Environmental
Management System
(ISO 14001)
Var_Num_3.1.1 Maturity (Years) Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_3.1.2
Transitioned to new revision (2015)
Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.1 Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.2 Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.3 Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.4 Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.5 Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.2.6
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
Var_Num_3.3.1
Not transitioned to new revision (2004)
Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.3.2 Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_3.3.2 Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_3.3.3 Structured (M.O.)
Var_Num_3.3.4 (a to d)
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
5—Questions relevant to the
business processes of the
certification entity.
Var_Num_6.1.1
ISO 14001
Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_6.1.2 Structured (S.O.)
Var_Num_6.2.1
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
Var_Num_6.2.2 Open question.
Var_Num_6.2.3 Open question.
Var_Num_6.2.4 Open question.
Var_Num_6.2.5 Open question.
6—Motivations for
certification and impacts
Var_Num_7.1
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
Var_Num_7.2 (a to s)
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
Var_Num_7.3 (a to h)
Structured (S.O.; L.S.)
8—Respondent
characterization.
Var_Num_9.1 Organizational role Structured.
Var_Num_9.2 Experience (Years) Structured.
S.O.—Single option (Solely allows the selection of one option); M.O.—Multiple option (Allows the selection of more
than one option); L.S.—Likert scale; Solely the survey items related and pertinent to this research are presented (1, 3,
5, 6 and 8).
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 5 of 16
3. Results and Discussion
This section is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results. The first sub-section
reports the social-demographical characteristics of the sample. The second sub-section presents the
descriptive statistics of the results (mainly summarized as a percentage per item assessed, average and
standard deviation) and in the following section, the results of the statistical tests carried out for the
validation of the hypotheses are reported and discussed.
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
The typological analysis of the respondent organizations suggests that the sample mimics and
resemble the Portuguese reality concerning business demographics. Mainly small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) operating at the product and service-oriented activity sectors answered the survey
(Figures 1and 2).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
3. Results and Discussion
This section is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results. The first sub-section
reports the social-demographical characteristics of the sample. The second sub-section presents the
descriptive statistics of the results (mainly summarized as a percentage per item assessed, average
and standard deviation) and in the following section, the results of the statistical tests carried out for
the validation of the hypotheses are reported and discussed.
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
The typological analysis of the respondent organizations suggests that the sample mimics and
resemble the Portuguese reality concerning business demographics. Mainly small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) operating at the product and service-oriented activity sectors answered the survey
(Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by activity sector.
Figure 2. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by dimension (Nº of employees).
A considerable number of the respondent organizations (62%) develop their business activities
that are mainly aimed at the Portuguese business market (Figure 3) and held the environmental
management system (EMS) certification over more than 4 years (Figure 4).
Figure 1. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by activity sector.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
3. Results and Discussion
This section is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results. The first sub-section
reports the social-demographical characteristics of the sample. The second sub-section presents the
descriptive statistics of the results (mainly summarized as a percentage per item assessed, average
and standard deviation) and in the following section, the results of the statistical tests carried out for
the validation of the hypotheses are reported and discussed.
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
The typological analysis of the respondent organizations suggests that the sample mimics and
resemble the Portuguese reality concerning business demographics. Mainly small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) operating at the product and service-oriented activity sectors answered the survey
(Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by activity sector.
Figure 2. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by dimension (Nº of employees).
A considerable number of the respondent organizations (62%) develop their business activities
that are mainly aimed at the Portuguese business market (Figure 3) and held the environmental
management system (EMS) certification over more than 4 years (Figure 4).
Figure 2. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by dimension (Nº of employees).
A considerable number of the respondent organizations (62%) develop their business activities
that are mainly aimed at the Portuguese business market (Figure 3) and held the environmental
management system (EMS) certification over more than 4 years (Figure 4).
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 6 of 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
Figure 3. International business orientation.
Figure 4. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by EMS maturity (years).
When the survey was completed online, around three quarters of the respondent organizations
had not transitioned to the 2015 revision (Figure 5) due to lack of time and mandatory study and
analysis of the novel requirements (Figure 6). However, the majority of the respondent organizations
(97%) intend to proceed with the transition before the three-year transition period, with essentially
the majority of the organizations expecting to have transitioned by 15
th
September 2018 (Figure 7). In
addition to the major reasons pointed out previously, those organizations that did not proceeded
with the transition point out some difficulties in understanding and implementing some
requirements and the ascribed costs inherent to the transition process.
Figure 5. Surveyed organizations- Breakdown by transition to 2015 version.
Figure 3. International business orientation.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
Figure 3. International business orientation.
Figure 4. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by EMS maturity (years).
When the survey was completed online, around three quarters of the respondent organizations
had not transitioned to the 2015 revision (Figure 5) due to lack of time and mandatory study and
analysis of the novel requirements (Figure 6). However, the majority of the respondent organizations
(97%) intend to proceed with the transition before the three-year transition period, with essentially
the majority of the organizations expecting to have transitioned by 15
th
September 2018 (Figure 7). In
addition to the major reasons pointed out previously, those organizations that did not proceeded
with the transition point out some difficulties in understanding and implementing some
requirements and the ascribed costs inherent to the transition process.
Figure 5. Surveyed organizations- Breakdown by transition to 2015 version.
Figure 4. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by EMS maturity (years).
When the survey was completed online, around three quarters of the respondent organizations
had not transitioned to the 2015 revision (Figure 5) due to lack of time and mandatory study and
analysis of the novel requirements (Figure 6). However, the majority of the respondent organizations
(97%) intend to proceed with the transition before the three-year transition period, with essentially
the majority of the organizations expecting to have transitioned by 15
th
September 2018 (Figure 7).
In addition to the major reasons pointed out previously, those organizations that did not proceeded
with the transition point out some difficulties in understanding and implementing some requirements
and the ascribed costs inherent to the transition process.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
Figure 3. International business orientation.
Figure 4. Surveyed organizations—Breakdown by EMS maturity (years).
When the survey was completed online, around three quarters of the respondent organizations
had not transitioned to the 2015 revision (Figure 5) due to lack of time and mandatory study and
analysis of the novel requirements (Figure 6). However, the majority of the respondent organizations
(97%) intend to proceed with the transition before the three-year transition period, with essentially
the majority of the organizations expecting to have transitioned by 15
th
September 2018 (Figure 7). In
addition to the major reasons pointed out previously, those organizations that did not proceeded
with the transition point out some difficulties in understanding and implementing some
requirements and the ascribed costs inherent to the transition process.
Figure 5. Surveyed organizations- Breakdown by transition to 2015 version.
Figure 5. Surveyed organizations- Breakdown by transition to 2015 version.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 7 of 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Figure 6. Reasons for not proceeding to the transition.
Figure 7. Expected date for transition.
Concerning the characterization of the individual respondent responsible for the submission of
the survey, it should be pointed out that these were mainly management system managers (Figure 8)
that held more than 11 years of experience (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Role of the respondent.
Figure 6. Reasons for not proceeding to the transition.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Figure 6. Reasons for not proceeding to the transition.
Figure 7. Expected date for transition.
Concerning the characterization of the individual respondent responsible for the submission of
the survey, it should be pointed out that these were mainly management system managers (Figure 8)
that held more than 11 years of experience (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Role of the respondent.
Figure 7. Expected date for transition.
Concerning the characterization of the individual respondent responsible for the submission of
the survey, it should be pointed out that these were mainly management system managers (Figure 8)
that held more than 11 years of experience (Figure 9).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Figure 6. Reasons for not proceeding to the transition.
Figure 7. Expected date for transition.
Concerning the characterization of the individual respondent responsible for the submission of
the survey, it should be pointed out that these were mainly management system managers (Figure 8)
that held more than 11 years of experience (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Role of the respondent.
Figure 8. Role of the respondent.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 8 of 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
Figure 9. Experience of the respondent (years).
3.2. Summarized Results
The results suggest that no particular resource/strategy was favored over other (Figure 10) and
a considerable proportion (around 77%) of the surveyed organizations that proceeded with the
transition to the ISO 14001:2015 introduced slight adjustments to the pre-existing EMS (Figure 11).
Approximately one-third of the organizations proceeded with the transition and were supported
solely on the available internal resources. The remaining organizations reported the support of
external consultants, who carried out some training sessions focusing on the ISO 14001 new
requirements (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Resources/strategies adopted throughout the ISO 14001:2015 transition.
Figure 11. Changes introduced throughout the implementation of ISO 14001:2015 revision.
Figure 9. Experience of the respondent (years).
3.2. Summarized Results
The results suggest that no particular resource/strategy was favored over other (Figure 10) and a
considerable proportion (around 77%) of the surveyed organizations that proceeded with the transition
to the ISO 14001:2015 introduced slight adjustments to the pre-existing EMS (Figure 11). Approximately
one-third of the organizations proceeded with the transition and were supported solely on the available
internal resources. The remaining organizations reported the support of external consultants, who
carried out some training sessions focusing on the ISO 14001 new requirements (Figure 10).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
Figure 9. Experience of the respondent (years).
3.2. Summarized Results
The results suggest that no particular resource/strategy was favored over other (Figure 10) and
a considerable proportion (around 77%) of the surveyed organizations that proceeded with the
transition to the ISO 14001:2015 introduced slight adjustments to the pre-existing EMS (Figure 11).
Approximately one-third of the organizations proceeded with the transition and were supported
solely on the available internal resources. The remaining organizations reported the support of
external consultants, who carried out some training sessions focusing on the ISO 14001 new
requirements (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Resources/strategies adopted throughout the ISO 14001:2015 transition.
Figure 11. Changes introduced throughout the implementation of ISO 14001:2015 revision.
Figure 10. Resources/strategies adopted throughout the ISO 14001:2015 transition.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
Figure 9. Experience of the respondent (years).
3.2. Summarized Results
The results suggest that no particular resource/strategy was favored over other (Figure 10) and
a considerable proportion (around 77%) of the surveyed organizations that proceeded with the
transition to the ISO 14001:2015 introduced slight adjustments to the pre-existing EMS (Figure 11).
Approximately one-third of the organizations proceeded with the transition and were supported
solely on the available internal resources. The remaining organizations reported the support of
external consultants, who carried out some training sessions focusing on the ISO 14001 new
requirements (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Resources/strategies adopted throughout the ISO 14001:2015 transition.
Figure 11. Changes introduced throughout the implementation of ISO 14001:2015 revision.
Figure 11. Changes introduced throughout the implementation of ISO 14001:2015 revision.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 9 of 16
Concerning the difficulties faced by the organizations (Figure 12) when implementing the new
revision requirements, approximately one-quarter of the respondents pointed out the implementation
of the life cycle perspective. Other noticeable items pointed out were: “risk management approach”,
“context–environmental conditions” and “determining results of EMS”. Regarding the most useful
concepts, nearly one-fifth of the companies found the determination of risks and opportunities, the life
cycle perspective and the mapping of the context of the organization the most relevant added values
(Figure 13).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
Concerning the difficulties faced by the organizations (Figure 12) when implementing the new
revision requirements, approximately one-quarter of the respondents pointed out the
implementation of the life cycle perspective. Other noticeable items pointed out were: “risk
management approach”, “context–environmental conditions” and “determining results of EMS”.
Regarding the most useful concepts, nearly one-fifth of the companies found the determination
of risks and opportunities, the life cycle perspective and the mapping of the context of the org
Figure 12. Difficulties faced throughout the transition.
Figure 13. Most useful concepts throughout the transition.
Concurrently, those organizations that did not yet proceeded with the transition expect the
implementation of “life cycle perspective” requirement as the one which will present most
challenges. Other difficulties pointed out by organizations include the “determination of risks and
Figure 12. Difficulties faced throughout the transition.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16
Concerning the difficulties faced by the organizations (Figure 12) when implementing the new
revision requirements, approximately one-quarter of the respondents pointed out the
implementation of the life cycle perspective. Other noticeable items pointed out were: “risk
management approach”, “context–environmental conditions” and “determining results of EMS”.
Regarding the most useful concepts, nearly one-fifth of the companies found the determination
of risks and opportunities, the life cycle perspective and the mapping of the context of the org
Figure 12. Difficulties faced throughout the transition.
Figure 13. Most useful concepts throughout the transition.
Concurrently, those organizations that did not yet proceeded with the transition expect the
implementation of “life cycle perspective” requirement as the one which will present most
challenges. Other difficulties pointed out by organizations include the “determination of risks and
Figure 13. Most useful concepts throughout the transition.
Concurrently, those organizations that did not yet proceeded with the transition expect the
implementation of “life cycle perspective” requirement as the one which will present most challenges.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 10 of 16
Other difficulties pointed out by organizations include the “determination of risks and opportunities”,
“mapping of the context of the organization” and the assurance of the “top management involvement”
(Figure 14).
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
opportunities”, “mapping of the context of the organization” and the assurance of the “top
management involvement” (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Expected difficulties throughout the transition.
Table 2 presents the items assessed by variable 3.2.6—Benefits from the implementation of the
new requirements of the ISO 14001: 2015 edition. Figures 15 and 16 display the summarized results
(average and standard deviation). The highest rated benefit pointed out by the surveyed
organizations was the “integrated approach with other management sub-systems
(Num_Var_3.2.6g)” and the small standard deviation suggests that this is a well consolidated
perception from the surveyed organizations. This result is consistent with one of the purposes of the
new revision: to improve the compatibility of the standards supported on the Annex SL. Furthermore,
one should point out the benefits of “alignment with business strategy (Num_Var_3.2.6a)”,
“improved top management commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” and “improved internal and external
communication (Num_Var_3.2.6c)”. The lowest rated benefit perceived by the organizations was
“less prescriptive requirements and documentation (Num_Var_3.2.6d)”. The benefit of “improved
top management commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” presented the greatest standard deviation (Figure
16), suggesting that it is not perceived consistently among the surveyed organizations.
Figure 15. Benefits from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation—Average.
Figure 14. Expected difficulties throughout the transition.
Table 2presents the items assessed by variable 3.2.6—Benefits from the implementation of
the new requirements of the ISO 14001: 2015 edition. Figures 15 and 16 display the summarized
results (average and standard deviation). The highest rated benefit pointed out by the surveyed
organizations was the “integrated approach with other management sub-systems (Num_Var_3.2.6g)”
and the small standard deviation suggests that this is a well consolidated perception from the
surveyed organizations. This result is consistent with one of the purposes of the new revision:
to improve the compatibility of the standards supported on the Annex SL. Furthermore, one should
point out the benefits of “alignment with business strategy (Num_Var_3.2.6a)”, “improved top
management commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” and “improved internal and external communication
(Num_Var_3.2.6c)”. The lowest rated benefit perceived by the organizations was “less prescriptive
requirements and documentation (Num_Var_3.2.6d)”. The benefit of “improved top management
commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” presented the greatest standard deviation (Figure 16), suggesting
that it is not perceived consistently among the surveyed organizations.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
opportunities”, “mapping of the context of the organization” and the assurance of the “top
management involvement” (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Expected difficulties throughout the transition.
Table 2 presents the items assessed by variable 3.2.6—Benefits from the implementation of the
new requirements of the ISO 14001: 2015 edition. Figures 15 and 16 display the summarized results
(average and standard deviation). The highest rated benefit pointed out by the surveyed
organizations was the “integrated approach with other management sub-systems
(Num_Var_3.2.6g)” and the small standard deviation suggests that this is a well consolidated
perception from the surveyed organizations. This result is consistent with one of the purposes of the
new revision: to improve the compatibility of the standards supported on the Annex SL. Furthermore,
one should point out the benefits of “alignment with business strategy (Num_Var_3.2.6a)”,
“improved top management commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” and “improved internal and external
communication (Num_Var_3.2.6c)”. The lowest rated benefit perceived by the organizations was
“less prescriptive requirements and documentation (Num_Var_3.2.6d)”. The benefit of “improved
top management commitment (Num_Var_3.2.6b)” presented the greatest standard deviation (Figure
16), suggesting that it is not perceived consistently among the surveyed organizations.
Figure 15. Benefits from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation—Average.
Figure 15. Benefits from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation—Average.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 11 of 16
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
Figure 16. Benefits from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation—Standard deviation.
Table 2. Assessment of the benefits from the implementation of ISO 14001:2015.
Var_ID Item Assessed Observations
Num_Var_3.2.6a Alignment with business strategy.
(1) Not relevant
(2) …
(3) …
(4) …
(5) Very relevant
Num_Var_3.2.6b Improved top management commitment.
Num_Var_3.2.6c Improved internal and external communication.
Num_Var_3.2.6d Less prescriptive requirements and documentation.
Num_Var_3.2.6e Consumption and cost reduction.
Num_Var_3.2.6f Improved environmental performance.
Num_Var_3.2.6g Integrated approach with other management sub-systems.
3.3. Statistical Tests
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and the Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests were used to evaluate the
normality of the distribution of the results collected (Table 3) and decide the tests to be used for the
research questions. The statistical tests show that the results did not have normal distribution (Sigma
≤ 0.05) and therefore, the Kruskal–Wallis statistical test was used to ascertain and validate the
statistical hypotheses formulated.
Table 3. Normality tests (Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk).
Kolmogorov
–
Smirnov
a
Shapiro–Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Num_Var_3.3.4a 0.224 75 0.000 0.898 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4b 0.315 75 0.000 0.721 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4c 0.296 75 0.000 0.772 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4d 0.296 75 0.000 0.815 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.2.6a 0.298 27 0.000 0.839 27 0.001
Num_Var_3.2.6b 0.272 27 0.000 0.865 27 0.002
Num_Var_3.2.6c 0.240 27 0.000 0.872 27 0.003
Num_Var_3.2.6d 0.248 27 0.000 0.872 27 0.003
Num_Var_3.2.6e 0.272 27 0.000 0.856 27 0.002
Num_Var_3.2.6f 0.231 27 0.001 0.890 27 0.008
Num_Var_3.2.6g 0.268 27 0.000 0.783 27 0.000
Num_Var_3.2.6h 0.216 27 0.002 0.850 27 0.001
Num_Var_7.1 0.210 87 0.000 0.915 87 0.000
a
Lilliefors Significance Correction.
Figure 16. Benefits from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation—Standard deviation.
Table 2. Assessment of the benefits from the implementation of ISO 14001:2015.
Var_ID Item Assessed Observations
Num_Var_3.2.6a Alignment with business strategy.
Num_Var_3.2.6b Improved top management commitment. (1) Not relevant
Num_Var_3.2.6c Improved internal and external communication. (2) . . .
Num_Var_3.2.6d Less prescriptive requirements and documentation. (3) . . .
Num_Var_3.2.6e Consumption and cost reduction. (4) . ..
Num_Var_3.2.6f Improved environmental performance. (5) Very relevant
Num_Var_3.2.6g Integrated approach with other management sub-systems.
3.3. Statistical Tests
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov and the Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests were used to evaluate the
normality of the distribution of the results collected (Table 3) and decide the tests to be used for
the research questions. The statistical tests show that the results did not have normal distribution
(Sigma
≤
0.05) and therefore, the Kruskal–Wallis statistical test was used to ascertain and validate the
statistical hypotheses formulated.
Table 3. Normality tests (Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk).
Kolmogorov–Smirnov aShapiro–Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Num_Var_3.3.4a 0.224 75 0.000 0.898 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4b 0.315 75 0.000 0.721 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4c 0.296 75 0.000 0.772 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.3.4d 0.296 75 0.000 0.815 75 0.000
Num_Var_3.2.6a 0.298 27 0.000 0.839 27 0.001
Num_Var_3.2.6b 0.272 27 0.000 0.865 27 0.002
Num_Var_3.2.6c 0.240 27 0.000 0.872 27 0.003
Num_Var_3.2.6d 0.248 27 0.000 0.872 27 0.003
Num_Var_3.2.6e 0.272 27 0.000 0.856 27 0.002
Num_Var_3.2.6f 0.231 27 0.001 0.890 27 0.008
Num_Var_3.2.6g 0.268 27 0.000 0.783 27 0.000
Num_Var_3.2.6h 0.216 27 0.002 0.850 27 0.001
Num_Var_7.1 0.210 87 0.000 0.915 87 0.000
aLilliefors Significance Correction.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 12 of 16
Tables 4and 5present the results from the Kruskal–Wallis statistical test (Asymptotic Sigma).
The results (Table 4) suggest that the benefits of “Num_Var_3.2.6a—alignment with business strategy”,
“Num_Var_3.2.6b—increased commitment from Top Management” and “Num_Var_3.2.6f—improved
environmental performance” are strongly influenced by the size of the organization (N
◦
of employees)
(p< 0.1). Essentially, the alignment with business strategy seems to be perceived mainly by
medium- and large-sized organizations, while the increased commitment from Top Management and
improved environmental performance are mainly perceived by small- and medium-sized organizations.
Moreover, the perception regarding the benefit of “Num_Var_3.2.6d—less prescriptive requirements
and documentation” seems to be dependent on the international exposure of the company to the
international market as companies operating mainly in the internal market rate this benefit higher.
Table 4. Benefits from the implementation of ISO 14001:2015 (SPSS Kruskal–Wallis test outputs).
Tested Variable
Var_3.2.6a Var_3.2.6b Var_3.2.6c Var_3.2.6d Var_3.2.6e Var_3.2.6f Var_3.2.6g
Grouping
Variable
Var_1.1 0.432 0.555 0.727 0.254 0.313 0.375 0.390
Var_1.2 0.066 * 0.078 * 0.263 0.537 0.264 0.061 * 0.239
Var_1.3 0.965 0.185 0.584 0.067 * 0.167 0.197 0.922
Var_2.1.1 0.336 0.044 ** 0.451 0.014 ** 0.029 ** 0.024 ** 0.955
Var_3.1.1 0.179 0.132 0.306 0.272 0.225 0.218 0.545
Var_9.1 0.248 0.868 0.865 0.351 0.375 0.386 0.478
Var_9.2 0.736 0.589 0.339 0.531 0.869 0.782 0.685
* Statistically relevant at p< 0.1; ** Statistically relevant at p< 0.05.
More robust results were achieved when testing the variable of “Num_Var_7.1—internal or
external motivations” to proceed with certification (Table 5). The results suggest that none of the
grouping variables impact significantly on the overall results as the differences within the different
sub-groups comprising each grouping variable are not statistically relevant. This consistency within
the results point out that there is not a peculiar company profile that is compelled to certify their
management sub-systems based on a peculiar type of motivation (Internal or External), which is
consistent with the generic approach of the meta-standards.
Table 5. Motivations for certification (SPSS Kruskal–Wallis test outputs).
Tested Variable
Var_7.1
Grouping Variable
Var_1.1 0.203
Var_1.2 0.962
Var_1.3 0.507
Var_2.1.1 0.299
Var_3.1.1 0.529
Var_9.1 0.356
Var_9.2 0.102
* Statistically relevant at p< 0.1; ** Statistically relevant at p< 0.05.
Table 6summarizes the validation of the several research hypotheses raised and pertinent to
this research.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 13 of 16
Table 6. Validity of the research hypotheses.
Dimension Research Hypotheses Validity Comment
Assessment of ISO
14001:2015 Benefits
H1 ×Not confirmed. activity sector where the organization operates
H2 √Confirmed. dimension of the organization (N◦of employees)
H3 √Confirmed. exposure to international markets
H5 ×Not confirmed. maturity (years) of the EMS
H6 ×Not confirmed. organizational role of the respondent
H7 ×Not confirmed. experience (years) of the respondent
Motivations
H8 ×Not confirmed. activity sector where the organization operates
H9 ×Not confirmed. dimension of the organization (N◦of employees)
H10 ×Not confirmed. exposure to international markets
H12 ×Not confirmed. maturity (years) of the EMS
H13 ×Not confirmed. organizational role of the respondent
H14 ×Not confirmed. experience (years) of the respondent
4. Conclusions
More than 75% of the surveyed organizations proceeded with the transition to the ISO 14001:2015
by introducing slight adjustments to the pre-existing EMS, 37% were supported by external consultants
and the remaining 63% proceeded with the transition solely supported on available internal resources.
ISO 14001:2015 training was also extensively promoted and carried out. By May 2017, approximately
three quarters of the respondent organizations still had not attained ISO 14001:2015 certification, which
was reportedly due to lack of time and the mandatory study and analysis of the novel requirements.
However, 97% of the organizations intended to transition by 15 September 2018.
The respondents considered that the most useful concepts of ISO 14001:2015 were the
“determination of risks and opportunities”, the “life cycle perspective” and the “mapping of the
context of the organization, which is aligned and supports the intended added value of the new ISO
14001:2015 approaches. Simultaneously, some of these concepts were also reported as the hardest
difficulties to overcome by the organizations when implementing or transitioning to the 2015 edition of
ISO 14001, which were namely the implementation of the “life cycle perspective”, “risk management
approach”, “context–environmental conditions” and “determining results of EMS”. Due to the novelty
of ISO 14001:2015 and the fact these requirements were not included in the previous ISO 14001:2014
edition, we cannot discuss these results compared to existing literature. However, these conclusions
seem to be aligned and concur with the notion that the requirements usually most difficult to comply
with are those also considered the most useful, which was expressed by Mazzi et al. [
17
] (Italian
ISO 14001:2004 certified companies). Similarly, the reported results in the current paper suggest a
correspondence between usefulness and difficulty of some EMS requirements of the ISO 14001:2015.
The highest ranked benefit is “integrated approach with other management sub-systems”, which
seemingly is a well-consolidated perception from the surveyed companies (low score of the standard
deviation). This result supports one of the major ISO 14001:2015 objectives: the improvement
of the standards compatibility supported on the Annex SL. Furthermore, this is aligned with the
conclusions of Domingues et al. on the relevance of Integrated Management Systems [
32
]. “Alignment
with business strategy”, “improved top management commitment” and “improved internal and
external communication” also achieved high rankings, while the lowest rated benefit perceived by the
organizations was “less prescriptive requirements and documentation”. The benefit of “improved top
management commitment” (due to its high standard deviation) is not perceived consistently by all the
surveyed companies.
The results from this research highlight that the perception of some achieved ISO 14001:2015
certification benefits varies according to the organization size. The alignment with business strategy
seems to be perceived mainly by medium- and large-sized organizations, whereas the increased
commitment from Top Management and improved environmental performance are mainly perceived
by small- and medium-sized organizations. Small organizations are usually considered to be more
flexible, but less formal and strategic than larger organizations, which might explain these results.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 14 of 16
Moreover, medium- and large-sized organizations are more pressured by higher stakeholder scrutiny
and therefore, are more accustomed to performance measurement.
Concerning the “internal or external motivations” for proceeding with certification, the results
indicate that the differences due to activity sector, organizational dimension, exposure to international
markets, the maturity of the EMS and the respondent profile are not statistically relevant. This suggests
that there is no specific company profile that is compelled to certify their EMS based on a specific
type of motivation (Internal or External), which is consistent with the generic approach of the ISO
international meta-standards.
In summary, the results of the statistical analysis highly that in May 2017, only one-quarter of
ISO 14001 certified Portuguese organizations had successfully proceeded with the ISO 14001:2015
transition, although 97% of the companies intended to transition by 15
th
September 2018. The results
show that surveyed organizations benefited from the ISO 14001:2015 implementation and the adoption
of the new and reinforced requirements, such as determination of risks and opportunities; the mapping
of the organizational context and stakeholder identification; and the adoption of the life cycle
perspective. Such benefits enhance the environmental performance of the organization and improve
the compatibility with other management system standards, such as ISO 9001. According to the
statistical tests, the perception of some achieved ISO 14001:2015 certification benefits varies with
the size of the organization, whereas the motivation to proceed with certification is independent of
organization profile.
These results are valuable for managers and practitioners as they identify the ISO 14001:2015
transition strategies, the most useful requirements and the major obstacles to be overcome as well
as pointing out priorities to successfully achieve the transition and maximize the benefits of ISO
14001:2015 adoption. Another interesting conclusion is the relevance of the training made available to
the employees (addressing the novel ISO 14001:2015) and the use of external consultants for supporting
the transition process. This is consistent with the conclusions of previous research that stressed the
importance and criticality of the knowledge of environmental impacts and the need for training and
consulting to overcome the difficulties in implementing an EMS [21].
Concerning the limitations of this research, although it addresses a wide range of activity sectors,
it is restricted to ISO 14001 certified organizations in Portugal. Additionally, our research suffers
from the limitations of the survey methodologies and the potential subjective and biased point of
view from the respondents. The analysis of the survey results suggests that it matches (i.e., properly
represents) the population, since the distribution of the companies’ sample profile is consistent with
the population. “Wave analysis” was also adopted to compare the results from late respondents and
early respondents [
33
], with the results showing no significant differences. Thus, this means that there
is a minimal possible error from non-respondent bias.
As ISO 14001:2015 implementation is still in the early phase, these exploratory results should be
subject to further research confirmation, preferably with a larger sample size and eventually assessing
the maturity level attained by the resulting integrated management system [
32
]. It should be interesting
to explore the differences between ISO 14001:2015 and ISO 14001:2004 pros and cons, considering
different organizations’ sizes, sectors and EMS maturity. The assessment of the environmental
outcomes (benefits) of ISO 14001:2015 EMS, its integration with other management systems and
the extension of this research to other countries would be also desirable for assessing the possible
generalization of these findings.
Acknowledgments:
Authors would like to thank all the organizations that kindly answered the questionnaire
and to APCER. CIDEM, R&D unit is funded by the FCT—Portuguese Foundation for the Development
of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science, Technology, and Higher Education, under the Project
UID/EMS/0615/2016. Pedro Domingues benefited from financial support through the FCT post-doc research
grant No. SFRH/BPD/103322/2014.
Author Contributions:
The manuscript was written by Luis Miguel Fonseca and JoséPedro Domingues.
Both authors contributed to the study design and the results interpretation, having approved the final manuscript.
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 15 of 16
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
International Organization for Standardization. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard
Certifications—Executive Summary. 2017. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_survey_executive-
summary.pdf? (accessed on 3 May 2016).
2.
Da Fonseca, L.M.C.M. ISO 14001: 2015: An improved tool for sustainability. J. Ind. Eng. Manag.
2015
,8,
37–50. [CrossRef]
3.
ISO 14001:2015. Environmental Management System: Requirements with Guidance for Use; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
4. Abarca, D. Implementing ISO 9000 & ISO 14001 concurrently. Pollut. Eng. 1988,30, 46–48.
5.
Corbett, C.J.; Kirsch, D.A. International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification. Prod. Operat. Manag.
2001
,10,
327–342. [CrossRef]
6.
Curkovic, S.; Sroufe, R. Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chain strategy. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2010,20, 71–93. [CrossRef]
7. Darnall, N. Why firms mandate ISO 14001 certification. Bus. Soc. 2006,45, 354–382. [CrossRef]
8.
Chiarini, A. Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes using specific Lean Production tools:
An empirical observation from European motorcycle component manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod.
2014
,
85, 226–233. [CrossRef]
9.
Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J.
2000
,43,
717–736. [CrossRef]
10.
Chiarini, A. Strategies for Developing an Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain: Differences Between
Manufacturing and Service Sectors. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2014,23, 493–504. [CrossRef]
11.
Uchida, T.; Ferraro, P.J. Voluntary development of environmental management systems: Motivations and
regulatory implications. J. Regul. Econ. 2007,32, 37–65. [CrossRef]
12.
King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J.; Terlaak, A.K. The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification
with the ISO 14001 management standard. Acad. Manag. J. 2005,48, 1091–1106. [CrossRef]
13.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Landin, G.A. Do drivers matter for the benefits of ISO 14001? Int. J. Operat.
Prod. Manag. 2011,31, 192–215. [CrossRef]
14.
Poksinska, B.; Dahlgaard, J.; Eklund, J. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: Motives, benefits and
comparisons with ISO 9000. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2003,20, 585–606. [CrossRef]
15.
Boiral, O.; Henri, J.F. Modelling the impact of ISO 14001 on environmental performance: A comparative
approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2012,99, 84–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Tarí, J.J.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Heras, I. Benefits of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards: A literature review.
J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2012,5, 297–322. [CrossRef]
17.
Mazzi, A.; Toniolo, S.; Mason, M.; Aguiari, F.; Scipioni, A. What are the benefits and difficulties in adopting
an environmental management system? The opinion of Italian organizations. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,139, 873–885.
[CrossRef]
18.
Murmura, F.; Liberatore, L.; Bravi, L.; Casolani, N. Evaluation of Italian Companies’ Perception about ISO
14001 and Eco’Management and Audit Scheme III: Motivations, Benefits and Barriers. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,
174, 691–700. [CrossRef]
19.
Wang, X.; Lin, H.; Weber, H. Does Adoption of Management Standards Deliver Efficiency Gain in Firms’
Pursuit of Sustainability Performance? An Empirical Investigation of Chinese Manufacturing Firms.
Sustainability 2016,8, 694. [CrossRef]
20.
Fonseca, L.M.; Domingues, J.P.; Machado, P.B.; Calderón, M. Management System Certification Benefits:
Where Do We Stand? J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2017,10, 476–494. [CrossRef]
21.
Ferenhof, H.A.; Vignochi, L.; Selig, P.M.; Lezana, A.G.R.; Campos, L.M.S. Environmental management
systems in small and medium-sized enterprises: An analysis and systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014
,74,
44–53. [CrossRef]
22.
Guerrero-Baena, M.D.; Gomez-Limon, J.A.; Fruet, J.D. A multicriteria method for environmental
management system selection: An intellectual capital approach. J. Clean. Prod.
2015
,105, 428–437. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018,10, 781 16 of 16
23.
Oliveira, J.A.; Oliveira, O.J.; Ometto, A.R.; Ferraudo, A.S.; Salgado, M.H. Environmental management system
ISO14001 factors for promoting the adoption of cleaner production practices. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,133,
1384–1394. [CrossRef]
24.
Ferreira Rino, C.A.; Salvador, N.N.B. ISO 14001 certification process and reduction of environmental penalties
in organizations in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,142, 3627–3633. [CrossRef]
25.
Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Tayo Tene, C.V. Adoption and Outcomes of ISO 14001:
A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2017. [CrossRef]
26. Freeman, R. Strategic Management: A Strategic Approach; Pitman: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
27. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991,17, 99–120. [CrossRef]
28.
Meyer, J.W.; Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol.
1977,83, 340–363. [CrossRef]
29.
Fonseca, L.; Ramos, A.; Rosa, A.; Braga, A.C.; Sampaio, P. Stakeholders satisfaction and sustainable success.
Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2016,24, 144–157. [CrossRef]
30.
Tuczek, F.; Castka, P.; Wakolbinger, T. A review of management theories in the context of quality,
environmental and social responsibility voluntary standards. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,176, 399–416. [CrossRef]
31.
Fonseca, L.M. ISO 9001 quality management systems through the lens of organizational culture. Qual. Access
Success 2015,16, 54–59.
32.
Domingues, J.P.T.; Sampaio, P.; Arezes, P.M. Integrated management systems assessment: A maturity model
proposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,124, 164–174. [CrossRef]
33.
Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark.
1977
,14, 396–402S.
[CrossRef]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
