The Evolution of Environmental Management From Stage Models to Performance Evaluation

Business Strategy and the EnvironmentBus. Strat. Env. 11, 14–31 (2002)DOI: 10.1002/bse.316

THE EVOLUTION OFENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT: FROM STAGEMODELS TO PERFORMANCEEVALUATION

Ans Kolk* and Anniek Mauser

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

In the past two decades, academics andpractitioners have attempted to improveunderstanding of environmentalmanagement by classifying companies’environmental behaviour, and evaluatingtheir performance. Driven by bothresearch and societal interest, this hasresulted in a wave of stage or phasemodels, and a range of typologies. Thisarticle gives an overview of thedevelopment of such environmentalmanagement models, analysing theircharacteristics, strengths and weaknesses.An evolution can be noted in the directionof typologies and non-linear models todeal with organizational and strategiccomplexities. Models are starting to paymore attention to the management side.To overcome problems ofoperationalization and limited companyand sector specificity, environmentalperformance evaluation systems haveemerged more recently. Although

* Correspondence to: Dr. Ans Kolk, University of Amsterdam,Department of Accountancy and Information Management,Faculty of Economics, Roeterstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam,The Netherlands.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

comprehensive performance assessmentsare still unavailable, the tenets of such asystem can already be delineated. Thepaper presents these components, anddraws conclusions on the contribution ofenvironmental management models andperformance evaluation systems.Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltdand ERP Environment.

Received 10 April 2001Revised 20 September 2001Accepted 10 October 2001

INTRODUCTION

W ith increasing complexity and diver-sity in the practice of environmen-tal management, both academics and

practitioners started to characterize companies’environmental actions. Since the late 1980s,they have developed classifications to describetrends in environmental management, usinga diversity of labels to designate process andoutcomes, such as strategies, responses or per-formance. This has attracted scientific and soci-etal interest, and resulted in a large number ofnormative models that outlined future direc-tions to be taken by companies in order arrive

THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

at a more sustainable future (cf. Dobers et al.,2000; Kolk, 2000), but merely in the contextof the managerial, reform-oriented paradigm(Egri and Pinfield, 1996; Levy, 1997).

Although environmental management mod-els show a wide variety of characteristics, manyare stage or phase models that describe adevelopment in time consisting of an increas-ing integration of environmental concerns intobusiness policy and strategy. In the courseof time, typologies that merely characterizecompanies’ position, without assuming sucha growing responsiveness, have also emerged.

Regardless of the type of model, however,a wide diversity prevails. This applies to thekinds of business reaction that are described,the terminology used to characterize the differ-ent phases and positions, the number of stagesthat are distinguished and the empirical evi-dence on which models are based. Consideringthis variety, what can be learned from theseenvironmental management models? What aretheir strengths and limitations? This paperaddresses these questions, starting with anoverview of existing models, their peculiaritiesand their contribution to a better understand-ing of the dynamics of environmental manage-ment. Subsequently, it analyses how, relatedto some limitations and an ongoing quest forassessing business behaviour, environmentalperformance evaluation systems emerged. Thefinal section draws conclusions as to wherethe efforts have brought us, and what environ-mental management models and performanceinstruments can contribute.

AN OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT MODELS

The first author who, to our knowledge, cameup with a classification model to describe theincreasing importance of environmental con-cerns for business policy and strategy, wasPetulla (1987). This model built on a longtradition of classificatory efforts to categorizesocial and organizational phenomena in gen-eral. Although such attempts were criticized

for a number of reasons, it has also beenargued that typologies and taxonomies areuseful to understand organizational structuresand strategies, provided that they meet certainrequirements (Doty and Glick, 1994; Sanchez,1993; Schwenk, 1985).

Since Petulla’s first categorization, manyothers have tried to characterize corporateresponses to environmental management. Aninventory of existing studies resulted in 50models (see Table 1). The overview presentsall articles, books and reports that have beenmost often quoted in the literature. Althoughit might not be exhaustive, covering probablyonly some of the environmental managementtypologies that have been developed, webelieve that all the key studies have beenincluded.

Slightly more than half of the studies (56%)involved articles, and 30% were included inbooks. Ten out of the 28 articles were publishedin ‘business and environment’ journals, withBusiness Strategy and the Environment account-ing for six of them. The fact that so many ofthe models appeared in general managementoutlets (65% of all articles), and in books from‘non-environmental’ publishers (73%), under-lines the existence of a broad interest in thetopic outside the environmental field. More-over, while around 60% of the models havea purely academic background, the remain-der originates from consultancy, from authorswho combine the two activities or from the(inter-)governmental side. These two charac-teristics – broad interest from ‘general man-agement’, and involvement from academicsand a diversity of practitioners – also came tothe fore in a study on the research agenda asreflected in the first seven volumes of Busi-ness Strategy and the Environment (Dobers et al.,2000).

Table 1 gives a chronological overview ofthe environmental management models thatwe have found (within the years, ranked inchronological order). It includes their mainpeculiarities – titles, number of and definingcriteria for stages, types of model, degree of

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 11, 14–31 (2002)

15

A.K

OL

KA

ND

A.M

AU

SE

R

Table 1. An overview of environmental management models

General characteristics∗ Nature∗∗ Criteria∗∗∗ Empirical basis

Title of the model Designation of No. Type Flex. Dev. No. NatureCountry, sector, No.,

stages/positionsmethod

Petulla (1987) approaches ofEM

crisis-oriented;cost-oriented;enlightened EM

3 continuum no abs/rel 2 int/ext US, industry-wide,132 firms, surveyenv. managers

Steger (1988) env. strategies indifferent; defensive; 4 typology yes rel 2 int/ext Germany,offensive; innovative 2 × 2 industry-wide, 592

firms, interviewsboard members

Hofstra et al. stages of inspection; total 3 continuum no rel 7 (17) int US & NL,(1990) completion of

EMcompliance; totalintegration

ideal types yes industry-wide, 28(US), 13 NL firms,interviews

Hunt & Auster(1990)

stages of EM beginner; fire fighter;concerned citizen;pragmatist; proactivist

5 continuum no rel 3 (12) int US, industry-wide,No. unclear,generalobservations

Greeno (1991) posture towardsenv. issues

problem solving;managing forcompliance; managingfor assurance

3 continuum no rel 3 int NA; conceptual

Simpson (1991) response to env.pressures

why mess; smart movers;enthusiasts

3 continuum no rel – ext NA; conceptual

UNEP (1991) (see1995a)

quality, maturityof EMprogrammes

innocence; awareness;understanding;competence; excellence

5 continuum no rel 8 int/ext NA; conceptual

Wicke (1991) env. concepts reactive; offensive 2 continuum no rel 6 ext NA; conceptualGEMI (1992) performance

levelcompliance; systems

development andimplementation;integration into generalbusiness functions; totalquality approach

4 continuumideal types

yes rel 16 int world-wide,industry-wide, 21firms, casestudies/ownexperience

Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

16

Ong

Highlight

TH

EE

VO

LU

TIO

NO

FE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Muller &Koechlin (1992)

stages of env.strategy

inactive/ignore/‘ostriches’; reactive/respond/‘chickenlickens’; proactive/anticipate/‘greenhornets’; hyperac-tive/provoke/‘RobinHood’

4 continuum no rel – int NA; conceptual

Roome (1992) strategic optionsto react onenv. pressures

non-compliance;compliance; complianceplus; commercial andenv. excellence; leadingedge

5 continuum no rel 1 (6) int NA; conceptual

Stikker (1992) env. learningcurve

end-of-pipe;environmental caresystems; environmentalauditing;cradle-to-graveapproach; sustainablebusiness


Fischer & Schot(1993)

env. strategies resistant adaptation;embracingenvironmental issueswithout innovating

2 (6) continuum no abs – int/ext NA; conceptual

Meffert & env. basis opposition; passivity; 5 continuum no rel 5 int/ext NA; conceptualKirchgeorg(1993)

strategies retreat; adaptation;innovation

ideal types yes

Newman &Breeden (1993)

env. strategies reactive; proactive;innovative


UNCTAD (1993) managementapproaches

compliance oriented(reactive); preventive(lean andprecautionary); strategic(opportunity seeking);sustainabledevelopment(responsive)

4 continuum no rel 7 int/ext worldwide,industrywide, 210multinationals,survey

(continued overleaf )

Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

17

A.K

OL

KA

ND

A.M

AU

SE

R

Table 1. (Continued)




Azzone & Bertele(1994)

env. contexts stable; reactive;anticipatory; proactive;creative

5 continuum no rel 5 (14) int/ext EU, automotive, No.and methodunclear

Elkington (1994) stages ofresponse toenv. problems

ignorance; awakening;denial; guiltreduction/displacementbehaviour/tokenism;conversion; integration

6 continuum no rel/abs – – worldwide,industrywide, No.unclear, casestudies/ownexperience

Lee & Green strategic options do nothing or phase 9 typology yes rel 6 int worldwide,(1994) for green

productdevelopment

out; generic strategies;diversification; remedy;tonic; bread-and-butter;nimble; leadership;pioneer

3 × 3 industrywide, 12firms, case studies

Post & Altman(1994)

stages oforganizationalchange/learning

adjustment; adaptationand anticipation;innovation

3 continuum no rel 4 int worldwide,industrywide, No.unclear, existingcase studies

Winsemius &Mak (1994)

responses to env.challenges

reactive; receptive;constructive; proactive

4 continuum no abs 4 int NA; conceptual

Buitelaar (1995) stages of env.strategies

passive/defensive;offensive; innovative;critical sustainable

4 continuum no abs – ext EU, industrywide,No. unclear, casestudies

Cramer & Jansen(1995)

stages oftechnologicalinnovation

optimization productionand products; furtherrenewal productiontechnology;function-orientedinnovations


Crosbie & Knight(1995)

strategic optionsformanagement

do nothing; defensiveposture; socialresponsibility; strategicopportunity; sustainablebusiness

5 continuum no rel – int/ext NA; conceptual

De Vries &Altenburg(1995)

env. strategies green jacket; offensive;innovative; greenmission


Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

18

TH

EE

VO

LU

TIO

NO

FE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Molenkamp(1995)

env. strategies defensive; preventive;offensive

3 continuum no abs – int/ext NA; conceptual

Muller (1995) env. strategies environmentally 33 typology yes rel 14 int NA; conceptualignorance; additionalenv. protection;integrated env.protection; X active (4);reactive (7)

11 × 3

Schot (1995) response to env.problems

problem solving;defensive; offensive

3 continuum no abs – int/ext NA; conceptual

Shrivastava(1995)

sustainablecompetitivestrategies

least cost; differentiation;niche

3 continuumideal types

yes rel 6 int/ext NA; conceptual

Shrivastava &Hart (1995)

responses to env.challenge

band-aid; more serious;deep change


UNEP (1995b) env. strategy complacent 4 typology yes rel 2 ext worldwide,transitions non-innovator;

complacent innovator,responsiblenon-innovator,responsible innovator

2 × 2 industrywide, sixcountries, generalexperience

Veering (1995) businesscategories

defensive; following;active; proactive


Vermaak (1995) env. strategystereotypes

public opinion;government pressure;quality management;liability reduction; costefficiency; pollutionprevention pays; greenmarketing and PR;chain management; newbusiness development;sustainable positioning


Arthur D. Little(1996a)

stages of env.performance

minimalists; compliers;proactors; enhancers

4 continuum no abs/rel 5 int NA; conceptual

Arthur D. Little(1996b)

stages of EMevolution

reactive; responsive;proactive; competitive

4 continuum no abs – ext NA; conceptual

(continued overleaf )

Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

19

A.K

OL

KA

ND

A.M

AU

SE

RTable 1. (Continued)




Bhargava &Welford (1996)

env. strategiesfor competitiveadvantage

‘excellence’ and ’leadingedge’; incorporation ofEM strategy into overallstrategy; line driven,short- versus long-termstrategy, effectivecommunication

5 non-linear no no – int/ext NA; conceptual

Burschel (1996) actor types conservative reactive;externally imposedapologetic; strategicsocial–technological;environmentalpragmatist

4 continuum no rel 3 int/ext Germany,industrywide, 208firms, interviews

Florida (1996) mean score onkey factors

– – – no no 8 int/ext US, industrywide,217 firms, survey

Hutchinson(1996)

levels of EM damaging dirty anddangerous; wastefuland polluting; silentdestroyers

3 continuum no rel – ext NA; conceptual

KPMG/IVA(1996)

EMS introductionstages

inactive; beginner;candidate; advanced

4 continuum yes rel 10 int NL, industrywide,1000 firms,interviews

Rondinelli &Vastag (1996)

classification ofenv. policies

reactive; proactive; crisispreventive; strategic

4 typology yes no 2 (7) int/ext NA; conceptual

Scallon & Sten(1996)

stages of env.performance

compliance; alignment;expansion; integration

4 continuum no rel 4–6 int US, industrywide,26 firms,interviews

Dodge (1997) stages of env.performance

resistance; observe andcomply; accommodate;seize and pre-empt;transcend


Hart (1997) env. strategy pollution prevention;product stewardship,clean technology

3 continuum no abs/rel – int/ext NA; conceptual

Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

20

Ong

Highlight

TH

EE

VO

LU

TIO

NO

FE

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Berry &Rondinelli(1998)

stages ofcorporate EM

non-compliance;compliance; beyondcompliance

3 continuum no abs – int/ext worldwide,industrywide, 400firms, surveysenior executives

Callens &Wolters (1998)

stages ofsustainabledevelopment

unsustainability; nottaking sustainabledevelopment intoaccount;active/proactive;sustainable


Ehrenfeld (1998) env. strategymatrix

business as usual;compliance; prevention;sustainability

4 cont/typ. yes rel 3 int/ext NA; conceptual

Ghobadian et al.(1998)

position inrelation to env.strategy

non-compliance;compliance; restrained;compliance plus;conditional; speculative;conditional/leadingedge

7 continuumnon-linear

yes rel – int/ext UK, industrywide,78 firms, survey

Brockhoff et al.(1999)

env. businessstrategy

defender; escapist;dormant; activist

4 typology yes no 6(13) int/ext US & Germany,chemical industry,106 firms, survey

Winn & Angell(2000)

corporategreening

deliberate reactivegreening; unrealizedgreening; emergentactive greening;deliberate proactivegreening

4 typology yes rel 2 int Germany,manufacturing &industry-wide,combination ofmail survey(among 135managingdirectors) andinterviews, 12pilots, and fourcases

∗EM = environmental management; EMS = environmental management system.∗∗Flex. = flexibility; dev. = development; abs = absolute; rel = relative.∗∗∗int = internal; ext = external.

Copyright

2002

JohnW

iley&

Sons,L

tdand

ER

PE

nvironment

Bus.

Strat.E

nv.11,

14–31(2002)

21

A. KOLK AND A. MAUSER

dynamism and empirical background. Thesedifferent aspects will be examined below. Par-ticular attention will be paid to the nature of themodels (continuum, typology or a combina-tion), because this highly influences their appli-cability and possibilities for operationalization.

The second column of Table 1 contains thetitles of the models, which reveal the aim ofthe authors. These range from an identifica-tion of responses to environmental challenges,environmental strategy, stages of environmen-tal management or of environmental perfor-mance, levels of environmental managementand classification of policies. Titles are impor-tant to consider because they usually indicatethe underlying paradigm and authors’ percep-tion of environmental issues. A wide diversityof titles can be noted, reflecting the confusionsurrounding definitions, concepts and the con-struct of sustainable development, and lackof clarity about how to arrive at more sus-tainable business practices (cf. Harrison, 2000).Models generally refer to Brundtland’s def-inition of sustainable development, withoutpaying much attention to its limitations andcontradictions. By their very nature, the mod-els generally remain within the environmentalmanagement paradigm, which implies that theenvironment can indeed be managed, using(variants of) traditional management tools, andwith corporate managers as important, if notthe main, agents in this process (Egri and Pin-field, 1996; Levy, 1997).

The third and fourth columns of Table 1show respectively how authors designate theirmodels’ stages/positions and the number ofcategories. A large variety can be observedin both columns. Most models vary betweenthree and five stages, but one model identi-fied even 33 stages in a matrix of three by11 (Muller, 1995). The brackets in the ‘num-ber’ column indicate the number of dimen-sions of the matrix in case of typology mod-els, or the number of sub-phases in a stagemodel (see the next section for more details).The names of the different stages/positionsof the models vary from generic terms such

as ‘defensive’, ‘reactive’ and ‘pro-active’ tocreative metaphors such as ‘why mess’, ‘smartmovers’ and ‘enthusiasts’. Many of the generaldesignations do, however, recur in differentmodels, although not necessarily with exactlythe same meaning.

Nature of the models

The fifth column shows the type of model: isit a continuum or a typology? A continuumis a linear classification scheme that identifiesa development in time, whereas a typologyconsists of conceptually derived interrelatedsets of ideal types.

This distinction is based on the work of Dotyand Glick (1994), who state that much of therelevant literature has used terms such as ‘clas-sification scheme’, ‘taxonomy’ and ‘typology’interchangeably, although the actual meaningof the concepts differs. In their definition, clas-sification schemes (continuum models) refer tosystems that categorize phenomena into mutu-ally exclusive and exhaustive sets with a seriesof discrete decision rules. This means thatthere must be one appropriate class (stage) intowhich each item (company) can be classified,but there may also be only one correct class foreach item. An entity thus cannot be placed intwo classes simultaneously (mutual exclusiv-ity). The applicability of environmental man-agement classification schemes is consequentlyquestionable, as most companies cannot beunambiguously placed in one stage. To citean example, a design department can inte-grate the concept of ‘design for environment’,whereas the marketing department simultane-ously focuses on its ‘core business’ only.

Unlike classification systems, typologies donot provide decision rules for categorizingorganizations. Instead, they identify multipleideal types, each of which represents a uniquecombination of the organizational attributesthat are believed to determine the relevantoutcome (Doty and Glick, 1994). The moreclosely an organization resembles an idealtype, the more effectively will it be described


22


by the typology. Concerning environmentalmanagement, the applicability of a typologymodel is therefore in principle higher thanthat of a classification scheme. The generallyaccepted idea of a growing (environmental)effectiveness (performance), on which environ-mental classification schemes are based, doesnot hold for typologies. The perspective thatmore than one ideal strategy can lead to anoptimal environmental performance may bemuch closer to reality. This idea is for exampleprevalent in the typology models in businessstrategy, such as Porter’s (1980) generic strate-gies (focus, overall cost leader and differenti-ation) and the strategic typology of Miles andSnow (1978) (prospectors, defenders, analysersand reactors).

Most of the environmental managementmodels in Table 1 are linear classificationschemes, often partly based on intuition or alimited number of case studies (see the nextsection on empirical evidence). As indicatedabove, the accuracy of these continuum mod-els is questionable. It must be noted, however,that several scholars who developed such con-tinuum models (e.g. Hofstra et al., 1990; Shri-vastava, 1995) also label their stages as ‘idealtypes’, thus trying to address the models’ maindrawback of rigidity. In this way, companiesdo not need to be situated in one stage over-all. These models then become an interme-diate form between continuum and typologymodels. The problem with this construction,however, is the absence of an increasing ‘envi-ronmental performance’ through the variousstages of such models (as ‘ideal types’ canstand for more than one possible strategy),whereas the authors still assume such a grad-ual improvement. This is thus contradictory.

A few models are ‘pure’ typology models(see e.g. Steger, 1988; Lee and Green, 1994).They are often based on a matrix structure inwhich each combination of defining criteria ispossible. Finally, two of the models (Bhargavaand Welford, 1996; Ghobadian et al., 1998) areneither continuum nor typology models. Theycan be considered as a reaction to the rigidity

of continuum models in which the (‘rigid’) lin-earity is replaced by a non-linear point of view.

Related to the nature of a model is its flex-ibility – the extent to which an organizationis supposed to fit exclusively in one stage(Table 1, sixth column). Typologies are gen-erally much more flexible than continuummodels. Remarkable, however, are the contin-uum models with a certain degree of flexibility(Ehrenfeld, 1998; GEMI, 1992; Hofstra et al.,1990; KPMG/IVA, 1996; Meffert and Kirchge-org, 1993; Shrivastava, 1995), which is theoret-ically contradictory.

The seventh column shows how the mod-els deal with the development over time. Mostmodels directly or indirectly suggest a devel-opment in time that is unique for each indi-vidual company, which is here designated as‘relative’. Some models hint at an ‘absolute’development in time, by which they look muchmore at the overall, general greening processthan at individual companies. A few modelsindirectly suggest a combination of a relativeand absolute development in time. Only asmall minority of the models does not at allrefer to a development in time, which wouldideally correspond to typologies. However, acloser look at the table shows that most ofthe typology models do suggest such a trend.This observation exemplifies the discrepancybetween a theory and its practical application.

Defining criteria and empirical basis

The rigour of a model can also be assessedby considering the criteria that were used todelineate the stages. The eighth and ninthcolumns in Table 1 list the number and natureof models’ defining criteria. It must be notedthat almost half of the models have nodefining criteria at all; in the remainder, thenumber varies between two and 16. Mostmodels without defining criteria have anotheraim than the more detailed ones, that is abroad identification of general trends versusa detailed description of reality. The numbersin brackets show the number of sub-criteria, as


23


the authors of some models further divide theirdefining criteria. The ‘nature’ of the definingcriteria indicates whether they are based oninternal processes, the business environment(in the table called ‘external’ for short) or acombination of these two. Most models focuson a combination or on the internal processes.

Related to the models’ objectives and thedegree of sophistication is the empirical evi-dence on which they are based. The last col-umn in Table 1 reveals that the majority ofthe models are conceptual, based on practi-cal experience or intuition. Slightly more than40% follow from empirical research. In half ofthem, the underlying data was obtained frominternational research in a larger number ofcountries, either worldwide or within the Euro-pean Union. The remainder of the empiricalmodels are based on more limited comparativeor one-country studies.

With only one exception, the data originatefrom more than five sectors of industry. Almosthalf of the 21 empirical models were based onresearch into more than 50 companies, whilethe other half either included fewer than 50companies or did not disclose the sample size(three models). The methods used to collectthe data were equally divided over surveys,interviews and case studies. All studies thatrelied on surveys had a sample size of over75 companies. There are, however, also modelswith a large sample that collected data throughinterviews, a prevalent method for smallersamples. Case studies were usually used whenthe research involved more limited numbersof companies or when the sample size wasunclear. Reflecting earlier observations aboutthe rigour and the nature of the models, mostcase studies were based on ‘own experience’or on existing literature.

CONCLUSIONS ON MODELS’STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

On the basis of the inventory and anal-ysis of environmental management models,the following conclusions can be drawn. The

general need to enlarge insights into the green-ing of business, and the complex web of factorsinvolved, has resulted in many models. Partic-ularly the mid-1990s witnessed the publicationof a large number of typologies and stagemodels, many of which were prescriptive andintended to serve as tools for managers, poli-cymakers and consultants. Phase-wise descrip-tions of the process have become a generallyaccepted, or at least convenient, method toimprove understanding and further the prac-tice of environmental management. Typologieshelp to identify the different reactions to envi-ronmental challenges in a more general way,usually without assuming an automaticallygrowing responsiveness over time.

In spite of their value for practical andeducational purposes, however, existing mod-els cannot easily be applied to organizations’actual behaviour. This problem can be partlyaddressed by further specifying, where neces-sary, the criteria to suit particular purposes.Such adaptations turn out to be easier fortypologies than for linear continuum models.The actual application of existing continuummodels, particularly attractive when trying tocome to grips with the greening process, hasproved practically impossible. An attempt tooperationalize the model of Hunt and Auster(1990) to eight Norwegian companies in thefood processing and printing industry led Hass(1996, p. 66) to conclude that ‘although the con-ceptually based environmental managementtypologies do seem to provide a rough under-standing of the responses that firms are mak-ing with respect to the natural environment,the weaknesses in the models become evidentwhen operationalization is attempted’. Schae-fer and Harvey (1998), who empirically testedtwo popular stage models (Hunt and Auster,1990; Roome, 1992) in the UK water and elec-tricity industries, confirmed the poor fit withbusiness reality.

To address the flaws of linear continuummodels, a few ‘second-generation’ environ-mental management models emerged in thelate 1990s. Examples include the typology


24


of Winn and Angell (2000), which focuseson policy commitment and approach toimplementation, and that of Ghobadian et al.(1998), who developed a ‘spatial’ non-linearmodel that includes both internal and externalaspects. However, this latter, comprehensivemodel is still based on the idea of consecu-tive stages, and seems again difficult to applybecause of its complexity. This illustrates thegeneral tension between a model that aims tosimplify complex reality, and the complex real-ity itself. It reveals the dilemma of making amodel more complicated to be more adequateon the one hand, and violating the idea of a‘model’ by reducing its intelligibility and prac-ticality, on the other.

The goal of environmental managementmodels is generally broad and conceptual,which is also their main contribution. As aresult, however, they have a limited suitabilityfor specific situations, and insufficiently reckonwith organizational and strategic complexities.Moreover, what seems to be the models’ mainunderlying deficiency is that operationaliza-tion is difficult because of their focus on envi-ronmental management rather than environ-mental performance. Management aspects, suchas environmental strategies, policies, commu-nication and commitment, are frequently con-sidered to be part of environmental perfor-mance, and therefore incorporated as definingcriteria in environmental management models.These environmental management aspects areindeed very closely related to environmentalperformance; it can even be argued that theyare included in an organization’s environmen-tal performance in the sense that managementideally leads to the desired performance. Inpractice, however, there is often a substantialdiscrepancy. In addition, there is a theoreticaljustification for separating outcomes from poli-cies and measures, while recognizing the closelink between the two types of indicator.

Performance evaluation systems have alsoevolved over the years, but rather separatefrom environmental management modelling.The next section will pay some attention to this

field in order to analyse their potential valuefor improving the insights into the greening ofbusiness.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCEEVALUATION

Almost parallel to the development of envi-ronmental management models, environmen-tal performance evaluation systems started tobe developed in the late 1980s. One of thefirst systematic attempts to describe good envi-ronmental performance was made in 1989 bythe Coalition for Environmentally ResponsibleEconomics (CERES) in response to the ExxonValdez oil spill (Ilinitch et al., 1998). Existingenvironmental management models could notfulfil the growing business need to obtain moredetailed insight into their environmental per-formance and to benchmark against competi-tors. This led to a request for environmentalperformance evaluation systems.

Compared with environmental managementmodels, however, general performance evalu-ation systems have been developed by practi-tioners rather than academics. For consultants,banks, business associations and environmen-tal governmental and non-governmental orga-nizations, systems primarily serve these stake-holders’ own rating and benchmarking pur-poses. As a result of this specific interest, thereis an inherent risk of a vicious circle: ‘the sub-jectivity in formulating the rankings can giverise to a dangerous circularity, whereby rank-ings are based partly upon reputation andreputation is partly based on rankings’ (Ilin-itch et al., 1998, p. 404). Moreover, performanceevaluation systems show a large diversity withregard to the specific indicator(s) used to mea-sure performance, the method of data collec-tion and the sources and origin of the informa-tion (Epstein, 1996; Bennett and James, 1999).

Academics have used specific environmen-tal performance measures for research pur-poses, particularly to investigate the relation-ship with financial performance, and usuallyin the US, but this falls outside the scope


25


of this paper. Only a very limited numberhas focused on environmental performancemeasurement in a broad sense, usually to cat-egorize existing rating systems and identifythe main components necessary to increasecomprehensiveness (Lober, 1996; Ilinitch et al.,1998). These studies confirm a lack of clarity onthe concept and field of environmental perfor-mance. There is a lack of agreement on what,how and where to measure. Ilinitch et al. (1998)also noted that no single approach addressescommon dimensions of environmental perfor-mance in a formal theoretical or a systematicempirical way.

In recent years, however, converging ten-dencies can be observed in both the theoreticaland the practical approaches to environmen-tal performance evaluation. The developmentsin both streams, which still remain largelyseparate, will be briefly indicated in the nextsection.

The analysis of environmental performance

To help the clarification of the environmentalperformance concept, Ilinitch et al. (1998) havedeveloped a framework to categorize thelarge variety of possible indicators. Theyidentified four aspects in a two by two‘corporate environmental performance’ matrix(see Table 2). It distinguishes between internaland external components on the one hand, andprocess and outcome variables on the other.The process dimensions refer to aspects such as

Table 2. A corporate environmental performance matrix.Reproduced with permission from Elsevier Science

Internal External

Process Organizationalsystems

Stakeholderrelations

Outcome Regulatorycompliance

Environmentalimpacts

Reprinted from Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,volume 17, Ilinitich AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE,Measuring corporate environmental performance, p 388.Copyright 1998, with permission from Elsevier Science.

audits, number of environmental staff, missionstatements and communications. Outcomesusually include more quantitative data ontoxic releases, spills, violations of regulatorystandards and penalties.

For some stakeholders, such as consumersand employees, process measures seem easierto understand than the outcome indicatorsthat rating agencies and regulators prefer.Interpretation of outcome measures is, how-ever, more difficult as they require back-ground/contextual information, are usuallyprovided by the company itself and may thusbe subject to ‘window-dressing’. Moreover,particularly outside the US, the collection ofoutcome data frequently proves impossible inthe absence of legal requirements for toxicemission registration and the provision of suchinformation to the public. The ‘regulatory com-pliance’ label that Ilinitch et al. give to theinternal outcome indicators partly reveals theauthors’ reliance on the US situation, indicatinga compliance-oriented focus of environmentalmanagement.

The nature of environmental performancevariables becomes clearer in the distinctionbetween leading and lagging indicators, whichlargely resembles respectively process and out-come measures (cf. Kaplan and Norton, 1996).Lagging indicators are ‘measures of the resultsor outcomes (e.g., reduction in material inten-sity) that are attributable to improvements ina company’s business process’, whereas lead-ing indicators give information about ‘inter-nal practices or efforts that are expected toimprove future performance (e.g. use of lifecy-cle design tools which help improve materialefficiency)’ (Fiksel et al., 1999, p. 4). Compa-nies usually report lagging indicators, whichare better available and understandable, butpresent results from the past without predict-ing or giving insight into future performance.What leading indicators are, and to whatextent they improve environmental perfor-mance is, however, difficult to assess becausethis requires a longitudinal analysis.


26


Converging practices of performance evaluation

The practice of environmental performanceevaluation, traditionally consisting of ratherisolated efforts, has only recently startedto show more interrelationships (cf. Bennettand James, 1999), in which they build on,or partly use, existing knowledge. Recentinitiatives include the International Standard-isation Organisation’s (ISO) 14031 standard,the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guide-lines and the eco-efficiency guide of the WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD).1 Their main characteristics will beindicated below, linking them to the frame-work in Table 2.

ISO14031, the 1999 standard on environmen-tal performance evaluation, developed out ofthe European Green Table (1997) that triedto establish generic categories of environmen-tal performance indicators. It distinguishesbetween environmental performance indica-tors and environmental condition indicators:the context that is relevant for understand-ing environmental performance. Environmen-tal performance indicators are subdividedinto management performance indicators, andoperational performance indicators (inputsand outputs). In view of its focus on the pro-vision of internal information, ISO14031 doesnot cover communication to stakeholders (seeTable 2), although the data can be used forexternal disclosure.

This reporting component is addressed bythe GRI, a joint effort of a large number ofgovernmental and non-governmental organi-zations, and business (associations), launchedin 1997 by CERES. The 2000 guidelines focuson the collection and categorization of datathat is necessary for adequate stakeholder

1 Another interesting initiative is the Dow Jones SustainabilityGroup Index (DJSGI), particularly noteworthy as it aims to com-plement traditional US socially responsible investment ratingswith a focus on the broader concept of sustainability and onthe European situation (http://www.sustainability-index.com).Because of its screening for investment purposes, the DJSGIis different from ISO14031, GRI and WBCSD. For informa-tion on the latter three, see respectively http://www.iso.ch,http://www.globalreporting.org and http://www.wbcsd.ch.

communication on companies’ environmen-tal, social and economic performance, andthus covers Table 2 as a whole. For report-ing purposes, a division is made betweenvision, governance structure and managementsystems, and performance indicators. Withregard to environmental performance indi-cators, the most elaborate part, the guide-lines distinguish between generally applica-ble and organization-specific measures, whichconsider sector and country characteristics.

The WBCSD has built on this division, apply-ing it to eco-efficiency, which is the relation-ship between product/service value (numer-ator) and environmental influence (denomi-nator). It separates general indicators frombusiness/product-specific measures, offeringsuggestions for the assessment of value andthe calculation of ratios (Verfaillie and Bid-well, 2000). Although eco-efficiency is a ratherspecific concept, different from organiza-tional environmental performance, the WBCSDguide contributes to the standardization andmeasurement of outcomes.

Using the insights from these three initia-tives, Figure 1 identifies the main componentsof environmental performance evaluation.Three elements are distinguished: environmen-tal management indicators (EMIs), environ-mental condition indicators (ECIs) and envi-ronmental performance indicators (EPIs). Theperformance indicators are subdivided intooperational indicators (specific actions related toareas such as procurement, the production pro-cess, and the use and disposal of products) andimpact indicators (outputs such as emissions,water and energy consumption, and waste).It should be noted that for the environmentalcondition indicators, Figure 1 only gives someexamples, derived from ISO14031. This is dueto the fact that ECIs are particularly difficult tostandardize or operationalize. With this caveat,the evaluation of environmental managementand performance is feasible, but the indicatorsshould be specified to suit the particular situa-tion (cf. Mauser, 2001, for an application to theDutch dairy industry). Adaptations thus need


27


Environmental Management Indicators(EMIs):

Includes management efforts to influencean organisation’s environmentalperformance, such as those with regard to:

•

•

•

Vision, strategy, policy• Organisational structure related to

environmental management• Management systems and related

documentation• Management commitment to

environmental issues•

•

•

Communication to internal and externalstakeholders

Environmental Performance Indicators(EPIs):

Environmental Operational Indicators;involves specific actions, such as:- Procurement measures- Technical product/process measures- Product/service use measures

Environmental Impact Indicators;involves ‘outputs’, for example:- Energy consumption--

Water consumption

-Greenhouse gas emissions

- Total wasteMaterials consumption

Environmental Condition Indicators (ECIs)

Examples include:

At the local, national or international levels: thickness of ozone layer, average globaltemperature, size of fish populations in oceans

At the local or regional levels: concentration of a specific contaminant in air, soil, groundwateror surface water; population density or noise levels in a plant’s surroundings

Figure 1. Components for environmental performance evaluation

to be made that consider country, sector andorganizational peculiarities, and reckon withthe particular objectives for the performanceevaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the preceding analysis, it canbe concluded that the field of environmentalmanagement has evolved from a mere relianceon linear stage models to more elaborate con-siderations on the determinants and compo-nents of management and performance. Thisreflects a continued large interest from bothacademics and practitioners in the greening ofbusiness, and in the possibilities to stimulatethis process.

In the large variety of environmental man-agement models presented in Table 1, linearstage models and typologies can be usefuldepending on the particular purpose and audi-ence. To serve practical and educational inter-ests, phase-wise descriptions sketch generaldevelopments in business approaches to theenvironment. Typologies offer opportunities

for identifying these different reactions with-out necessarily assuming a growing respon-siveness over time.

To apply environmental management mod-els to organizations’ actual behaviour, how-ever, more specific criteria will be needed. Suchadaptations turn out to be easier for typolo-gies than for stage models, for which oper-ationalization has proved practically impos-sible. Although this does not undermine themodels’ general value, it points to their limita-tions, particularly the lack of suitability for spe-cific situations, and the attention for environ-mental management rather than environmen-tal performance. While environmental man-agement and performance are closely linked,there is both a practical and theoretical justi-fication for considering them as different setsof (related) indicators. Environmental perfor-mance evaluation systems have also developedover the years, parallel to, but rather separatefrom, environmental management models.

Until recently, most performance systemshave served highly specific purposes, tobenchmark and rate companies for invest-ment selection, or investigate the relation-ship between environmental and financial


28


performance, usually based on US data in viewof their better availability. This did not resultin much clarity on the concept and measure-ment of environmental performance. Recentdevelopments have, however, led to the identi-fication of different dimensions, especially thedivision between process and outcome mea-sures, or leading and lagging indicators, andthe internal and external components of envi-ronmental performance (see Table 2). More-over, international initiatives to standardizemeasurement and reporting have shed lighton the practical application. This includes thethreefold distinction between environmentalmanagement, environmental performance andenvironmental condition indicators, the needto split generally applicable and organization-specific indicators and methods for calculatingappropriate ratios. Figure 1 identified the maincomponents related to such an evaluation.

For those who are interested in more spe-cific assessments, the insights from the fieldof environmental performance supplement themore general identification of trends in envi-ronmental management. Whether for academicor practitioner purposes, data collection con-tinues to be a challenge, especially in the largenumber of countries where companies are notlegally required to submit environmental data.There are potentially promising steps result-ing from recent initiatives to improve companyreporting on environmental practices, and thecontinued worldwide interest in environmen-tal management and performance evaluation.Even if some information is available, however,the reliability and the limited availability ofperhaps more useful data continues to requirecareful consideration.

REFERENCES

Arthur D, Little. 1996a. Sustainable Industrial Develop-ment: Sharing Responsibilities in a Competitive World.VROM/EZ: The Hague.

Arthur D, Little. 1996b. Workshop Environmental Strategy.Creating Business Advantage. Rotterdam.

Azzone G, Bertele U. 1994. Exploiting green strategiesfor competitive advantage. Long Range Planning 27(6):69–81.

Bennett M, James P (eds). 1999. Sustainable Measures.Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and SocialPerformance. Greenleaf: Sheffield.

Berry MA, Rondinelli DA. 1998. Proactive corporateenvironmental management: a new industrial revo-lution. Academy of Management Executive 12(2): 38–50.

Bhargava S, Welford R. 1996. Corporate strategy and theenvironment: the theory. In Corporate EnvironmentalManagement. Systems and Strategies, Welford R (ed.).Earthscan: London; 13–32.

Brockhoff K, Chakrabarti AK, Kirchgeorg M. 1999. Cor-porate strategies in environmental management.Research Technology Management July–August: 26–30.

Buitelaar W. 1995. Environment, sustainability andindustrial relations. P+ European Participation Monitor2: 12–18.

Burschel C. 1996. Umweltschutz als socialer Prozess: dieOrganisation des Umweltschutzes und die Implemen-tierung von Umwelttechnik im Betrieb. Westdeutscher:Aachen.

Callens I, Wolters L. 1998. Factors of unsustainability:identification, links and hierarchy. Business Strategyand the Environment 7: 32–42.

Cramer J, Jansen L. 1995. De drie soorten milieu-innovaties vullen elkaar aan. Milieuforum 2: 10–11.

Crosbie L, Knight K. 1995. Strategy for SustainableBusiness. McGraw-Hill: London.

De Vries W, Altenburg U. 1995. Milieumarketing. StenfertKroese: Houten.

Dobers P, Strannegard L, Wolff R. 2000. Union-jackingthe research agenda. A study of the frontstage andbackstage of Business Strategy and the Environment1992–1998. Business Strategy and the Environment 9:49–61.

Dodge J. 1997. Reassessing culture and strategy: Envi-ronmental improvement, structure, leadership andcontrol. In Corporate Environmental Management 2. Cul-ture and Organizations, Welford R (ed.). Earthscan:London; 104–126.

Doty DH, Glick WH. 1994. Typologies as a unique formof theory building: toward improved understandingand modeling. Academy of Management Review 19(2):230–251.

Egri CP, Pinfield LT. 1996. Organizations and thebiosphere: ecologies and environments. In Handbookof Organization Studies, Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR(eds). Sage: London; 459–483.

Ehrenfeld JR. 1998. Cultural structure and the challengeof sustainability. In Better Environment Decisions, Sex-ton K (ed.). Island Press: Washington, DC; 223–244.

Elkington J. 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation:win–win–win business strategies for sustainable


29


development. California Management Review 36(2):90–100.

Epstein MJ. 1996. Measuring Corporate EnvironmentalPerformance. Irwin: Chicago, IL.

European Green Table. 1997. Environmental PerformanceIndicators in Industry. Report 5: Practical Experienceswith Developing EPIs in 12 Companies. NorwegianConfederation of Business and Industry: Oslo.

Fiksel J, McDaniel J, Mendenhall C. 1999. Measuringprogress toward sustainability principles, process andbest practices. In 1999 Greening of Industry NetworkConference Best Practice Proceeding. The Greening ofIndustry Network: Chapell Hill [CD Rom].

Fischer K, Schot J (eds). 1993. Environmental Strategies forIndustry. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Florida R. 1996. Lean and green: the move to environ-mentally conscious manufacturing. California Manage-ment Review 39(1): 80–105.

GEMI. 1992. Environmental Self-Assessment Program.Global Environmental Management Initiative: Wash-ington, DC.

Ghobadian A, Viney H, Liu J, James P. 1998. Extendinglinear approaches to mapping corporate environmen-tal behaviour. Business Strategy and the Environment 7:13–23.

Greeno JL. 1991. Environmental excellence: meeting thechallenge. Arthur D. Little Prism Third Quarter: 13–31.

Harrison NE. 2000. Constructing Sustainable Development.State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.

Hart SL. 1997. Beyond greening: strategies for asustainable world. Harvard Business Review January-February: 66–76.

Hass JL. 1996. Environmental (‘green’) managementtypologies: an evaluation, operationalization andempirical development. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 5(1): 59–68.

Hofstra NA, Timar JA, Verdonk HR, De Walle FB.1990. Milieubedrijfsvoering, Problemen en Perspectieven.Samsom Tjeenk Willink: Rotterdam.

Hunt CB, Auster ER. 1990. Pro-active environmentalmanagement: avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Manage-ment Review Winter: 7–18.

Hutchinson C. 1996. Integrating environmental policywith business strategy. Long Range Planning 29(1):11–23.

Ilinitch AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE. 1998. Measur-ing corporate environmental performance. Journal ofAccounting and Public Policy 17: 383–408.

Kaplan RS, Norton DP. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard.Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard BusinessSchool Press: Boston, MA.

Kolk A. 2000. Economics of Environmental Management.Financial Times Prentice Hall: Harlow.

KPMG/IVA. 1996. Evaluatie bedrijfsmilieuzorgsystemen.The Hague/Tilburg.

Lee BW, Green K. 1994. Towards commercial andenvironmental excellence: a green portfolio matrix.Business Strategy and the Environment 3(3): 1–9.

Levy, DL. 1997. Environmental management as politicalsustainability. Organization and Environment 10(2):126–147.

Lober D. 1996. Evaluating the environmental perfor-mance of corporations. The Journal of Managerial Issues8(2): 184–205.

Mauser A. 2001. The Greening of Business. EnvironmentalManagement and Performance Evaluation: an EmpiricalStudy in the Dutch Dairy Industry. Eburon: Delft.

Meffert H, Kirchgeorg M. 1993. Marktorientiertes Umwelt-management. Schaffer-Poeschel: Stuttgart.

Miles RE, Snow EE. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Struc-ture, and Process. McGraw Hill: New York.

Molenkamp GC. 1995. De Verzakelijking van het Milieu:Onomkeerbare Ontwikkelingen in het Bedrijfsleven.KPMG–WIMM: The Hague/Amsterdam.

Muller K, Koechlin D. 1992. Environmentally consciousmanagement. In Green Business Opportunities: the ProfitPotential, Koechlin D, Muller K (eds). Pitman: London;166–172.

Muller W. 1995. Der okologische Umbau der Industrie:Beitrage zur socialwissenschaftlichen Umweltforschung.Lit: Munster.

Newman JC, Breeden KM. 1993. Managing in the envi-ronmental era: lessons from environmental leaders.The Columbia Journal of World Business 27: 210–221.

Petulla JM. 1987. Environmental Protection in the UnitedStates. San Francisco Study Center: San Francisco.

Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Techniques forAnalyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press: NewYork.

Post JE, Altman BW. 1994. Managing the environmentalchange process: barriers and opportunities. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management 7(4): 64–81.

Rondinelli DA, Vastag G. 1996. International environ-mental standards and corporate policies: an integra-tive framework. California Management Review 39(1):106–122.

Roome N. 1992. Developing environmental managementstrategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 1:11–24.

Sanchez JC. 1993. The long and thorny way to anorganizational taxonomy. Organization Studies 14(1):73–92.

Scallon M, Sten MJ. 1996. Environmental positioning forthe future: a review of 36 companies in the pacificNorthwest region of the United States of America.Greener Management International 13: 49–65.

Schaefer A, Harvey B. 1998. Stage models of corporategreening: a critical evaluation. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 7: 109–123.

Schot J. 1995. Strategie en milieu. In Milieumanagement:van Kosten naar Baten. Braakhuis F, Gijtenbeek M,


30


Hafkamp W (eds). Samsom Tjeenk Willink: Alphenaan de Rijn; 25–46.

Schwenk CR. 1985. The use of participant recollectionin the modeling of organizational decision processes.Academy of Management Review 10(3): 496–503.

Shrivastava P. 1995. The role of corporations in achievingecological sustainability. Academy of ManagementReview 20(4): 936–960.

Shrivastava P, Hart S. 1995. Creating sustainable cor-porations. Business Strategy and the Environment 4:154–165.

Simpson A. 1991. The Greening of Global Investment – Howthe Environment, Ethics and Politics are ReshapingStrategies. The Economist: London.

Steger U. 1988. Umweltmanagement, Erfahrungen undInstrumente einer Umweltorientierten Unternehemens-strategie. Gabler: Wiesbaden.

Stikker A. 1992. Sustainability and business manage-ment. Business Strategy and the Environment 1(3):1–8.

UNCTAD. 1993. Environmental Management in Transna-tional Corporations. Research on the Benchmark CorporateEnvironmental Survey. United Nations: New York.

UNEP. 1995a. Corporate quality/environmental man-agement: the first conference, Global EnvironmentalManagement Initiative (1991). UNEP Industry and Envi-ronment April-September: 7.

UNEP. 1995b. Environmental policy and industrialinnovation: strategies in Europe, the US and Japan.UNEP Industry and Environment April-September: 118.

Veering J. 1995. Flexibele vergunning bewijst zich in depraktijk. Milieumarkt December: 12–13.

Verfaillie HA, Bidwell R. 2000. Measuring Eco-Efficiency.A Guide to Reporting Company Performance. World

Business Council for Sustainable Development:Geneva.

Vermaak H. 1995. Strategieen creeren voor groenconcurreren. Holland/Belgium Management Review 45:80–87.

Wicke L. 1991. Chancen der Betriebe durch offensivesUmweltschutz-Management. In Umwelt und Okonomie:Reader zur okologieorientierten Betriebswirtschaftslehre.Seidel E, Strebel H (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden; 347–370.

Winn MI, Angell AC. 2000. Towards a process modelof corporate greening. Organization Studies 21(6):1119–1147.

Winsemius P, Mak JK. 1994. Milieu op de agenda.Holland Management Review 40: 56–63.

BIOGRAPHY

Ans Kolk is an associate professor at theUniversity of Amsterdam, Department ofAccountancy and Information Management,Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, TheNetherlands. Tel.: 31 20 5254289. Fax: 31 205255281. Email address: [email protected] Mauser is a researcher at the Universityof Amsterdam, Department of Accountancyand Information Management, Roetersstraat11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Since January 2002, she works for Unilever’sGlobal Sustainable Agriculture Initiative.


31

Documents

The Evolution of Environmental Management From Stage Models to Performance Evaluation