تجزیه و تحلیل مقایسه ای از انتشار استاندارد ایزو 14001 در بخش های فعالیت

In recent years there have been many approaches to understand the cross-country diffusion rate of the most common environmental management standards issued by the International Organization for Standardization, the ISO 14000 series, due to their spectacular growth around the world, even though a certain saturation has been detected in some countries. However, few studies have shed light on the diffusion process of these standards across sectors of activity. Therefore, the present paper examines whether there are patterns of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard that are singular at specific sectors of economic activity. The analysis was carried out using a logistic curve that fits quite well to explain the nature of this growth, and instability and concentration indexes were calculated to analyze the evolution of the rankings of the sectors attending the number of certifications ISO 14001. It concludes that the diffusion among sectors is quite homogeneous: all sectors have experienced similar behavior. Moreover, the article proposes some suggestions for future research.

Specialized agencies publish management standards applicable to different aspects of corporate management as the need arises. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), established in 1947, has issued several such standards, notably the ISO 9000 Quality Management Standards, first published in 1987, and of which several revisions have since been published. The dissemination of the ISO 9000 standards has been highly successful. In 2008, for instance, at least 982,832 ISO 9001:2008 certificates were issued in 176 countries (ISO, 2009). This represents an increase of 31,346 (+3%) over 2007, when the total was 951,486 in 175 countries (ISO, 2009). In the mid-nineties another family of standards was published by ISO, the ISO 14000 series, related to the implementation of environmental management systems. This also has been quite successful, with at least 188,815 certificates being issued during the course of 2008 in 155 countries (ISO, 2009). The growth rate of this standard can be considered as frankly spectacular, first because it grows 22% over 2007, and second given that just 10 years ago the number of ISO 14001 certifications worldwide was only 7887 (ISO, 2000). At a European level, another environmental management standard has been introduced: the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (EMAS, 2011). This is a more demanding standard than ISO 14001 in terms of content, but nonetheless remains voluntary. EMAS is in fact a European Union regulation that gives recognition to those organizations that have implemented an environmental management system and have adopted a commitment to continuous improvement, verified by independent audits. EMAS recognized organizations, whether industrial companies, small and medium businesses, non-profit making organizations, or governmental and international organizations, have a defined environmental policy, make use of an environmental management system and issue regular reports on the operation of this system in the form of environmental statements verified by independent bodies. The number of such certified organizations in Europe in 2009 was 4,470, located mainly in Germany, Spain and Italy. Fig. 1 compares the numbers of certifications for the two environmental standards referred to, and although the figures do not coincide chronologically, since for reasons of availability of data the totals given for EMAS certifications are for June 2010 while the ISO 14001 totals correspond to December 2008, it can be seen that Spain and Italy are at the head of the table for both certifications. It is also to be noted that the number of ISO 14001 certifications are much higher than those for EMAS.Although ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are the most widespread standards worldwide, other management systems have also been published and gained general acceptance, including OHSAS 18001 (BSI, 2007) in the field of health and safety management systems or the SA 8000 management system (SAI, 2008), the AA1000 Series (AccountAbility, 1995) and the Global Reporting Initiative (Global Reporting Initiative, 1997) for corporate social responsibility, among others. The benefits and the drawbacks of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 have been the subject of analysis and discussion from both an academic and an organizational standpoint (e.g., Gimenez et al., 2006, Davies and Webber, 1998, del Brio et al., 2001, Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2005 and Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito, 2008). The diffusion of both standards has also been studied in-depth and comparative analyses have been undertaken of their patterns of diffusion. In most cases, the analyses have been cross-national (e.g., Franceschini et al., 2004, Marimon et al., 2006, Marimon et al., 2009, Marimon et al., 2010 and Casadesús et al., 2008). This approach makes it possible to analyze why the rate of diffusion is different in different geographical areas. National governments have in fact adopted differing approaches to the promotion of quality standards within their countries’ organizations, or to the latter’s relationships with the environment. But there is a lack of studies analyzing the diffusion of these standards by sectors of activity. As far as the authors know, the only similar study that analyzes the rate of diffusion of one quality standard according to sector of activity is the recently published analysis by Llach et al. (2010). The purpose of the study referred to is to analyze the evolution of the worldwide diffusion of the ISO 9000 family of quality standards in terms of the different sectors of industrial activity. In view of the lack of studies analyzing the other most widespread worldwide standard, ISO 14001, the aim of the present study is to determine whether there are patterns of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard that are specific to each sector of economic activity, given that each sector has its own norms of behavior. In order to achieve this aim, the paper has been structured as follows. Next section consists of a literature review. In the third section, the methodology is defined. Results are presented in the fourth section and conclusions are detailed in the last section. Moreover, some recommendations are suggested to shed some light on the ongoing debate about the greening industry.

The aim of this study is to determine whether there are patterns of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard that are specific to each sector of economic activity, given that each sector has its own norms of behavior. After the analysis has been completed, it can be observed that the diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard has been very similar in different sectors of activity. This study is the first analyzing the diffusion model of standards, in this case ISO 14001, by sectors of economic activity on a worldwide basis. Previous studies, as discussed earlier in the paper, have analyzed the diffusion in a sector or in a region or country. As far as the authors know, there is currently only one paper in the literature that analyzes the diffusion of one standard according to activity sectors: the recently published paper by Llach et al. (2010), which concludes that the current state of diffusion of ISO 9001 differs between different sectors of activity. It is therefore also important to shed some light on the diffusion of one of the other most widespread standards worldwide, ISO 14001, according to sector of activity, thus departing from the usual cross-national analysis. In this paper three main conclusions can be extracted. The first one is that no evidence has been found to justify rejecting the working hypothesis initially referred to above, i.e. “all sectors of economic activity have a similar pattern of behavior with regard to the diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard”, and therefore maintain that diffusion is similar in different sectors. In the sectors analyzed by way of example, the logistic curve fits well, but only as an explanation of what has happened up to now. It is, moreover, observed that the standard is attaining maturity, since it can be seen that the relative positions in the rankings are tending to remain more and more stable, and that furthermore the percentages of certifications by sector are equaling out. When comparing the results of this study with the existing literature about ISO 14001’s diffusion by sectors is necessary to take into account that none of the studies found have performed a worldwide analyses regarding diffusion models. The research done about sectors has analyzed the diffusion based on the number of certifications, but not discussed the model followed. For example, Franceschini et al. (2008) were not able to find differences between sub-sectors in Italy. In contrast, Specchiarello and Giagnorio (2009) found that the highest diffusion was on wholesale supply and distribution sectors, and the least diffusion in services, analyzing Italian data, as well as Lagodimos et al. (2007), who found that Greek manufacturing sectors, those performing hazardous activities or products, have a higher diffusion than commerce and service sectors. In this study, analyzing the same data, i.e., number of certifications, manufacturing sectors have also a high diffusion rate, and some service sectors have a slower diffusion rate. Bodas (2009) found that the sectors with a higher propensity to certificate ISO 14001 are: “basic metal and fabricated metal products”, “electrical and optical equipment”, “food industry” and “machinery and transport”. Two of these sectors are located in our top three ranking of sectors with more certifications in 2008. Thus, no differences about the diffusion pattern have been found globally in our study, although there are differences in the number of certifications by each sector and country. Second, nor can it be observed that there has been an imbalance between sectors over time. When the patterns of evolution for the sectors are superimposed, it is observed that they have a similar profile. Homogeneous, steady growth is observed. It is not observed that there is a time gap between sectors, but rather that all sectors are maturing at the same rate. This could be explained by the experiences gained in the certification of this standard, and also the previous experience certifying other systems (as discussed for example by Corbett (2006)). This stability could be not perceived if this analysis is performed to new standards, although data is needed to carry it out (as highlighted also in Meade and Islam (2006)). The third conclusion is that the observation of the data collected by sector differs from the analysis made when the same data are collected by country. The debate existing to date in the literature on the subject has focused on a comparison between countries, in which differences have been observed and possible causes have been analyzed. This could be explained, as discussed also in Marimon et al. (2010), because the ISO 14001 standards were created in the mid-nineties, when there was an overall institutional framework favorable to a green production and consumption paradigm. The creation of this standard actually coincides with the 1992 Rio Summit, a forum that asked ISO to create an EMS standard (Mendel, 2001). Although the process to establish the ISO 14000 standards was controversial (Haufler, 1999), once it had been enacted there was a clear consensus to adopt it among the three major economic blocs of the time. It was thus supported by the U.S., whose administration was afraid that EMAS could become a technical barrier to free trade, in the same way that ISO 9001 had been in the eighties; by Japan, whose administration gave strong support for the diffusion of ISO 14001; and by the third bloc, the European Community, which started out with the advantage of having the largest number of companies certified in accordance with the ISO 9000 series, a standard which was very similar in structure and procedure to ISO 14001. These explanations concerning different patterns of behavior depending on geographical area disappear when data are collected by sector. It can thus be said that diffusion has proceeded at different rates or in keeping with different patterns in different geographical areas, but within each area all sectors of economic activity have experienced growth in the same way. Therefore, The results of this study have also implications for the greening industry. Adopting an environmental standard is a first step for those organizations committed to respect the environment, producing products and offering services that comply with what the stakeholders are demanding. But also, by being greener, companies can improve their performances as found in Rao and Holt (2005), where organizations with ISO 14001 implemented in East Asia, by greening their supply chains they achieve competitiveness and economic performance. This is also in line with Holt and Ghobadian (2009) who found, in a sample of 60 manufacturers, that factors for improve environmental performance are legislation, company’s size and potential environmental risk and impact, as the diffusion of ISO 14001 is explained for government pressure (see e.g., Jackson and Lapsley, 2003 and Lapsley and Wright, 2004). Although these practices and implications may vary considering different countries (Carter and Fowler, 2008 and sectors Dangelico and Pontrandolfo, 2010), we have evidenced that the diffusion model, that could be the first step for a “green” strategy, is the same for all sectors. The next step should be for companies and sectors, to best manage the standard and become a “green” company. As Backer and Clark (Backer and Clark, 2008) suggested, using a network could help in taking profits, for both companies and stakeholders. The main limitation of this study is the data itself, as it is commented in the paper, the sum of the industrial sectors by country exceeds, in some cases, the total sum. Although we cannot fix this limitation, it is known and some actions have been taking to avoid the effect on the results, but we cannot assure that some kind of bias could exist. From this point onwards it will be more appropriate to refine the comparative analysis by using new variables such as the degree of relative importance of each sector in its contribution to global gross domestic product (GDP). In this way it will be possible to establish a measurement similar to that used by Marimon et al., 2006, Marimon et al., 2009 and Marimon et al., 2010, when they compare the intensity of certifications in different countries. It would be interesting to determine whether, in the light of the available data, sectors in each country behave in the same way, or whether, depending on the country concerned, there are a greater number of sectors in which there are more certifications than in others.