Environmental sustainability and management reform in local government: An empirical analysis

297

Policy amp Politics vol 33 no 2 bull 297ndash322 (2005)

Environmental sustainability and management reform in local government

Key words sustainability bull Best Value bull local government bull managerial reform

Environmental sustainability and managementreform in local government an empirical analysis

Gareth Enticott and Richard M Walker

Final submission 22 June 04 bull Acceptance 7 July 04

copy The Policy Press 2005 bull ISSN 0305 5736

EnglishA new stage of environmental policy making in local government has emerged asmanagerial reforms to improve the performance of local government in Englandseek to secure sustainability alongside more traditional measures such as economyefficiency and effectiveness In this article we present the first empirical test of therelationship between environmental sustainability and managerial reform using theexample of Best Value Data are drawn from a large survey of 706 officers in 102English local authorities Statistical results suggest that sustainability inspired bymanagerial reform is assisted by favourable environmental attitudes and the presenceof strong corporate values but is frustrated by poor integration and departmentalcultures towards sustainability An agenda of further research is offered in conclusion

FranccedilaisUne nouvelle phase de deacutecisions sur lrsquoenvironnement dans lrsquoadministration localevient de se faire jour sous forme de reacuteformes de direction pour ameacuteliorer laperformance de lrsquoadministration locale en Angleterre Ces deacutecisions cherchent agraveassurer la durabiliteacute en mecircme temps que les mesures traditionnelles commelrsquoeacuteconomie lrsquoefficience et lrsquoefficaciteacute Dans cet article nous preacutesentons le premiertest empirique du rapport entre la durabiliteacute dans lrsquoenvironnement et la reacuteforme dedirection en nous basant sur lrsquoexemple de Best Value Les donneacutees proviennent drsquoungrand sondage N aupregraves de 706 officiels dans 102 collectiviteacutes locales en AngleterreLes reacutesultats statistiques indiquent que la durabiliteacute susciteacutee par la reacuteforme dedirection est aideacutee par des attitudes favorables agrave lrsquoenvironnement et la preacutesence defortes valeurs corporatives mais est contrarieacutee par les cultures drsquointeacutegration et dedeacutepartement insuffisantes en ce qui concerne la durabiliteacute Un projet de recherchessuppleacutementaires est proposeacute en conclusion

EspantildeolHa surgido una nueva etapa en la elaboracioacuten de la poliacutetica a seguir del medio ambienteen el gobierno municipal como reformas administrativas para mejorar el rendimientodel gobierno municipal en Inglaterra que busca asegurar su mantenimiento junto amedidas maacutes tradicionales tales como econoacutemicas eficientes y efectivas En esteartiacuteculo presentamos la primera prueba empiacuterica de la relacioacuten entre la sustentacioacutendel medio ambiente y la reforma administrativa usando el ejemplo del Mejor ValorLos datos se recogen de una amplia encuesta N de 706 oficiales en 102 autoridadesmunicipales inglesas Los resultados estadiacutesticos sugieren que el mantenimientoinspirado por reforma administrativa estaacute asistido por unas actitudes de integracioacutenfavorables y la presencia de fuertes valores corporativos pero se frustran por la pocaintegracioacuten y culturas departamentales hacia el mantenimiento Se ofrece una agendacon mayor investigacioacuten como conclusioacuten


298 Gareth Enticott and Richard M Walker

Introduction

In recent years the sustainability lsquotoolboxrsquo has become increasing cramped Amounting range of techniques offering competing technocratic deliberative andintegrative methodologies has evolved to assist government agencies to developand implement sustainable policies Which of these techniques offers the best routeto sustainability has been the subject of intense debate For example whiletechnocratic audits indicators and assessment techniques may provide lsquoobjectiversquoways of evaluating policy options they have been criticised for promoting anexclusive lsquoanalytical arms racersquo (Owens and Cowell 2002) Instead deliberativeand inclusive participative models have been proposed through which the radicalinstitutional reforms required to make sustainability work can be made (Grove-White 1997)

However arguments over the lsquobest toolsrsquo to implement sustainability may maskthe real reasons why these methodologies whatever they are often fail to deliverInstead Owens and Cowell (2002 70) have suggested that their failure is linked tothe ways these tools ldquobecome bound into power struggles in which conceptions ofwhat is sustainable are actively constructed and negotiatedrdquo The successful translationof normative sustainability goals associated with these techniques therefore becomesdependent on the ldquoarrangement of actors opportunities and constraints in anygiven settingrdquo (Owens and Cowell 2002 70) In this way the notions of sustainabledevelopment that emerge from these associations are not necessarily those envisagedby policy makers so that successful implementation is unevenly distributedthroughout local authorities (Selman 1996 Gibbs et al 1998) Thus no assessmentof sustainable methodologies ldquois likely to be adequate if it is divorced fromfundamental questions of agency and leverage over the political systemrdquo (Owensand Cowell 2002 70)

Investigations of important changes to the methods local governments use topursue local sustainability would therefore do well to start with analyses of thecircumstances in which these techniques might exert leverage towards promotingit The introduction of the lsquoBest Valuersquo regime represents one such policy changewithin local government It brings together a technocratic toolkit ndash performanceindicators inspection and tightly focused performance management reviewprocedures as well as promoting participation (eg customer consultation) andintegrative mechanisms (eg cross-cutting working) The aim is to provoke managerialreforms aimed at improving performance but also integrating sustainability morefirmly throughout local authorities The significance of Best Value in the Labourgovernmentrsquos overall agenda for modernising public services its use of morepowerful sticks and carrots compared with other environmental initiatives (eg LocalAgenda 21) and its bundling of sustainability with managerial reform mean that itrepresents a significant break with traditional methods of delivery sustainability Itis therefore a unique case with which to analyse the circumstances in whichtechnocratic regimes function as mechanisms for achieving change in complexand politicised environments

This article examines the relationship between the Best Value regime andsustainability referred to in the article as Best Value Sustainability (BVS) In particularwe seek to identify how and in what circumstances Best Value delivers sustainable

299



development Crucial questions the article addresses are therefore what are thebarriers and drivers facing Best Valuersquos sustainability toolkit In what circumstancesdo local authorities find themselves more able to use these techniques to provideenvironmental benefits and promote a greening of organisational cultures and howdoes this vary across the services they provide To answer these questions thearticle adopts a methodological approach rarely used in studies of sustainabilityTypically these analyses have relied on case study methods In this article howeverfindings are generated from statistical analysis of a large (n=1198) multiplerespondent survey in 102 English local authorities This method allows for a morecomprehensive and rigorous empirical search for answers to these questions thanwould otherwise be possible

The article is structured as follows it begins by taking a closer look at the newpolicy context before reviewing the extant literature from the private and publicsector on barriers and enablers of lsquoorganisational greeningrsquo Next methods arediscussed and results presented Conclusions suggest the techniques behind BestValue are frustrated on a number of fronts particularly through the presence ofstagnant organisational cultures

Policy context Best Value and sustainability

A new era of local government sustainability arguably began with the election ofthe 1997 Labour government The 1999 Local Government Act phased out theregime of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) in favour of a new series ofpublic service improvement initiatives under a programme of local governmentmodernisation In many respects these reforms were specific responses to priorpractical and ideological shortcomings which restricted local authoritiesrsquo abilityto implement sustainability denying them resources and the capacity to introduceinitiatives such as Local Agenda 21 (LA21) (Patterson and Theobald 1996 Entwistleand Laffin 2005) Significantly these reforms attempted to combine widermanagerial reforms such as enhanced integration and holistic problem solvingwith a core priority of delivering sustainable development

The Best Value regime was a fundamental policy in this improvement agendaThe regime displays two sustainability characteristics First achieving sustainabledevelopment was seen as a core objective for Best Value guidance specified that forBest Value to reach its potential it ldquowill need to give effect to the principles ofsustainable development New performance targets generated by reviews need toreflect the principles of sustainable developmentrdquo (DETR 1999 8) Second BestValue encouraged local authorities to take other sustainable concerns seriouslysuch as adopting a long-term perspective involving local people in decision makingand addressing equity concerns To meet these objectives the regime introduced asystem of corporate governance and a series of technocratic audit-style managementtools including performance indicators service reviews (Best Value reviews) andan inspection service to assess individual departmentsrsquo prospects for improvementAt the same time Best Value was clearly committed to delivering ldquoeconomyefficiency and effectivenessrdquo (DETR 1999 3) Policy guidance sought to combinethese objectives with sustainability through a more harmonious relationship in



which sustainable development was inherent to the effectiveness criteria and insistingthat sustainability was fundamental to Best Value as a whole (ODPM 2002a) Thereview process therefore extended the principles of sustainability to all local authorityservices Theoretically at least Best Value appeared to be an important and powerfultool to drive environmental performance within local government (Tuxworth2001) Its managerial reforms and technocratic toolbox provided the potential toimprint sustainability as a core objective (Bennett 1999) across all services ratherthan confine it to those departments traditionally associated with environmentalconcerns

These developments represent an important step away from previous localgovernment regulation placing their emphases on economic efficiency and market-driven solutions Managing services through markets was a central tenet ofConservative reforms of public services provided by local government in the 1980sand 1990s (Flynn 2002) Markets for social care were introduced by the 1990NHS and Community Care Act and for education through the creation of leaguetables and enhanced parental choice These and other local government reformscreated a lsquohollowed-outrsquo local state that presented considerable barriers to thedevelopment of local authority sustainability policies In this respect CCT representsa prime exemplar of these problems A fundamental objective of CCT was costcutting on the basis of awarding contracts based on the lowest tender This had theeffect of fragmenting local authority departments so that they were increasinglyunable to coordinate or implement sustainable policies (Patterson and Theobald1996) Sustainable specifications within contracts were possible but meant thecontract had less chance of succeeding as it would usually involve higher short-term costs (eg grounds maintenance Patterson and Theobald 1996 15) Meanwhilethe opportunity for CCT to benefit local suppliers and provide local jobs toexperienced employees with local knowledge was lost as contracts becameconcentrated into the hands of a few large national and multi-national firms(Patterson and Theobald 1995)

Although these regimes have restricted sustainability compliance with othernational and European legislation has meant that some local government serviceshave managed to weave sustainability into the ways they deliver their servicesDepartments such as town planning unaffected by the provisions of CCT witnessedthe strengthening of the development plan system and policy guidance throughoutthe 1990s Along with their role in developing other sustainability initiatives likeLA21 these policy developments meant planning departments were often at theforefront of delivering sustainability Other departments were also able to link upwith sustainability issues despite being subject to CCT For example CCT imposedeconomic pressures on waste management departments which initially curtailedthe extent of environmental activities such as recycling However specific nationaland European legislation and taxation mechanisms overrode these concerns suchthat promotion of recycling became unavoidable (Entwistle 1998) Similarly housingservices despite being subject to CCT have assumed a critical role in meetingsustainability through their role in promoting social inclusion community cohesionhealth and energy efficiency requirements (Housing Corporation 2003)

The legacy of these prior regimes means that when it comes to implementingsustainability Best Value may stimulate two different reactions First for those services

301



that have traditionally delivered sustainability through compliance with legislation(ie planning waste management housing) Best Value offers a methodology forkeeping these existing sustainable policies (eg recycling) under review and searchingfor potential improvements in delivering these services Second for those servicessubject to market regulations or the economic pressures of CCT meaning theyhave not traditionally delivered sustainability (eg benefits and revenues educationand social services) Best Value potentially allows them to develop lsquobeyondcompliancersquo innovations (Sapat 2004) that integrate sustainability within theirworking practices through the review process Examples from early Best Valuereviews reveal that procurement is one area that these services can look to implementsustainability Managers within education and social services departments may lookto use local suppliers for their school and day care meals In doing so authoritiessuch as Carmarthenshire County Council have sought to promote an efficient andquality-led service while contributing to sustainability by stimulating localeconomies reducing lsquofood milesrsquo and promoting healthier diets (Morgan and Morley2003) Best Value reviews within these services may also highlight how existingworking practices impact on aspects of sustainability For example in Bath UnitaryAuthority and Cornwall County Council Best Value reviews have looked at waysin which they can reduce the distances residents travel to services like social careand benefits By reducing lsquotravel to carersquo miles or enhancing mobile services (eglibraries) these services can help to reduce pollution and also improve the qualityof life of residents with limited mobility and lower incomes Equally the sameservices can use Best Value to examine how recycling can be worked into currentworking practices Thus Cornwallrsquos social services Best Value review looked athow sensory loss equipment is recycled Similar reviews may also be undertakenby the corporate centre as part of an authority-wide cross-cutting procurementreview

However while these examples highlight Best Valuersquos sustainability potential theextent to which it can evade barriers that have traditionally faced environmentalreforms is unclear To begin with existing European legislation may continue toobstruct local procurement plans (Morgan and Morley 2002) Competing objectiveswithin Best Value and the lack of incentives for sustainability (Bennett 1999) mayalso serve to undermine any optimism One pitfall lies in the extent to which itsmantra of lsquoeconomy effectiveness and efficiencyrsquo ends up directly competing withsustainability Such conflicts invariably result in confusion over the meanings ofsustainability (Gibbs et al 1998) and highlight tensions between managerialapproaches to the environment and more radical ecological approaches (Dobson2000) The danger is that in mobilising a version of sustainability left open tomultiple and negotiated interpretations the impact of Best Value on sustainabilitywill be highly uneven Indeed concern over Best Valuersquos flexible qualities has beenexpressed in relation to other dimensions of the regime For example Geddes andMartin (2000) argue that the absence of an implementation lsquoblueprintrsquo leaves localauthorities themselves to wrestle with its conflicting emphases Thus the generalexperiences of those authorities that piloted Best Value revealed ldquoa highlydifferentiated pattern in which there is a variety of approaches each of which canbe seen as conforming at least in part to an ambiguous and paradoxical nationalframework of regulationrdquo (Geddes and Martin 2000 392)



Traditional concerns for continual improvement in economic efficiency maytherefore render sustainability concerns a side issue Alternatively Best Value mayfind itself combining with sustainability only where local authoritiesrsquo or particularservicesrsquo core values or lsquogenetic codesrsquo (Broadbent and Laughlin 1998) are alreadypredisposed to it Indeed early analyses of the impact of Best Value reveal onlypatchy and superficial progress (CAG Consultants and INLOGOV 2001) partlyattributable to the lack of resources advice and leadership

These crosscurrents suggest that sustainability is an unstable concept within BestValue its status lacks prescription and only emerges from internal and externalnegotiations Moreover different aspects of sustainability are likely to affect differentdepartments according to prior legislation and commitments to sustainability Assuch Best Valuersquos impact within public organisations is dependent on the range ofactors services constraints and opportunities that become associated with BestValue in every authority The remainder of the article focuses in on those actorsand associations in order to flesh out the potential opportunities and barriers theBest Value toolkit faces in promoting sustainability

Barriers and enablers to organisational greening

The adoption of sustainable working and service delivery practices by anyorganisation is the culmination of the processes of lsquoorganisational greeningrsquo Whatthese processes are and why they have been able to make a difference is howeveroften less clear and likely to vary between organisations Moreover studies oforganisational greening in the public and private sector vary in focus Within theprivate sector the concept of organisational culture is often mobilised as a keydeterminant Meanwhile public sector studies often focus on the implementationof specific environmental policies with the expectation that these themselves resultin greener public organisations Nevertheless some commonality in theoreticalapproaches can be detected most notably in relation to the role of internal andexternal stakeholders

Private sector studies suggest that organisational greening is dependent on greenculture change within organisations (Post and Altman 1994 Welford 1995) Whilepressures to adopt environmental working practices may come from various sourcesthis literature holds that ldquoorganisational actions will need to go beyond technicalfixes and embrace new environmentally responsible values beliefs and behavioursrdquo(Harris and Crane 2002 214ndash15) for any progress to be made As such environmentregulations and the technical management tools that accompany them may bemerely bolting on a lsquofalse consciousnessrsquo of a lsquogreen tingersquo (Smith 1993 9) whichis highly unlikely to provide the required substantial shifts in the belief systems andvalues by key organisational actors (Shrivastava 1995 Fineman 1997) Similarlythe process of organisational lsquodecouplingrsquo (setting up compartmentalisedorganisational units) is a strategy frequently adopted to meet external regulationwhile allowing existing organisational culture to remain largely unchanged(Ashworth et al 2002)

The development of organisational green cultures can be the result of pressurefrom different actors Stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984) argues that the activities

303



of an organisationrsquos stakeholders are key determinants in changing an organisationrsquossocietal relationships and responsibilities It therefore demonstrates howorganisational structures vary according to the pressures of various stakeholdersEnvironmental concerns are particularly likely to emanate from internal(shareholders management and employees) and external (regulators the publicand suppliers) stakeholders Responding to these pressures develops legitimacy inthe eyes of affected stakeholders (Henriques and Sadorsky 1995) For exampleGreening (1992) argues that media and interest groups are important lsquoconstrainingrsquostakeholders in prompting structural changes but these pressures will affect differentorganisations according to managersrsquo views of the role of the private sector withinsociety (cf Miles 1987)

To integrate these green cultures effectively Hoffman (1993) suggests that acultural fix model can be employed which would lead to a cascading ofenvironmental values from top managers to frontline employees He argues thatwhere managers adopt new green cultures employee satisfaction will fall amongstaff with opposing values and who will eventually be replaced by managers whoare more in tune However evidence suggests that the transition to greenorganisational cultures is by no means unproblematic often only achieving modestcultural changes or the swallowing up of environmental values by existing culturalcertainties (Harris and Crane 2002) Managers are crucial actors in this process butthe assumption that they can effectively shape organisational culture is questionedby those who see them as the most effective gatekeepers to organisational greening(Fineman 1997 Newton and Harte 1997) Indeed managers are formidableobstacles in organisational greening ensuring that green cultures ldquorun unevenlythroughout an organisation more a series of swirls or ebbs and flows of mutualinterest and directionrdquo (Fineman 1997 36ndash7) Equally the impact of lsquogreenchampionsrsquo is seen as limited with their message getting caught up in alternativepriorities interests and political machinations (Fineman 1997 34) These findingstherefore reveal how ldquoleaders commonly propound an idealised vision of thecompany whereas front-line personnel are more cynical and frequently experiencea fragmented viewrdquo (Harris and Crane 2002 228)

Analyses of organisational greening within the public sector have tended tofocus on the implementation of specific policies However the translation of centralgovernment policy directives by local governments is likely to result in unevenpatterns of implementation (Selman 1996) In order to explain these disjuncturesperspectives similar to Freemanrsquos stakeholder theory have been deployed Forexample Cobb et alrsquos (1976 126) agenda-setting theory has been employed toexplain the incorporation of sustainability within local government by examiningldquothe ways in which different subgroups in a population become aware of andeventually participate in political conflicts whether the issues are initiated by groupsin the general public or by political leadersrdquo Four different models show howissues come to assume importance the outside and inside initiative models suggestthe importance of pressure groups and policy entrepreneurs the mobilisation modelstresses deals between politicians and external stakeholders while issues arearticulated simultaneously by groups inside and outside government in theconvergent voice model Explorations of centralndashlocal relations offered by Marshand Rhodes (1992) offer similar theoretical understandings of the policy process



Ward (1993) uses models of agenda setting to trace the development ofenvironmental plans within local government He argues that public sectororganisational greening is often the result of outside initiative In his caseenvironmental activists were crucial in forcing environmental issues onto localauthoritiesrsquo agendas as well as acting as a force for legitimacy (cf Lowe and Goyder1983) Political and managerial leadership were key factors here committee memberswith links to environmental groups acted as conduits for their concerns whilechief officers with environmental interests acted as policy entrepreneurs often withthe help of inter-authority learning networks

Analyses of LA21 also reveal the importance of green culture change toimplementing sustainable reforms The personal commitment of stakeholders isvital in driving organisational greening Lack of leadership is synonymous withdifferentiated patterns of green cultures in local government or the repacking oftraditional duties into environment jargon (Selman 1998) Moreover Voisey (1998)suggests that if this leadership does not stem from the chief executiversquos office thensustainability becomes subsumed beneath departmental cultures or worse consignedto a particular department leading to the lsquoghettoisationrsquo of sustainability Thus whileenvironmental forums and policy integration committees are easily added on tothe machinery of local government changing their institutional cultures is both aharder task but one vital for their success Meanwhile despite the efforts of LA21the lack of corporate commitment from officers and members has ensured thatsustainability remains on the margins in some authorities despite the best intentionsof others (Selman 1996) At the same time compounding barriers include a lackof finance (Peattie and Hall 1994) staff and problems reconciling the competinginterests of economic development and sustainability (Peattie and Hall 1994Patterson and Theobald 1996 Gibbs et al 1998 Vigar 2000) The politicalcomposition of local authorities is also seen to be a key barrier to organisationalgreening through LA21 where enthusiastic policy entrepreneurs have driven LA21initiatives they have had a better chance of success where the controlling councilis not Conservative (Voisey 1998)

Research hypotheses and methodology

Research hypotheses

The foregoing has suggested that Best Value potentially provides greater scopethan CCT to instigate sustainable working practices Sustainable responses to BestValue are also likely to vary between those services for whom aspects of sustainabilityhave already been constituted through environmental legislation and those forwhom CCT has constrained sustainable policies Furthermore extant studies ofprevious attempts to introduce sustainability within local government identify arange of variables that influence the greening of these organisations These includeorganisational culture managerial relationships external stakeholders and contextIn attempting to uncover the barriers and opportunities Best Value faces incontributing to organisational greening within the public sector these literaturespoint to 13 hypotheses that deserve further investigation These hypotheses can becategorised into two groups reflecting contextual barriers (social financial

305



environmental and regulative environments) and organisational barriers(organisational cultures systems and structures that affect diffusion of green beliefsand capacity to deal with change)

Of those contextual factors affecting organisational greening within the publicsector four variables stand out in previous research The first hypothesis (H1 seeTable 1) reflects findings that cost and availability of resources are key factorsdetermining the adoption of sustainability Generally organisations with greaterresources are more able to develop responses to changing socio-political trendswhile those with limited resources are constrained by technical expertise andinfluence (Arlow and Gannon 1982 Henriques and Sadorsky 1995) Within localgovernment the cost of environmental initiatives is one reason for their non-implementation (Peattie and Hall 1994 Voisey 1998) Thus we expect a positiverelationship between financial resources and attempts to integrate sustainabilityinto approaches to Best Value Second organisations with strong regulatorybackgrounds are also more likely to develop sustainable policies (Greening 1992Post and Altman 1992 Labatt 1997) A range of technical services delivered bylocal government is subject to specific environmental legislation andor policyguidance (for example the 1990 Environmental Protection Act) and regulated byinspectors Best Value extends the principles of audit and inspection to all serviceswhich may ensure that authorities take Best Valuersquos sustainability message seriously(eg Bennett 1999)

The second hypotheses (H2) therefore suggests a positive relationship betweenBVS and inspection However an opposing relationship may be equally possibleThis may be due to local authoritiesrsquo attempts at circumventing regulatoryrelationships (Ashworth et al 2002) or Best Value inspectorsrsquo attitudes towardssustainability For example Morgan and Morley (2003) show how Best Valueinspectors were critical of low productivity and competitiveness in attempts tosource school meals locally Thus while we hypothesise a positive influence frominspection prior evidence suggests that this relationship may not always hold

Hypothesis three (H3) suggests that BVS is linked to levels of socioeconomicprosperity Socioeconomic context is a key variable in explaining the behaviour ofpublic organisations (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984 Pettigrew et al 1992) Themore demanding the circumstances an organisation faces the harder it will be forit to achieve its objectives (Davies and Ferlie 1982) Economic prosperity has alsobeen associated with the adoption of management reform actions in localgovernment (Kearney et al 2000 Moon and deLeon 2001) Fourth Voisey (1998)suggests that the political control of local authorities has affected the successfulnessof LA21 initiatives LA21 initiatives are less likely to succeed in Conservative councilsHypothesis four (H4) therefore suggests that BVS will also be lower in theseauthorities

The second group of hypotheses (H5 to H13) relate to organisational factorsCultural change is vital for organisational greening but various factors can bothprevent and enhance the prospect of their developing throughout an organisationNine hypotheses can be derived from the extant literature on organisationalgreening which have particular relevance for Best Value delivering sustainabilityFirst cultural behaviours are likely to vary throughout an organisation and potentialchanges may be contested by managers holding conflicting beliefs (Harris and


306 Gareth Enticott and Richard M WalkerTa

ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307


Environmental sustainability and management reform in local governmentTa

ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r



Crane 2002) Thus a key factor determining the potential for Best Value to deliversustainability is local authority managersrsquo attitudes towards sustainability ndash thosewho do not rate it a significant objective are unlikely to use Best Value as a tool forsustainability (cf Ward 1993) Hypothesis H5 therefore suggests that BVS ispositively related to managersrsquo attitudes to environmental pressures

Organisational greening is also facilitated by effective managerial relationshipsthat can help institutionalise sustainable reforms To avoid diverse organisationalcultures strong corporate agendas that are integrated into all departments andmanagersrsquo working practices are required to avoid sustainability becoming theprovince of lsquootherrsquo departments (Voisey 1998) Hypotheses H6 and H7 thereforesuggest that where there are strong corporate values fully integrated into an authorityhigh levels of BVS will be found The next two hypotheses speculate that strongleadership is also required to hammer home the principles of sustainability or theyrisk becoming marginalised by internal politics and performance beliefs (Fineman1997) In local government two forms of leadership are important managerialleadership to drive improvement agendas (Boyne and Dahya 2002) and politicalleadership to ensure managerial ambitions are not promoted above the publicinterest (Boyne 1998) Hypotheses H8 and H9 state that managerial and politicalleadership are respectively associated with BVS Green cultures are also likely to bedeveloped as a result of frequent contact with external stakeholders (Greening1992 Post and Altman 1992 Henriques and Sadorsky 1995) Best Value itselfdemands greater consultation with the public if service improvement is to beachieved but has often been perfunctory in nature (Martin and Boaz 2000)Hypothesis H10 addresses this concern suggesting that meeting the demands ofusers in this way is synonymous with developing BVS

The final three hypotheses (H11 to H13) deal with the role of environmentalpolicy heritages in determining levels of BVS Organisations with existingenvironmental functions are associated with proactive environmental behaviour asa result of being able to draw on prior knowledge and experience (Labatt 1997)Hypotheses H11 and H12 recognise that where local authority services have alreadyimplemented sustainable working practices and where they have a record of goodenvironmental performance they are more likely to use the Best Value toolkit todevelop further sustainable outcomes However experience of sustainability is likelyto differ throughout multi-function organisations with a danger that it isconcentrated in lsquogreen ghettoesrsquo ndash departments seen as the exclusive home toenvironmental initiatives This lsquodecouplingrsquo (Ashworth et al 2002) process in whichsustainability is locked into these services therefore potentially limits the impact ofsustainability as these services are expected to deal with environmental issues whileothers believe themselves to be immune from such initiatives Our final hypothesis(H13) assesses the relationship between BVS and different groups of servicesaccording to their prior experiences of sustainability

Methodology

Typically studies of sustainability within local government have drawn on casestudies of specific environmental policies While these case studies have provided

309



useful evidence of organisational greening they either focus on a small sample ofauthorities or on examples of innovative practice (eg Selman 1998) As a resultthey fail to provide systematic data across a large number of different research sitessuch that prospects for generalisable conclusions are limited Wider survey workthat has been undertaken (eg Peattie and Hall 1994 Tuxworth 1996) has employedonly limited univariate statistical analysis Similarly case studies of public sectormanagement reforms fail to provide a broad picture of potential barriers leadingto a danger that this evidence may prove ldquoanecdotal and impressionisticrdquo (cf Kearneyet al 2000) Advanced quantitative techniques have the potential to overcomethese limitations providing a broader understanding of the processes at workHowever examples of their use in studies of sustainability within local governmentare harder to find Nevertheless they have been successfully implemented in studiesof managerial reform in the public sector (eg Moon and deLeon 2001 Walker andEnticott 2004) and organisational greening in the private sector (eg Henriquesand Sadorsky 1995 Winn and Angell 2000) successfully identifying and modellingthe effects of various barriers and enablers This article takes advantage of thesetechniques in order to provide alternative routes to explaining organisationalgreening within local authorities In this sense the article represents a first attemptto use more advanced statistical techniques to analyse sustainability within localgovernment

Data collection

Data were collected using a survey of multiple informants within English localauthorities The survey was designed to explore values actions and drivers of publicservice improvement A sample of 102 local authorities was selected to berepresentative of all English local government by current performance deprivationgeographical location and authority type Following a pilot the survey wasdistributed electronically (see Enticott 2003) to local government officers duringthe summer of 2002 Respondents were given eight weeks to reply and were sentthree reminders during the survey period

Multiple informant surveys have been popularised in studies of managerial reformas one way of accommodating the different values and actions held by managers atdifferent organisational levels (Enticott 2004 Walker and Enticott 2004) Giventhe opportunity lower-level managers have to prevent cultural change (Fineman1997) and the presence of different environmental cultures within local authorities(Selman and Parker 1999) such surveys are a necessity in analyses of organisationalgreening This analysis therefore focuses on informantsrsquo perceptions of sustainabilitywithin Best Value perceptions of drivers for improvement and perceptions oforganisational values and actions In doing so it allows a comparison of managersrsquoperceptions from different services and avoids the practical and theoretical limitationsof aggregating individual perceptions into organisational scores (Payne and Mansfield1973 James 1982)

The survey was therefore targeted at multiple respondents in a range of services(corporate services revenues and benefits leisure and culture education housingmanagement planning social services and waste management) Questionnaires



were sent to up to three corporate respondents and chief officers and 21 servicemanagers in the remaining services within each authority Taking into accountduplicated roles vacant posts and externalised services that were not included inthe survey this provided a total population of 1833 Responses were receivedfrom 1198 officers (response rate 6536) Missing values across all variables ensuredthat analysis was based on responses from 706 informants

Dependent variable

The dependent variable deployed in the study is called Best Value Sustainability(BVS) and was derived from three perceptual variables of critical stages within theBest Value process These stages included the determination of the overall approachto Best Value the review process and the implementation of action plans Eachitem was measured along a seven-point likert scale (1 = disagree 7 = agree SeeTable 1 for descriptive statistics) To assess the extent of sustainability within theoverall approach to Best Value informants were asked to indicate the extent towhich they agreed with the statement ldquoThe principles of environmentalsustainability are an important driver of our approach to Best Valuerdquo Second theextent to which sustainability featured within Best Value reviews was measured byasking respondents ldquoTo what extent did the Best Value review take into accountissues of environmental sustainabilityrdquo Third the extent to which sustainabilitywas present at the implementation stage was assessed by asking respondents toindicate the extent to which they agreed with the statement ldquoBest Value reviewsled to specific recommendations that will improve our environmental performancerdquoFactor and item analysis indicated high factor loadings for the three questions anda high Cronbachrsquos alpha of 082 which justified their treatment as a multi-itemadditive scale

Independent variables

Table 1 shows the variables chosen to operationalise each of the 13 hypothesesFor contextual barriers financial resources were measured using local authorityexpenditure (CIPFA 2001) (Authority expenditure per head was also tested butmade no difference to our results) Regulation was measured using a survey itemthat asked respondents to judge the extent to which Best Value inspectorsrsquo reportswere important in driving improvement This was chosen as these reports representinspectorsrsquo judgement on service quality and form the basis of servicesrsquo actionplans that would incorporate elements of sustainability Respondents completedthis survey question (and all other survey questions used as independent variables)using a seven-point likert scale (1 = disagree 7 = agree) The average ward scorefor each local authority on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (ODPM 2000a)was used as a measure of deprivation This deprivation score is the standardpopulation-weighted measure of deprivation in the UK used by central governmentand provides an overview of the different domains of deprivation (eg incomeemployment and health) Political control during 2001ndash02 was used to create the

311



Conservative dummy variable Conservative-controlled councils were coded 1and all others zero

Attitudes to the environment were measured using a survey item that askedrespondents to assess the extent to which environmental issues were important indriving improvement The significance of organisational arrangements was measuredusing two survey items First corporateness was assessed by asking respondents ifthe authorityrsquos mission values and objectives were clearly and widely understoodand owned by all staff Second integration was measured by asking respondentsthe extent to which enhancing coordination and joint working was a major partof their servicersquos approach to organisation Managerial relationships were measuredusing two survey questions the first asked the extent to which managerial leadershipwas important in driving improvement the second asked the extent to whichpolitical leadership was important in driving improvement

The role of external stakeholders in BVS was measured using a survey questionthat asked respondents to assess the extent to which the demands of users andcitizens were important in driving improvement The significance of existingsustainability expertise was assessed using three variables The use of environmentalmanagement tools was measured using a survey item asking whether the servicewas guided by a system of environmental indicators Environmental performancewas measured using a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) These indicatorsare collected annually for all local authorities by central government (ODPM2002b) BVPI 82a ndash percentage of household waste recycled ndash was identified asthe most appropriate measure of sustainability performance

Finally to assess the significance of service type three groups of respondent werecreated The first group represented lsquotraditional servicesrsquo that have delivered aspectsof sustainability as a result of national legislation (planning and waste management)Housing is also included in this group due to responsibilities for promotingsustainable communities reducing fuel poverty and promoting energy efficiencyThe second group represented those lsquonon-traditionalrsquo services where Best Valuerepresented a new opportunity in pursuing sustainability following the restrictionsof CCT (ie leisure education benefits and social services) Third corporate responsesfrom chief executives and members of the senior management team were analysedseparately due to their critical role in leading on sustainability issues and promotingcross-cutting sustainability initiatives

Results

Hypotheses H1 to H12 were tested first using an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)multiple regression for all respondents Results are shown in Table 2 Overall thismodel accounts for 52 (adjusted R2) of the variation in BVS and displays acceptabletolerance limits indicating that there are no problems of multicolinearity (Allison1999) Coefficients for seven of the 12 variables are significant

Two contextual barriers were statistically significant Hypothesis 1 expected thatauthorities with greater spending power would be able to fund sustainableimprovements through Best Value However results show that local authorityexpenditure was negatively correlated indicating that authorities with low levels



of expenditure were more likely to view Best Value sustainability in a favourablelight Historically district councils were the first authorities required to undertakerecycling operations This legacy of sustainability may be one reason for this negativecoefficient as their expenditure is lower than unitary or county councils To explorethis conjecture we ran the model with a district council dummy variable Thishypothesis was not substantiated by a significant coefficient An alternativeinterpretation we explore below is that smaller councils with more tightly knitmanagement structures may find instilling corporate greenness easier than largeauthorities Results also provided a negative coefficient for Conservative politicalcontrol (H4) This confirms findings in relation to LA21 and suggests that thesecouncils will continue to follow CCTrsquos lead in focusing on cost-effectiveness atthe expense of sustainability within Best Value reviews

Contextual variables that had no significant impact included the role of BestValue inspection (H2) Results did indicate the presence of a weak but insignificantnegative relationship for inspection which provides limited support for suggestionsthat inspectorsrsquo values can deter the incorporation of sustainability into Best Valuereviews (Morgan and Morley 2003) Potentially this can lead to scepticism amonglocal government officers over the need to account for sustainability whenconducting Best Value reviews (CAG Consultants and INLOGOV 2001) Thisreflects a more general concern over the ability of technical fixes to instilsustainability by changing organisational cultures (Harris and Crane 2002) and isexplored more fully in the service analysis below There was also no statistically

Table 2 Overall regression results

Dependent variable Best Value Sustainability

Colinearitystatistics ndash

Concept Unstandardised coefficients T tolerance

Beta Standard error

Finance ndash0001 0000 ndash2094b 0879Inspection ndash0065 0073 ndash0889 0940Deprivation 0010 0015 0718 0396Political control ndash0561 0304 ndash1845a 0825Environmental values 1567 0080 19493c 0743Corporateness 0290 0093 3099c 0740Integration ndash0268 0104 ndash2568b 0699Managerial leadership ndash0069 0137 0501 0627Political leadership 0057 0080 0710 0757Demands of users 0216 0109 1982b 0732Management tools 0455 0080 5681c 0717Performance 0022 0048 0460 0431R2 0531R2 (adjusted) 0523F 65327c

N 706

Notes a plt01 b plt005 c plt001

313



significant relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and BVS (H3) Furtheranalysis should be directed at these variables to explain these insignificantrelationships

Five organisational barriers provided significant results with one yielding anegative coefficient Hypothesis 5 provided the strongest relationship with BVSdemonstrating that managers need to see environmental issues as a legitimate issueif Best Value is to make headway in organisational greening One reason whymanagers possess these values is as a result of strong corporate values which facilitatesthe understanding and implementation of corporate goals such as sustainability(H6) Results support this contention demonstrating a positive relationship betweenperceptions of corporateness and BVS However attempts to promote integrationthrough for example cross-cutting working appear to have worked againstsustainability (H7) Attempts at integration should reinforce corporate values butresults reveal a weak negative coefficient This is surprising given that organisationalgreening is strongly related to cross-cutting working practices in the private sector(Fineman 1997) but might be due to the lack of time these new workingarrangements have had to bed in Alternatively it suggests the presence of distinctdepartmental environmental cultures (Harris and Crane 2002) andor lsquodecouplingprocessesrsquo (Ashworth et al 2002) that actively seek to maintain sustainability withinspecific service departments

Results for the two leadership hypotheses were not significant The coefficientsdo suggest a tension between perceptions of managerial and political leadership(H8 H9) strong leadership from politicians is positively associated with BVS whilemanagerial leadership is not but neither variable contributes significantly to thestrength of the regression results These results are surprising given previous studiesof LA21 and the way Best Value itself empowers managers But it may also indicatethat other stakeholders are driving BVS andor entrenched departmental attitudesconcerning delivering sustainability Either way the relationship between BVS andleadership requires further research

Hypothesis 10 expected external stakeholders to be positively linked to BVSResults confirmed this hypothesis finding a positive relationship betweensustainability and the role of users and citizens Consultation is the one area of BestValue that local authorities have been able to get to grips with (Enticott et al2002) Nevertheless the extent to which these consultations have influencedsustainability policy remains unclear Often Best Value consultation has beenperfunctory and technocratic in nature providing the public with limited ways ofengaging with policy makers and resulting in little substantive impact on thedirection of service delivery policies (Martin and Boaz 2000 Marinetto 2003)Finally results indicated that past practice had a significant impact on BVS A positiverelationship between the existing use of environmental management tools such asenvironmental performance indicators and BVS is recorded This helps substantiatethe view that experience of sustainability is a prerequisite for Best Value to inspiregreater sustainability (H11) However this relationship is not substantiated in termsof past environmental performance (H12)

Taken together these results appear to question the extent to which BVS ispresent in all services In particular they raise doubts over the relationship betweencorporateness and BVS The negative coefficient for integration raises the possibility



that sustainability has in some way become decoupled from the pursuit of corporateobjectives In these cases Fineman (1997) suggests that the presence of unevengreen cultures drives different service departments to recognise only those corporateobjectives and values that correspond with their own service-specific cultures Assuch the tension between corporateness and integration suggests that these resultsare likely to vary between services This contention was explored by partitioningthe dataset into three service groups These partitions are based on prior experiencesof sustainability within earlier local government management regimes Thus theyrepresent lsquotraditionalrsquo sustainable services (planning waste and housing) lsquonon-traditionalrsquo services subject to market processes and corporate services

Table 3 presents results from regressions for H1 to H12 across the three groupsof services and tests H13 The results confirm that significant variations exist betweenthe factors that drive BVS across types of services Table 3 shows that corporateofficers identify BVS as driven by environmental values and existing use ofenvironmental management tools By contrast officers from traditional servicesidentified similar variables to those found in the full model (environmental valuescorporateness integration demands of users and management tools) althoughpolitical control was not seen as influential Similarly officers in non-traditionalservices identified four variables that were significant in the full model (financeenvironmental values corporateness and management tools) and one that was not(inspection)

These results also indicate differences between these service groupings in relationto BVS Traditional and non-traditional services placed different emphases oncontextual and organisational variables For contextual variables of particular interestare the differences inspection makes across services Coefficients for inspection incorporate and traditional services were insignificant However for non-traditionalservices a significant negative relationship is recorded meaning that the inspectionregime constrains opportunities for BVS This provides support for other analysesthat argue that managersrsquo perceptions of inspectorsrsquo expectations lead some servicesaway from sustainable solutions andor that inspectors have preconceived ideasover the relative importance of sustainability as opposed to economic efficiencycriteria within specific services (cf CAG Consultants and INLOGOV 2001)

The results also indicate that the relationship between BVS and consultationwith external stakeholders is stronger in traditional services Moreover the findingsshow that corporateness is positively related to BVS in both traditional and non-traditional services However the salience of this coefficient for traditional servicesis undermined by a significant negative integration coefficient not found in relationto other services This finding suggests that it is those lsquotraditionalrsquo sustainable servicesthat are contributing to the creation of lsquogreen ghettoesrsquo These results indicate thatthey are seeking to appropriate corporate objectives as their own and maintain anisolated position perhaps wishing to retain what they see as their area of expertiseCorporate services also offer a negative coefficient although insignificant Theseservices do not however identify corporateness as a significant variable whenexplaining BVS

In sum these results show variations in assessments of those factors affectingBVS across different service types Only two variables ndash environmental values andmanagement tools ndash out of the 12 recorded a significant coefficient in the same

315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01



direction across the three groups One other (corporateness) was significant in twogroups At the same time the significant variables for each service type can be seento be maintaining green divides between these service types The test of H13suggests that removing barriers and changing perceptions requires a multifacetedapproach targeted on different services if BVS is to spread fully across localauthorities

Conclusions

Recent attempts to improve public services have led to a refashioning ofenvironmental policy Integrated within managerial reform policies have beendirectives for local governments to address sustainability concerns Best Value is akey policy in this respect its suite of techniques and inspection regime render it apotentially powerful tool to instil sustainability throughout local authorities Usinga survey of 706 officers in 102 English local authorities this article represents thefirst empirical test of that regime

This analysis identified seven significant coefficients (four positive three negative)that explain 52 of the variance in BVS They suggest that Best Valuersquos ability todeliver sustainability depends on local government officers recognising thatenvironmental issues are an important driver for improvement Together with thisthe presence of shared corporate objectives and the existing use of environmentalmanagement tools were significantly related to Best Value delivering sustainabilityThe results also provided another example of environmental policy making beingdriven by external stakeholders where they were included in strategy formulationauthorities were significantly more likely to produce sustainable outcomes fromBest Value

However evidence was also presented that compromised this sustainabilityroadmap In particular the study showed that BVS was affected by Conservativepolitical control The full model revealed that green organisational cultures werespread unevenly throughout local authority services Best Valuersquos promotion ofintegration was seen to have an opposite effect with BVS concentrated in thosedepartments traditionally seen as being responsible for environmental issues Ouranalysis of different service types highlighted variations in particular BVS in non-traditional services was seen to be affected by the new inspection regime whiletraditional services appeared to be less willing to work with other departments toimplement sustainability Overall from the range of significant variables in theseservice analyses only two were common across all service groups

At this time these analyses suggest that Best Value does not appear to have brokenfree from the restrictions of market-based reforms to encourage green culturalchange through a more integrated and holistic approach to sustainability Attitudestowards sustainability within different departments therefore appear to present aconsiderable barrier to organisational greening in the public sector in spite of theoverlap between the management reforms advocated by Best Value and themanagement structures found in organisations that have fully integrated theprinciples of sustainability Just like LA21 and previous environmental initiativesBest Valuersquos commitment to sustainability appears to be limited to those traditional

317



environmental services who are already tuned into sustainability changing theattitudes of others even by addressing internal management cultures appears to bea harder task

While these results represent the first empirical analysis of sustainability withinthe Best Value regime they are not without their limitations Attempts to integrateBest Value into local authorities are likely to take time to bed in As these results arebased on data taken after only two years of the regime future studies and longitudinalanalyses may confirm these conclusions or provide alternative explanations Theresults are also limited by our reliance on officersrsquo perceptions of Best Valuesustainability and managerial reform Our findings therefore suggest a future researchagenda that focuses on four key issues First it should begin by identifying additionalsubjective and objective measures of BVS In doing so these variables should beused to clarify findings that do not fit with previous studies of sustainability withinlocal government In particular relationships between BVS deprivation financeand managerialpolitical leadership have proved to be powerful variables in studiesof LA21 and other environmental initiatives Given the parallels between thesepolicies and BVS their fate in relation to BVS requires further clarificationMoreover the role of inspection adds a new twist to sustainability within localgovernment yet our service-level analysis shows that its impact varies betweenservices Further unpacking of this uneven impact may tell us if officersrsquo perceptionsof inspectors affect their approach to BVS andor if inspectors place differentemphases on sustainability within different services

Second tensions between the significance of both measures of corporatenessand departmentalised views of sustainability also require resolving While corporatismis the current management fad of the local government regulator (see AuditCommission 2001a 2001b) prior studies of corporatism in local governmenthave found it to be problematic (Boyne 2001) It is possible that the difficultiespreviously faced by local government (coordination data management and analysis)are present within the Best Value regime and account for the apparently conflictingresults between corporatism integration and BVS Additional research is requiredto unpack these relationships

Third the extent to which new elements of sustainability have been instilledthrough Best Value rather than existing policies dressed up as BVS requires furtherexploration For example while we found a significant relationship between BVSand organisations responding to the demands of external stakeholders the extentto which Best Value has prompted new forms of consultation that directly impacton sustainable service delivery is unclear Services such as planning and wastemanagement have long used participatory mechanisms Best Value may have hadlittle impact in this respect while in other services consultation may not havecontributed to new sustainable working practices

Finally our analyses of BVS across service types demonstrate the extent to whichmultiple informant surveys can be useful when estimating the impact ofenvironmental policies In attempting to answer these emerging questions thesemethods whether through surveys or case studies need to be employed But weshould also be aware that chief officersrsquo and managersrsquo views of BVS may also varywithin departments themselves Analyses of these differences may represent anotheravenue to understanding how sustainability is played out within local authorities



Our overall conclusion is that bundling sustainability into packages of widermanagerial reforms is not necessarily a proven route to achieving organisationalgreening The promise of integrating sustainability throughout an authority bycombining it with these reforms appears to have resulted in an uneven managerialversion of sustainability Critically it has failed to overcome existing departmentalisedviews of environmental responsibility Sustainability therefore finds itself insomething of a paradox integration is vital for sustainability yet when it is integratedinto wider managerial reforms it appears not to deliver In this sense this articleraises some fundamental questions over the future role of sustainability within BestValue If sustainability continues to be tied into wider managerial reform ndash and theComprehensive Performance Assessment exercise suggests it will be ndash the worry isthat it will continue to be subsumed beneath a raft of competing priorities Thusfor the local government modernisation agenda to be serious about enhancingsustainability more prescriptive guidance along with sticks and carrots will berequired to encourage sustainability (Bennett 1999) Furthermore such guidancecannot be universal it has to be tailored to the particular circumstances andsustainability trajectories of different services Without it these weak versions ofsustainability will not inspire step changes to the ways environmental issues aredealt with in local government

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Ministeron the long-term impact of Best Value Interpretation of results rests with the authorsWe would like to thank two anonymous referees for useful comments on a previousversion of this article

Richard Walker would also like to acknowledge the support of the ESRCEPSRCAdvanced Institute for Management Research under grant no 331-25-006 for thisresearch

References

Allison PD (1999) Multiple regression A primer London Pine Forge PressArlow P and Gannon MJ (1982) lsquoSocial responsiveness corporate structure and

economic performancersquo Academy of Management Review vol 7 235ndash41Ashworth R Boyne GA McGarvey N and Walker R (2002) lsquoRegulating public

bodies the case of direct service organisations in British local governmentrsquoEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy vol 20 no 3 455ndash70

Audit Commission (2001a) Change here Managing change to improve local servicesLondon Audit Commission

Audit Commission (2001b) Changing gear Best Value Annual Statement 2001 LondonAudit Commission

Bennett J (1999) lsquoWill Best Value bring sustainability in from the coldrsquo LocalEnvironment vol 4 no 1 73ndash7

Boyne G (1998) Public choice theory and local government London Macmillan

319



Boyne GA (2001) lsquoPlanning performance and public servicesrsquo Public Administrationvol 79 no 1 73ndash88

Boyne G A and Dahya J (2002) lsquoExecutive succession and the performance ofpublic organizationsrsquo Public Administration vol 80 no 1 179ndash200

Broadbent J and Laughlin R (1998) lsquoResisting the new public managementabsorption and absorbing groups in schools and GP practices in the UKrsquoAccounting Auditing and Accountability Journal vol 11 no 4 403ndash35

CAG Consultants and INLOGOV (Institute of Local Government Studies) (2001)Promoting sustainable development through Best Value A report to the Local GovernmentImprovement and Development Agency London Improvement and DevelopmentAgency

CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) (2001) Financeand general statistics 2001ndash2 London CIPFA

Cobb R Ross J-K and Ross M (1976) lsquoAgenda building as a comparative politicalprocessrsquo American Political Science Review vol 70 no 1 126ndash37

Davies B and Ferlie E (1982) lsquoEfficiency promoting innovation in social caresocial service departments and the elderlyrsquo Policy amp Politics vol 10 no 2 181ndash203

DETR (Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions) (1999) LocalGovernment Act 1999 Part 1 Best Value Circular 1099 London DETR

Dobson A (2000) Green political thought London RoutledgeEnticott G (2003) lsquoResearching local government using electronic surveysrsquo Local

Government Studies vol 29 no 1 52ndash67Enticott G (2004) lsquoMultiple voices of modernisation some methodological

implicationsrsquo Public Administration vol 82 no 3 743ndash56Enticott G Walker RM Boyne G Martin S and Ashworth R (2002) Best

Value in English local government Summary results from the Census of Local Authoritiesin 2001 London Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Entwistle T (1998) lsquoThe ironic compatibility of UK recycling practice and centralgovernment policyrsquo Local Environment vol 3 no 1 55ndash65

Entwistle T and Laffin M (2005) lsquoA pre-history of the Best Value regimersquo LocalGovernment Studies vol 31 no 2 214ndash27

Fineman S (1997) lsquoConstructing the green managerrsquo British Journal of Managementvol 8 31ndash8

Flynn N (2002) Public sector management Harlow Pearson EducationFreeman RE (1984) Strategic management A stakeholder approach Boston PitmanGeddes M and Martin S (2000) lsquoThe policy and politics of Best Value currents

undercurrents and cross-currents in the new regimersquo Policy and Politics vol 28no 3 379ndash95

Gibbs DC Longhurst J and Braithwaite C (1998) lsquoldquoStruggling with sustainabilityrdquoweak and strong interpretations of sustainable development within local authoritypolicyrsquo Environment and Planning A vol 30 1351ndash65

Greening D (1992) lsquoOrganizing for public issues environmental and organizationalpredictors of structure and processrsquo Research in Corporate Social Performance andPolicy vol 13 83ndash117



Grove-White R (1997) lsquoThe environmental valuation controversy observationson its recent history and significancersquo in J Forster (ed) Valuing nature Economicsethics and environment London Routledge 21ndash31

Harris L and Crane A (2002) lsquoThe greening of organizational culture managementviews on the depth degree and diffusion of changersquo Journal of OrganisationalChange Management vol 15 no 3 214ndash34

Henriques I and Sadorsky P (1995) lsquoThe determinants of firms that formulateenvironmental plansrsquo Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy supplement1 67ndash97

Hoffman A (1993) lsquoThe importance of fit between individual values andorganizational culture in the greening of industryrsquo Business Strategy and theEnvironment vol 2 no 4 10ndash18

Housing Corporation The (2003) Sustainable development strategy London TheHousing Corporation

James L (1982) lsquoAggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreementrsquo Journal ofApplied Psychology vol 67 219ndash29

Kearney RC Feldman BM and Scavo CPF (2000) lsquoReinventing governmentcity manager attitudes and actionsrsquo Public Administration Review vol 60 535ndash48

Labatt S (1997) lsquoCorporate response to environmental issues packagingrsquo Growthand Change vol 28 67ndash92

Lowe P and Goyder J (1983) Environmental groups in politics London Allen andUnwin

Marinetto M (2003) lsquoWho wants to be an active citizen The politics and practiceof community involvementrsquo Sociology vol 37 no 1 103ndash20

Marsh D and Rhodes RAW (1992) lsquoNew directions in the study of policynetworksrsquo European Journal of Political Research vol 21 nos 1ndash2 181ndash205

Martin S and Boaz A (2000) lsquoPublic participation and citizen-centred localgovernment lessons from the Best Value and Better Government for Older PeoplePilot Programmesrsquo Public Money and Management vol 20 no 2 47ndash53

Miles RH (1987) Managing the corporate social environment New Jersey NJ Prentice-Hall

Moon MJ and deLeon P (2001) lsquoMunicipal reinvention managerial values anddiffusion among municipalitiesrsquo Journal of Public Administration Research and Theoryvol 11 327ndash51

Morgan K and Morley A (2002) Re-localising the food chain The role of creative publicprocurement Cardiff The Regeneration Institute

Morgan K and Morley A (2003) School meals Healthy eating and sustainable foodchains Cardiff The Regeneration Institute

Newton T and Harte G (1997) lsquoGreen business technicist kitschrsquo Journal ofManagement Studies vol 34 no 1 75ndash98

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)(2000) Index of multiple deprivationLondon ODPM

ODPM (2002a) Draft circular on Best Value and performance improvement LondonODPM

ODPM (2002b) Best Value performance indicators London ODPMOwens S and Cowell R (2002) Land and limits London Routledge

321



Patterson A and Theobald K (1995) lsquoSustainable development Agenda 21 andthe new local governance in Britainrsquo Regional Studies vol 29 no 8 773ndash8

Patterson A and Theobald K (1996) lsquoLocal Agenda 21 Compulsory CompetitiveTendering and local environmental practicesrsquo Local Environment vol 1 no 1 7ndash19

Payne R and Mansfield R (1973) lsquoRelationships of perceptions of organisationalclimate to organisational structure context and hierarchical positionrsquo AdministrativeScience Quarterly vol 18 no 4 515ndash26

Peattie K and Hall G (1994) lsquoThe greening of local government a surveyrsquo LocalGovernment Studies vol 20 no 3 458ndash85

Pettigrew A Ferlie E and McKee L (1992) Shaping strategic change London SagePublications

Post JE and Altman BW (1992) lsquoModels of corporate greening how corporatesocial policy and organisational learning inform leading-edge environmentalmanagementrsquo Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy vol 13 3ndash29

Post JE and Altman BW (1994) lsquoManaging environmental change process barriersand opportunitiesrsquo Journal of Organizational Change Management vol 7 no 4 4ndash14

Pressman J and Wildavsky A (1984) Implementation How great expectations inWashington are dashed in Oakland Berkeley CA University of California Press

Sapat A (2004) lsquoDevolution and innovation the adoption of state environmentalpolicy innovations by administrative agenciesrsquo Public Administration Review vol64 no 2 141ndash51

Selman P (1996) Local sustainability London Paul Chapman PressSelman P (1998) lsquoLocal Agenda 21 substance or spinrsquo Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management vol 41 no 5 533ndash53Selman P and Parker J (1999) lsquoTales of local sustainabilityrsquo Local Environment vol

4 no 1 47ndash60Shrivastava P (1995) lsquoEcocentric management for a risk societyrsquo Academy of

Management Review vol 20 no 1 118ndash37Smith D (ed) (1993) Business and the environment London Paul Chapman PressTuxworth B (1996) lsquoFrom environment to sustainability surveys and analysis of

Local Agenda 21 process development in UK local authoritiesrsquo Local Environmentvol 1 no 3 277ndash97

Tuxworth B (2001) Local Agenda 21 From the margins to the mainstream and out tosea London Town and Country Planning Association

Vigar G (2000) lsquoLocal ldquobarriersrdquo to environmentally sustainable transport planningrsquoLocal Environment vol 5 no 1 19ndash32

Voisey H (1998) lsquoLocal Agenda 21 in the UKrsquo in T OrsquoRiordan and H Voisey (eds)The transition to sustainability London Earthscan 235ndash49

Walker R and Enticott G (2004) lsquoUsing multiple informants in publicadministration revisiting the managerial values and actions debatersquo Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory vol 14 no 3 417ndash34

Ward S (1993) lsquoThinking global acting local British local authorities and theirenvironmental plansrsquo Environmental Politics vol 2 no 3 453ndash78

Welford R (1995) Environmental strategy and sustainable development LondonRoutledge



Winn M and Angell LC (2000) lsquoTowards a process model of corporate greeningrsquoOrganization Studies vol 26 no 2 1119ndash47

Gareth Enticott Centre for Local and Regional Government ResearchSchool of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University UK

Richard M Walker Center for Urban Planning and Environmental ManagementUniversity of Hong Kong and Centre for Local and Regional Government Research

School of City and Regional Planning Cardiff University UK



Introduction

In recent years the sustainability lsquotoolboxrsquo has become increasing cramped Amounting range of techniques offering competing technocratic deliberative andintegrative methodologies has evolved to assist government agencies to developand implement sustainable policies Which of these techniques offers the best routeto sustainability has been the subject of intense debate For example whiletechnocratic audits indicators and assessment techniques may provide lsquoobjectiversquoways of evaluating policy options they have been criticised for promoting anexclusive lsquoanalytical arms racersquo (Owens and Cowell 2002) Instead deliberativeand inclusive participative models have been proposed through which the radicalinstitutional reforms required to make sustainability work can be made (Grove-White 1997)

However arguments over the lsquobest toolsrsquo to implement sustainability may maskthe real reasons why these methodologies whatever they are often fail to deliverInstead Owens and Cowell (2002 70) have suggested that their failure is linked tothe ways these tools ldquobecome bound into power struggles in which conceptions ofwhat is sustainable are actively constructed and negotiatedrdquo The successful translationof normative sustainability goals associated with these techniques therefore becomesdependent on the ldquoarrangement of actors opportunities and constraints in anygiven settingrdquo (Owens and Cowell 2002 70) In this way the notions of sustainabledevelopment that emerge from these associations are not necessarily those envisagedby policy makers so that successful implementation is unevenly distributedthroughout local authorities (Selman 1996 Gibbs et al 1998) Thus no assessmentof sustainable methodologies ldquois likely to be adequate if it is divorced fromfundamental questions of agency and leverage over the political systemrdquo (Owensand Cowell 2002 70)

Investigations of important changes to the methods local governments use topursue local sustainability would therefore do well to start with analyses of thecircumstances in which these techniques might exert leverage towards promotingit The introduction of the lsquoBest Valuersquo regime represents one such policy changewithin local government It brings together a technocratic toolkit ndash performanceindicators inspection and tightly focused performance management reviewprocedures as well as promoting participation (eg customer consultation) andintegrative mechanisms (eg cross-cutting working) The aim is to provoke managerialreforms aimed at improving performance but also integrating sustainability morefirmly throughout local authorities The significance of Best Value in the Labourgovernmentrsquos overall agenda for modernising public services its use of morepowerful sticks and carrots compared with other environmental initiatives (eg LocalAgenda 21) and its bundling of sustainability with managerial reform mean that itrepresents a significant break with traditional methods of delivery sustainability Itis therefore a unique case with which to analyse the circumstances in whichtechnocratic regimes function as mechanisms for achieving change in complexand politicised environments

This article examines the relationship between the Best Value regime andsustainability referred to in the article as Best Value Sustainability (BVS) In particularwe seek to identify how and in what circumstances Best Value delivers sustainable

299














301













303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























299














301













303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321



































301













303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























301













303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





































303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























303











Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321


































Research hypotheses


305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























305










ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321































ble

1 H

ypo

thes

es m

easu

res

and

desc

ript

ive

stat

isti

cs

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

Best

Val

ue S

usta

inab

ility

ndash d

epen

dent

var

iabl

eBV

S11

389

431

23

21

H1

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Res

ourc

esLo

cal a

utho

rity

CIP

FA32

758

927

916

12

838

1535

418

with

the

gre

ates

t fin

anci

al r

esou

rces

expe

nditu

re (

pound m

illio

n)(2

001)

H2

Best

Val

ue in

spec

tion

is p

ositi

vely

ass

ocia

ted

Insp

ectio

nIn

spec

tors

rsquo rep

orts

wer

eSu

rvey

515

01

591

17

with

BV

Sim

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H3

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

poo

r so

cioe

cono

mic

Dep

riva

tion

Ave

rage

war

d sc

ores

OD

PM27

334

122

144

8958

22

cont

exts

hav

e lo

w le

vels

of B

VS

ndash In

dex

of M

ultip

le(2

000)

Dep

riva

tion

H4

Con

serv

ativ

e po

litic

al c

ontr

ol is

neg

ativ

ely

Polit

ical

Dum

my

vari

able

ndash20

010

2082

040

630

1re

late

d to

BV

Sco

ntro

lC

onse

rvat

ive

polit

ical

Elec

tion

cont

rol v

ersu

s al

lre

sults

othe

r fo

rms

of c

ontr

ol

H5

BVS

is r

elat

ed to

pos

itive

att

itude

s to

war

dsEn

viro

n-En

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sSu

rvey

404

161

91

7en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

sm

enta

lw

ere

impo

rtan

t in

ques

tions

valu

esdr

ivin

g im

prov

emen

t

H6

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

str

ong

corp

orat

e va

lues

Cor

pora

te-

The

aut

hori

tyrsquos

mis

sion

Su

rvey

503

139

61

7al

so h

ave

high

leve

ls o

f BV

Sne

ssva

lues

and

obj

ectiv

es a

requ

estio

nscl

earl

y an

d w

idel

yun

ders

tood

and

ow

ned

by a

ll st

aff i

n th

e se

rvic

e

cont

d

307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























307



ble

1 c

ont

d

Hyp

oth

esis

Co

ncep

tM

easu

rem

ent

So

urce

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Sta

nd

ard

Mea

nde

viat

ion

Min

imum

Max

imum

H7

Hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

are

foun

d in

loca

l aut

hori

ties

Inte

grat

ion

Enha

ncin

g co

ordi

natio

nSu

rvey

552

128

61

7w

ith h

igh

leve

ls o

f int

egra

tion

and

join

t w

orki

ng is

aqu

estio

nm

ajor

par

t of

our

app

roac

hto

org

anis

atio

n

H8

Stro

ng m

anag

eria

l lea

ders

hip

is p

ositi

vely

Man

ager

ial

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

pSu

rvey

607

103

61

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

is im

port

ant

in d

rivi

ngim

prov

emen

t

H9

Stro

ng p

oliti

cal l

eade

rshi

p is

pos

itive

lyPo

litic

alPo

litic

al le

ader

ship

isSu

rvey

515

160

31

7as

soci

ated

with

BV

Sle

ader

ship

impo

rtan

t in

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H10

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

that

mee

t th

e de

man

ds o

fD

eman

dsT

he d

eman

ds o

f use

rsSu

rvey

533

120

21

7us

ers

have

hig

h le

vels

of B

VS

of u

sers

and

citiz

ens

are

impo

rtan

tin

dri

ving

impr

ovem

ent

H11

Loca

l aut

hori

ties

with

pri

or e

xper

ienc

e of

Man

agem

ent

Thi

s au

thor

ity is

gui

ded

Surv

ey4

331

656

17

usin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t to

ols

have

tool

sby

a s

yste

m o

fhi

gher

leve

ls o

f BV

Sen

viro

nmen

tal i

ndic

ator

s

H12

BVS

is p

ositi

vely

rel

ated

to lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPe

rfor

man

ceBV

PI 8

2a (

hou

seho

ldO

DPM

843

03

551

142

189

3w

ith h

igh

envi

ronm

enta

l per

form

ance

was

te r

ecyc

led

2001

-02)

(200

2b)

H13

Hig

her

leve

ls o

f BV

S ar

e fo

und

in s

ervi

ces

Serv

ice

Serv

ice

anal

ysis

bas

ed o

nSu

rvey

na

na

na

na

trad

ition

ally

task

ed w

ith d

eliv

erin

g su

stai

nabi

lity

type

thre

e se

rvic

es t

radi

tiona

lno

n-tr

aditi

onal

and

cor

pora

te

Not

e B

VPI

= B

est V

alue

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r






Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321


































Methodology


309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























309




Data collection







Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321
































Dependent variable




311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























311







Results











Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





































Beta Standard error


N 706


313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























313















315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321




































315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























315



ble

3 R

egre

ssio

n re

sult

s by

ser

vice

typ

e

Ser

vice

typ

e

Tra

dit

ion

al s

ervi

ces

No

n-t

rad

itio

nal

ser

vice

sC

orp

ora

te s

ervi

ces

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Un

stan

dar

dis

ed c

oef

ficie

nts

Co

nce

pt

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Bet

aS

tan

dar

d e

rro

rT

Fina

nce

000

00

001

ndash01

5ndash0

001

000

1ndash1

866

a0

000

000

1ndash0

122

Insp

ectio

n0

081

011

5ndash0

146

ndash02

790

126

ndash22

19b

013

90

145

096

0D

epri

vatio

n0

024

002

70

705

000

20

023

007

40

005

002

50

188

Polit

ical

con

trol

007

80

551

088

7ndash0

697

050

2ndash1

390

ndash07

650

496

ndash15

43En

viro

nmen

tal v

alue

s1

285

015

50

142c

155

70

126

123

86c

154

50

161c

960

3C

orpo

rate

ness

035

30

164

827

6b0

281

014

91

886a

027

10

168

161

1In

tegr

atio

nndash0

456

017

02

143c

005

00

175

028

6ndash0

220

020

8ndash1

059

Man

ager

ial l

eade

rshi

p0

215

021

7ndash2

679

ndash02

500

236

ndash10

57ndash0

215

024

6ndash0

875

Polit

ical

lead

ersh

ip0

210

014

50

993

ndash00

700

128

ndash05

43ndash0

005

015

0ndash0

033

Dem

ands

of u

sers

038

80

202

144

1a0

257

017

01

516

016

10

195

082

6M

anag

emen

t too

ls0

579

014

41

923c

027

70

120

231

1b0

551

017

7c3

119

Perf

orm

ance

011

50

087

402

3ndash0

058

008

0ndash0

722

ndash00

260

078

ndash03

30R

20

477

048

30

617

R2 (

adju

sted

)0

450

046

10

588

F17

280

c21

985

c21

213

c

N24

029

517

1

Not

es a p

lt0

1 b p

lt0

05 c p

lt0

01




Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321
































Conclusions





317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























317











Acknowledgements



References








319












































321
































Acknowledgements



References








319












































321





























319












































321



















































321





























321



































Documents

Environmental sustainability and management reform in local government: An empirical analysis