The construction of environmental indicators for determination of performance of ESG indicators to support decision-making of investors/Aplinkosaugos rodikliu nustatymas veiklai vertinti pagal asv veiklos kriterijus ir investuotoju sprendimams paremti.
Kocmanova, Alena ; Karpisek, Zdenek ; Klimkova, Marketa 等
1. Introduction
In recent years, investment managers have preferred the importance
of ESG indicators showing long-term performance of those companies in
which they have invested their financial resources. Surveys indicate
that investors are more and more convinced that ESG integration into
their investment decisions maximizes their long-term interest and that
good corporate governance and sustainability contribute to creation of
long-term value for shareholders.
The project holder--Faculty of Business and Management, Brno
University of Technology (FBM BUT) --is involved in ESG indicators in
the processing sector in the Czech Republic within the framework of the
Project No. P403/11/2085 "Construction of Methods for Multifactor
Assessment of Company Complex Performance in Selected Sectors"
funded by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GACR).
The objective of presented contribution is to propose a method of
selection of environmental performance indicators at the corporate
level, supporting decision-making of investors and being the part of ESG
indicators and Integrated Reporting. Application of proposed methodology
is clearly illustrated with an example of environmental indicators for
performance. Reaching the objective is divided into successive steps.
Individual stages of selection of indicators, including description of
applied methods, have been defined in the methodology.
Development of research in the area of corporate performance
evaluation and corporate sustainability reporting in the Czech Republic
has been described by authors (Hfebicek, Soukupova 2009; Kocmanova,
Docekalova 2011; Ritschelova et al. 2010)
The most commonly known environmental, economic and social
corporate data and information are being monitored, codified, registered
and aggregated into Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (Bassen, Kovacs
2009; DVFA 2009; IFAC 2012).
The sustainability performance is, however, often understood as
performance in environmental, social and economic/ financial terms, thus
excluding governance performance (Schaltegger, Wagner 2006). However, we
shall also consider corporate governance (Bhojraj, Sengupta 2003).
Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that ESG integration is
currently becoming the investment strategy, whereby ESG indicators focus
on the economic consequences of long-term risks and opportunities,
associated with strategies of companies in which investments are being
made. ESG performance indicators are becoming a tool for future cash
flows. Primarily, investors want to achieve excellent financial returns
under predetermined risk levels (Bartes 2010; Kocmanova, Nemecek 2009).
Even with the growth of socially responsible investment (SRI) such
ESG indicators are being incorporated into the investment assessment.
Current financial crisis has shifted a stronger focus of the investors
on the social and environmental conditions existing in the companies to
be covered in their investment analyses. Many companies have also begun
to ask themselves how to improve their communication skills on
environmental, social and governance factors aiming at these mainstream
investors (BSR 2011)
Corporate sustainability, that is the capacity of a company to
continue operating over a long period of time, depends on the
sustainability of its stakeholder relationships (Perrini, Tencati 2006).
2. Environmental Performance
An environmental performance indicator of a particular company
(indicator of impact of company activity on its environment) is
understood as a specific statement, facilitating the measurement of
company's environmental performance. Development of environmental
indicators has passed through a long evolution. Consumers more and more
demand green products and services; on the other hand, businesses and
industries are now much more responsive to green issues (Yildiz, Yercan
2011).
CSN EN ISO 14000, mainly represented by generic standard CSN EN ISO
14001, is applied in the ecologically oriented management system in the
Czech Republic. The standards accompanying the establishment of systems
of environmental management and their auditing shall be governed by the
series of standards CSN EN ISO 14000. The underlying philosophy of these
international standards is to assist companies with all areas towards
active and independent behaviour in environmental matters.
Environmental performance indicators in the context of the
Environmental Management Systems (EMS and EMAS) of the company should
address primarily those company environmental impacts that are most
significant and those which the company can influence by its operations,
management, activities, products and services on environment and
sustainable growth. They should fulfill dual purpose of assisting the
management of the company and providing information to stakeholders
(Hfebicek, Soukupova 2009).
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provide companies with a tool for
measurement. KPIs help companies to implement strategies by linking
various levels of such companies (organization units, departments as
well as individuals) with clearly defined targets and benchmarks.
Corporate environmental (sustainable) reporting forms the part of
company environmental communication that is directed from such a company
to various target groups. Nowadays corporate environmental reporting has
evolved to sustainability reporting, which covers a wider area of the
company performance, also including economic and social aspects
(Hfebicek, Soukupova, Kutova 2009; Schaltegger, Wagner 2012).
3. Empirical research
A number of successive steps have been taken to construct
environmental indicators within the framework of the research. These
relate to objective and subjective methods of selection of
indicators/performance indicators and use of combination of various
statistical methods.
Objective methods, e.g. on the basis of statistical analyses,
represent the most appropriate method of the selection of indicators.
They provide results based on clear algorithms, coming out only from
actual values of such indicators Subjective indicators are based mainly
on statements made by the respondents and their reflection of the
investigated issue. Nevertheless, rational-logical point of view on
monitored indicators is eliminated during the selection procedure. Thus,
they are clearly subject to the person and investigated personality
(Kuprova, Kamenicky 2004). The instrument of efficiency's
measurement is metrics i.e. strict financial or non-financial indicators
or evaluative criteria which use efficiency's levels in specific
area of enterprise. To analyse and control complex processes and
phenomena, the knowledge of their inherent structure is needed
(Ginevicius 2010).
The measurement of the contribution of an economic entity (company,
etc.) to the sustainability poses a problem today and is subject to
several debates. Based on the information provided by the organizational
entities themselves and the information made public, the approach of
sustainable value constitutes today the approach most accomplished to
assess the sustainable performance (Rhouma 2010).
The impact of environmental matters on business performance is
increasing and will continue to do so. For example, poor management of
energy, natural resources or waste can affect current performance;
failure to plan for a future in which environmental factors are likely
to be significant may risk the long-term value and future of a business.
Therefore, it is expected that company shall need to use environmental
KPIs to adequately capture the link between more and more environmental,
social and economic performance.
As it is clear from the analyses of international organizations
(GRI, UNCTAD, IFAC, UN PRI, UNEP FI, OECD, IFRS, EFFAS-DVFA, CFA, etc.),
which are dealing with the development of environmental, social and also
corporate governance and economic indicators, there are coming to the
front the ESG performance indicators, which they recommend to the
investors to incorporate into their investment analyses and
decision-making processes (CA 2012; CFA 2012; DVFA 2008; IFAC 2012;
Nardo et al. 2005).
On the basis of such processed resources the questionnaire
"PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC
ASPECTS AND GOVERNANCE" has been designed. Such proposed
questionnaire has been compiled on the basis of achieved theoretical
knowledge, defined areas of solved problem and specific objectives, so
that the obtained results may contribute to the setup of key performance
indicators (KPI) for the companies in the manufacturing industry
according to CZ-NACE in the year 2012. Partial objective of the
empirical research has been represented by the identification of key
environmental performance indicators. Companies classified according to
the legal forms of their businesses have been selected from the compiled
database of companies and personally visited: 42 joint stock companies,
35 limited liability companies, 1 association and 1 state-owned
enterprise classified in CZ-NACE in the processing industry, i.e. 79
companies with the number of employees over 250 according to the
EU-criterion. From the ownership perspective, out of participating 79
companies 44 companies (55.7%) are in the exclusively domestic
ownership, 35 companies (44.3%) are both subsidiaries of multinational
corporations and companies with foreign investor.
Empirical research has focused primarily on the manufacturing
companies: i.e. manufacture of electrical engineering, engineering,
medical products--31 companies (38.5%), electricity, gas, water and
waste processing--12 companies (15.4%), foundry production--11 companies
(14.1%), manufacture of textiles and leather--9 companies (11.5%),
manufacture of chemicals--8 companies (10.3%), and manufacture of food
products--8 companies (10.3%). Manufacturing companies have been
deliberately selected for the reason of comparability of data; moreover,
these are companies with strong field of action not only in the social
and economic dimension, but also in the environmental field as regards
the relationship to voluntary management instruments (see Table 1).
Method of selection of the investigated objects, i.e. companies, we
can characterize as for a specific purpose and, moreover, based on a
voluntary basis. But, as Reichel states, this is not considered
insufficient in the qualitative research, because the ambition here
"is not the representativeness, so ... the implementers consider
such selection procedure reasonably as appropriate" (Reichel 2009).
From the voluntary management instruments in the companies of
processing industry, the standard ISO 9000 is used with 89.9% of the
companies, followed by the standard ISO 14 000 with 55.7%, although from
the total number of companies it has been introduced only in half, the
same also applies to the OHSAS 18000 48.1% and MRP 48.1%. The companies
consider the other voluntary instruments for management less
significant.
4. Research methodology
Methodology of determination of the environmental indicators took
place in several stages.
The initial determination of the environmental indicators was based
on the resources from the Global Reporting Initiative, EMAS III, and the
International Federation of Accountants (GRI 3.1 2011; CZO 2012).
Furthermore, the research dealt with environmental indicators which were
published in the Statistical Environmental Yearbook of the Czech
Republic (CZO 2012).
The selection of environmental indicators and related analyses was
preceded by calculation of descriptors for each input variable.
To identify relevant indicators, selected sample of companies in
the processing sector was asked: "Which environmental aspects,
associated with the protection of environment, are significant and
insignificant for the performance?" and "Which environmental
aspects, associated with the use of natural resources and raw materials
(including energy), significantly affect performance?". Respondents
could express the fact of monitoring of the indicator in a range from
"Yes" (4) to "No" (1). The questionnaires showed
that for the companies the monitoring of the generation of waste was
significant in 91.1%, including hazardous waste in 70.9%, emissions to
air in 64.6%, discharging of waste water in 59.5%, smell, noise and
vibration in 53.2%. Insignificant were the influence on landscape in
58.2% and effects on soil in 60.8%; however, some companies claimed
monitoring of these aspects. Following the question, related to the use
of resources and raw materials, the response indicated that the
companies monitored the consumption of raw materials and consumables in
78.5%, power consumption in 69.6%. The response to the indicator
relating to water consumption (36.7%) and gas consumption (35.4%) and
consumption of heat (24.1%) was most varied.
To the question "Which environmental indicators are
monitored?" the respondents stated indicators used as environmental
performance standards. The answers to this question confirmed the
relevance of these indicators:
--energy efficiency: energy consumption (primary sources) 93.7%,
--effectiveness of the material consumption: consumption of raw
materials and consumables 91.1%,
--waste management: total quantity of waste 82.1%, hazardous waste
76.3%,
--water management: water (total water consumption) 75.9%, total
quantity of discharged water 52.7%.
A surprising result was the indicator of emissions to air, the
respondents monitored emissions only in 37.5% for NOx, SOx and other
significant emissions, 39.7% made the total emissions of greenhouse
gases; that did not match with the previous question on environmental
aspects. The companies did not care about biodiversity indicator in
69.1%. Other relevant indicators of the impact of the company activities
on environment were the compliance with laws and regulations, the
companies considered that as the most important indicator in 93.7%,
fines and penalties 78.2% and traffic 68.8%.
The empirical research further tested the statistical significance
(T-test) of the legal forms of companies or industry in relation to the
environmental aspects of the performance; nevertheless, the testing did
not provide any statistically significant results, in fact, there was no
factual relationship between these factors (Field 2009; Meloun, Militky
2002). Identically, whether an owner of company was a foreign or
domestic body did not indicate any influence on the relationship of the
companies with their environment (see Table 2).
Testing the significance of the relationship between the owner of
the company and position on the environment indicated an indirect
transmission through voluntary management tools. Companies with foreign
owners more often established standard ISO 14000 than companies with
domestic owners (statistically significant, t(75) = -2.1, P < 0.05,
the strength of the effect, r = 0.24). Still more often, companies with
foreign owners introduced a management system for production planning
and inventory (statistically significant, t(77) = -2.9, P < 0.05, the
strength of the effect, r = 0.31). With other management instruments
there were no differences between companies with domestic and foreign
owners.
The perception of the significance of the environmental aspects
(reduction of environmental impact, sum of the environmental indicators)
in reference to the performance of the company was not affected by
whether the company introduced ISO 14000 or not (see Table 3).
Application of ISO 14000, however, has a consequence for a
particular conduct in the company concerning the relation to
environment, i.e. that the company with ISO 14000 (compared with company
without this standard) is trying more hard to reduce its impact on
environment and, consequently, also to monitor more indicators relating
to environmental performance. Using regression analysis, we are
interested in how many more indicators the company will track if it has
ISO 14000. For the formulation of dependencies we choose the simplest
linear regression function y = [[beta].sub.1] + [[beta].sub.2]x for
Model 1 and Model 2.
Significance of the correlation coefficient R from Table 4, the
estimates of regression coefficients ([beta]) with P-values from Table
5, and the standard error (Std. error) from Table 4 indicate by how
much--according to the regression model the monitoring of the
environmental indicators would be increased in the company with
implemented ISO 14000.
Significance of the correlation coefficient R from Table 6,
estimates of the regression coefficients ([beta]) with P-values from
Table 7, and the standard error (Std. error) from Table 6 indicate by
how much--according to the regression model--the monitoring of the
environmental indicators would be increased in case of the ISO 14000
introduction to the company.
The results of regression analysis indicate that in case of the
standard ISO 14000 introduction the company will seek to reduce the
impact on environment in one more additional area and will also monitor,
moreover, about two more environmental indicators.
Results of testing the significance (T-test) of the relationship
between by ISO 14000 and whether the environmental aspects increased or
improved performance are presented (see Table 8).
Companies with established ISO 14000 stated that environmental
aspects established in their companies increased competitiveness, e.g.
possibility to participate in selective proceedings of government
contracts, in the remaining questions the influence of ISO 14000 was not
identified (statistically insignificant).
5. Results and discussion
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the essential assumptions of
measuring environmental performance. The environmental performance
indicators provide quantitative forms of a feedback reflecting the
results in the framework of the corporate strategy. Environmental
indicators, which particular company develops and informs about them in
internal or external reports, always depend on the company strategic
priorities, mirroring the unique character of every company. Key
environmental indicators for the companies in the processing industry to
measure performance are proposed (see Table 9).
Key performance indicators can help companies to plan and manage
their environmental priorities, in particular, when the indicators are
focused on the core business strategy, by means of operational plans,
which include performance targets. The most important is to recognize
what is measured, what is controlled, and important fact is that the
measures create value for the company and its stakeholders.
Environmental indicators should be chosen by the company itself on
the basis of their relevance and in terms of its strategy, these
performance indicators should help companies to demonstrate progress
towards the objectives of sustainability and ensure that they cover
their environmental, social and economic impacts. Use of key performance
indicators can be challenging in a particular organisational context.
Prior to company decision as regards the establishment of scales of key
performance indicators, it is necessary to understand how they can be
best used and integrated into internal management and how they can help
and support sustainable reporting. Managers must consider how to present
the key performance indicators in their internal and external reporting.
Identification and selection of key performance indicators depend on the
context within the company and industry.
In the event that the company is of the opinion that some of
selected environmental indicators are not relevant for evaluation of the
performance, then it does not have to include such indicator in the
overall evaluation of the performance.
6. Conclusions
Key performance indicators (KPIs) may help the companies to plan
and control their priorities. The proposed environmental indicators
should serve for the evaluation of ESG performance and they should meet
some basic requirements: clarity, simplicity, real verification of data
for their determination, taking into account the comprehensive problem
and representativeness. The indicators should include the essential and
characteristic features of ESG performance.
Environmental indicators have been selected from a wide range of
performance indicators on the basis of the above available international
sources. The proposal of environmental indicators and analysis were
preceded by the calculation of descriptive characteristics of the
individual variables. Descriptive statistics of all initial input
indicators have been carried out, because certain specific variables
have impact on the outcome of the methods in the follow-up phase and
they can be revealed already in the descriptive statistics of the
indicators.
These modifications have been preceded by one-dimensional analysis
of all the variables with use of statistical methods and two-dimensional
analysis; furthermore, the interrelations with T-test have been tested
and correlation analysis has been employed.
The objective of the contribution is the construction of key
environmental performance indicators. Empirical research deals with the
selection of environmental performance indicators for CZ-NACE
sector-manufacturing industry. ESG indicators quoted in an integrated
reporting can provide relevant information, and even over time.
The result of empirical research is the formulation of
environmental indicators, which shall form the part of ESG performance
indicators. Key Performance Indicators are formulated for companies
involved in the manufacturing industry, according to CZ-NACE, with the
use of statistical methods. Measurement of environmental indicators
involves quantitative indicators requiring the information linked with
company performance. Environmental performance indicators include:
EN1-Energy, EN2-Materials, EN3-Waste, EN4-Water, EN5-Emissions,
EN6-Investment. Additional indicators: EN-Compliance, EN8-Significant
environmental impacts, EN9-Biodiversity.
The primary and crucial basis of the conception is the reporting of
real-life conditions, their good knowledge, gathering of empirical data,
when mainly the values of the mentioned ESG factors come to the fore,
for the individual phases of the economic, environmental, social and
corporate governance performances, while not only their values, but also
their roles and priorities, content and functions and mutual interaction
are monitored, and based on them formulation of proposals and methodical
procedures as benefits to help boost company performance. Identification
of measurable and relevant objectives for sustainability and appropriate
metrics are a matter of the utmost importance.
doi: 10.3846/btp.2012.35
Acknowledgment
This paper is supported by the project No. P403/11/2085
"Construction of Methods for Multifactor Assessment of Company
Complex Performance in Selected Sectors" of the Czech Science
Foundation and the research project "Management Support of Firms
Using Quantitative Methods" of the Academy Sting, Business College
in Brno in 2012.
References
Bassen, A.; Kovacs, A. M. 2009. Environmental, social and
governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective,
Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik 9(2): 182-192.
Bartes, F. 2010. Competitive intelligence-tool obtaining specific
basics for strategic decision making TOP management firm, Acta
Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 58(6):
43-50.
BSR ESG in the Mainstream: The Role for Companies and Investors in
Environmental, Social, and Governance Integration [online], [cited 17.
June 2012]. Available from Internet: www.bsr.org
Bhojraj, S.; Sengupta, P. 2003. The effect of corporate governance
mechanisms on bond ratings and yields: the role of institutional
investors and outside directors, Journal of Business 76(3): 455-475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/344114
CA Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Issues in
Institutional Investor Decision Making [online], [cited 17 June 2012].
Available from Internet: www.cica.ca/publications/ list-of
publications/manual/item41881.pdf
CFA Institute Environmental, Social, and Governance Factors at
Listed Companies: A Manual for Investors [online], [cited 18 June 2012].
Available from Internet: www.cfapubs.org/toc/ ccb/2008/2008/2
DVFA, KPIs for ESG. Key Performance Indicators for Environmental,
Social and Governance Issues. A Guideline for Corporates on How to
Report on ESG and a Benchmark for Investment Professionals on How to
Integrate ESG into Financial Analysis. DVFA Financial Papers No. 8/08_e.
DVFA, Dreieich.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.
324 p. ISBN-13 978-1847879073.
Garz, H.; Schnella, F.; Frank, R. KPIs for ESG. A Guideline for the
Integration of ESG into Financial Analysis and Corporate Validation.
Version 3.0, Frankfurt, DVFA/EFFAS [online], [cited 19 June 2012].
Available from Internet: http://www.
dvfa.de/files/die_dvfa/kommissionen/non_financials/ap
plication/pdf/KPIs_ESG_FINAL.pdf
Ginevicius, R. 2010. Hierarchical structuring of processes and
phenomena, Business: Theory and Practice 8(1): 14-18.
G3.1 Guidelines, 2011, G3.1 Guidelines [online], [cited 18 June
2012]. Available from Internet: http://www.globalreporting.
org/ReportingFramework/G31/
Hfebicek, J.; Soukopova, J.; Kutova, E. 2009. Standardization of
key performance indicators for environmental management and reporting in
the Czech Republic, International Journal of Energy and Environment
4(4): 169-176.
Hfebicek, J.; Soukopova, J. 2009. Voluntary Company Assessment
Report on the Linkages between Environment, Economy and Society (in
Czech). Praha: Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. 61 p.
Hfebicek, J.; Piliar, F.; Soukopova, J.; Stencl, M.; Trenz, O.
2009. Corporate key performance indicators for environmental management
and reporting, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis 59(2): 99-108.
IFAC. Investor Demand for Environmental, Social and Governance
Disclosures [online], [cited 17 June 2012]. Available from Internet:
http://www.ifac.org/publi-cations-resources/
investor-demand-environmental-social-and-governance-disclosures
Kocmanova, A.; Nemecek, P. 2009. Economic, environmental and social
issues and corporate governance in relation to measurement of company
performance, in Liberec Economic Forum 2009. Liberec: University of
Technology in Liberec, Faculty of Economic, 177-187.
Kocmanova, A.; Docekalova, M. 2011. Corporate sustainability:
environmental, social and corporate performance, Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis (7): 203-209.
Kocmanova, A.; Dohnal, M.; Meluzin, T. 2011. Qualitative simple
equationless models as simple integrators of vague sustainability
knowledge items, Transformations in Business & Economics 11(3):
187-196.
Kuprova, L.; Kamenicky, J. 2004. Multi-factor analysis position
limits Czech Republic in the years 2000-2004, Statistika 1(4): 303-315.
Meloun, M.; Militky, J. 2002. Compendium Statistical Data
Processing: Method and Problem Solution Including CD. Prague: Academia.
764 p. ISBN 80-200-1396-2.
Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S.; Saltelli, A. 2005. Handbook
on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/533411815016
Perrini, F.; Tencati, A. 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder
management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and
reporting systems, Business Strategy and the Environment 1(15): 296-308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.538
Reichel, J. 2009. Chapter Methodology of Social Research. Prague:
Grada Publishing. 146 p. ISBN 978-80-247-3006-6.
Rhouma, A. B. 2010. Sustainable value in Europe: sustainability
performance of the Czech Republic versus the Europe of Fifteen, E+M
Ekonomie a Management 3(4): 16-29.
Ritschelova, I.; Sidorov, E., Farsky, M. 2010. Impact of waste
deposition fees on enterprises in the Czech Republic, E+M Ekonomie a
Management 3(2): 62-71.
Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. 2006. Managing Sustainability
Performance Measurement and Reporting in an Integrated Manner,
Sustability Accounting as the Link between the Sustainability Balanced
Scorecard and Sustainability Reporting. Dordrecht: Springer. 564 p.
ISBN-13 978-1-874719-95-3.
Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. 2012. Integrative management of
sustainability performance, measurement and reporting, International
Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 3(1): 1-19.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2012. Sustainability Reporting
Framework [online], [cited 18 June 2012]. Available from Internet:
https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/reporting-framework-overview
/Pages/default.aspx
Statistical Environmental Yearbook of the Czech Republic 2011
[online], [cited 17 June 2012]. Available from Internet: http://
www.cenia.cz/web/www/web-pub2.nsf/Spid/CENAX-GA53MMQ2011
Yildiz, T.; Yercan, F. 2011. Environmental reporting on industrial
and supply chain business processes within the context of sustainable
development, Business: Theory and Practice 12(1): 5-14.
Alena Kocmanova (1), Zdenek Karpisek (2), Marketa Klimkova (3)
Faculty of Business and Management, Brno University of Technology,
Kolejnt 4, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
E-mails: (1) kocmanova@fbm.vutbr.cz (corresponding author); (2)
karpisek@fme.vutbr.cz; (3) klimkova@fbm.vutbr.cz
Received 29 June 2012; accepted 19 September 2012
Brno technologijos universitetas, Kolejnt 4, 612 00 Brno, Cekijos
Respublika
El. pastas: (1) kocmanova@fbm.vutbr.cz; (2) karpisek@fme.vutbr.cz;
(3) klimkova@fbm.vutbr.cz
Iteikta 2012-06-29; priimta 2012-09-19
Alena KOCMANOVA. Associate Professor at Department of Economics,
the Faculty of Business and Management, Brno University of Technology.
Research interests: corporate economics and environmental management.
She takes part in resolving grant projects, research plans at the state
and faculty level, Grant project of Czech Science Foundation and
international projects. At the present time she is the co-researcher of
the international projects in Latvia, Riga Technical University,
Institute of Engineering Economics.
Zdenek KARPISEK. Associate Professor at Department of Economics,
the Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Brno University of Technology. Research interests: fuzzy
sets, stochastic modeling and applications in dealing with technical,
scientific, medical and economic problems in the basic and applied
research.
Marketa KLIMKOVA. PhD Student, Faculty of Business and Management,
Brno University of Technology, Research interests: lean production,
environment management, different methods of operational and
environmental management in manufacturing companies.
Table 1. Voluntary management tools in the companies of the
processing industry according to CZ-NACE
Use ISO MRP ISO EMAS CSN EMA
9000 14000 OHSAS
18000
No 10.1 51.9 44.3 84.8 51.9 91.1
Yes 89.9 48.1 55.7 15.2 48.1 8.9
Use CSR Accounting Cleaner LCA Environ-mental
for production labelling
sustainable of products
development
No 74.7 88.6 69.6 78.5 69.6
Yes 25.3 11.4 30.4 21.5 30.4
Table 2. Relationship between the owner of company and
the environmental aspect
Characteristics [summation] of [summation] of
environmental environmental
aspects related to aspects associated
environmental with the use
protection of natural
resources
Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign
N 44 35 44 35
Mean 4.1818 4.2286 3.4091 3.6
Std. dev. 2.3355 2.0013 1.4030 1.4184
Characteristics [summation] of [summation] reducing
monitored the impact on the
environmental environment
indicators
Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign
N 44 35 44 35
Mean 7.14 7.69 11.16 11.16
Std. dev. 2.237 2.04 3.18 2.62
Variables T-test for Equality of Means
t df P-value
(2-tail.)
[summation] of EQVA * -0.094 77 0.925
environmental EQVNA ** -0.096 76.5 0.924
aspects related
to environmental
protection
[summation] of EQVA * -0.598 77 0.552
environmental EQVNA ** -0.597 72.6 0.552
aspects associated
with the use of
natural resources
[summation] of EQVA * -1.132 77 0.261
monitored EQVNA ** -1.157 76.9 0.251
environmental
indicators
[summation] EQVA * -1.127 77 0.263
Reducing the EQVNA ** -1.139 75.5 0.258
impact on the
environment
Variables T-test for Equality of Means
Mean Std.
difference error
of
difference
[summation] of EQVA * -0.046 0.496
environmental EQVNA ** -0.046 0.488
aspects related
to environmental
protection
[summation] of EQVA * -0.190 0.319
environmental EQVNA ** -0.190 0.319
aspects associated
with the use of
natural resources
[summation] of EQVA * -0.755 0.667
monitored EQVNA ** -0.755 0.653
environmental
indicators
[summation] EQVA * -0.549 0.487
Reducing the EQVNA ** -0.549 0.482
impact on the
environment
Variables T-test for
Equality of
Means
95% confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
[summation] of EQVA * -1.036 0.942
environmental EQVNA ** -1.019 0.925
aspects related
to environmental
protection
[summation] of EQVA * -0.826 0.444
environmental EQVNA ** -0.828 0.446
aspects associated
with the use of
natural resources
[summation] of EQVA * -2.084 0.574
monitored EQVNA ** -2.055 0.544
environmental
indicators
[summation] EQVA * -1.520 0.421
Reducing the EQVNA ** -1.510 0.411
impact on the
environment
Table 3. Relationship between ISO 14000 and the environmental
aspects
Variables T-test for equality of means
t df P-value Mean
(2-tail.) difference
[summation] EQVA * 2.297 77 0.024 1.092
of monitored EQVNA ** 2.218 60.5 0.030 1.092
environmental
indicators
[summation] EQVA * 2.825 77 0.006 1.810
Reducing the EQVNA ** 2.807 71.2 0.006 1.810
impact on the
environment
Variables T-test for equality of means
Std. 95% confidence
Error of interval of
difference difference
Lower Upper
[summation] EQVA * 0.475 0.145 2.039
of monitored EQVNA ** 0.492 0.108 2.077
environmental
indicators
[summation] EQVA * 0.641 0.534 3.085
Reducing the EQVNA ** 0.645 0.524 3.095
impact on the
environment
Characteristics [summation] of monitored
environmental indicators
ISO 14000 ISO 14000
applied not applied
N 44 35
Mean 7.86 6.77
Std. dev. 1.786 2.438
Characteristics [summation] reducing the
impact on environment
ISO 14000 ISO 14000
applied not applied
N 44 35
Mean 12.30 10.49
Std. dev. 2.758 2.914
Table 4. Testing of Model 1
Model 1 R R square Adjusted Std. error
R square of the estimate
0.253 0.064 0.052 2.099
Table 5. [summation] Reducing the impact on the
environment by the introduction of ISO 14000
Model 1 Coefficients t P-value
[beta] Std.
error
Constant 6.771 0.355 19.082 0.000
ISO 14 000 1.092 0.475 2.297 0.024
Table 6. Testing of Model 2
Model 2 R R Square Adjusted R Std.error of
square estimate
0.306 0.094 0.082 2.828
Table 7. [summation] of monitored environmental
indicators by the introduction of ISO 14000
Model 2 Coefficients t P-value
[beta] Std.
Error
Constant 10.486 0.478 21.934 0.000
ISO 14000 1.810 0.641 2.825 0.006
Table 8. Relationship between ISO 14000 and the environmental
performance
Characteristics They saved financial means
ISO 14000 ISO 14000
applied not applied
N 42 35
Mean 3.36 3.29
Std. dev. 0.906 0.893
Characteristics They have improved They improved company
competitiveness image
ISO 14000 ISO 14000 ISO 14000 ISO 14000
applied not applied applied not applied
N 40 34 41 35
Mean 2.65 2.12 3.07 2.71
Std. dev. 1.122 0.977 0.787 0.987
Variables T-test for equality of means
t df P-value Mean
(2-tail.) difference
Saved EQVA * 0.347 75 0.730 0.071
financial EQVNA ** 0.347 72.9 0.730 0.071
means
Improved EQVA * 2.157 72 0.034 0.532
competitiveness EQVNA ** 2.181 71.9 0.032 0.532
Improved EQVA * 1.763 74 0.082 0.359
company image EQVNA ** 1.731 64.7 0.088 0.359
Variables T-test for equality of means
Std. error 95% confidence
of difference interval of difference
Lower Upper
Saved EQVA * 0.206 -0.339 0.482
financial EQVNA ** 0.206 -0.339 0.482
means
Improved EQVA * 0.247 0.040 1.024
competitiveness EQVNA ** 0.244 0.046 1.019
Improved EQVA * 0.204 -0.047 0.765
company image EQVNA ** 0.207 -0.055 0.773
Table 9. Key indicators of environmental performance
Indicator KPI Measurement
EN1-Energy Energy use Total direct (produced
Total annual energy internally) and indirect
consumption (delivered) energy
[MWh/CZK] consumption in megawatt
(indicator EN3 in GRI) divided by net sales.
(Total direct energy
consumption =
Electricity/heat produced
by the company)
Renewable energy use Total of renewable
Total consumption of energy sources in MWh x
renewable energy 100 divided by total
[%](indicator EN3) energy sources.
EN2-Materials Material use
Annual mass flow of Total consumption of
different used materials materials in tons divided
(in addition to the by total operation costs.
carriers of energy and
water)
[t/CZK] (indicator EN1)
Recycled materials use Percentage content of
Proportion of the used recycled materials
recycled input out of total consumption
materials materials.
[%](indicator EN2)
EN3-Waste Production of waste Total waste use in tonS
Total annual production divided by net sales.
of waste
[t/CZK] (indicator EN22)
Production of hazardous Total hazardous waste
waste use in tons divided by
Total annual production net sales
of hazardous waste
[t/CZK]
EN4-Water Water Use Total water use in cubic
Total annual consumption meters divided by net
of water sales.
[m3/CZK](indicator EN8)
EN5-Emissions Total annual emissions Total emissions (solid
[t/CZK](indicator EN20) particulate matter, SO2,
NOx, NH3, PM without CO)
in tonnes divided by
net sales.
EN6-Investment Environmental protection Total investments in
investment environmental protection
[t/CZK] (indicator EN30) in CZK divided by net
sales.
Additional indicators
EN7-Compliance Environmental laws and Number of voluntary
with the rules regulations agreements.
on the [number]
protection of (indicator EN28)
impacts
Fines and penalties Monetary value of
[CZK] (indicator EN28) significant fines and
total number of
non-monetary sanctions
for non-compliance with
environmental
legislation and
regulations. The total
monetary value of
significant fines;
number of non-monetary
sanctions.
EN8-Significant Transport [t/km] Greenhouse gas emissions
environmental (Indicator EN29 in GRI) Total direct (produced
impacts internally) emissions of
CO2 equivalents in tonnes
divided by number of
covered kilometres in
company.
EN9-Biodiversity Land use [%] of built-up Total amount of land
surface (partial owned, leased, or
indicator EN11) managed for production
activities or extractive
use in square meters x
100 divided by the area
of SCIs in hectare
(according to Natura
2000 Sites).
