Abstract
Empirical research on the characteristics of environmentally responsive companies has focussed on US and Japanese companies. For Europe, which is commonly considered as the greenest of the three major markets, similar research is lacking. This paper seeks to fill this gap by empirically investigating business and financial characteristics, stakeholder pressures and public policies to distinguish companies that have implemented the European Eco-Management and Audit System (EMAS) from a unique firm-level dataset of European publicly quoted companies. We find that the EMAS participation decision is positively influenced by the solvency ratio, the share of non-current liabilities, the average labour cost and the absolute company size as well as the relative size of a company compared to its sector average. The profit margin exerts a negative influence. We further find that companies whose headquarters is located in a country that actively encourages EMAS have a higher probability of participation. Finally, this paper suggests that rather than attracting other kinds of companies, a favourable institutional context succeeds in convincing more of the same kind of companies to participate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alberini A, Segerson K (2002) Assessing voluntary programs to improve environmental quality. Environ Resour Econ 22(2): 157–184
Anton W, Deltas G, Khanna M (2004) Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance. J Environ Econ Manage 48: 632–654
Arora S, Cason T (1995) An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: participation in EPA’s 33/50 program. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 271–286
Arora S, Cason T (1996) Why do firms volunteer to exceed environmental regulations? Understanding participation in EPA’s 33/50 Program. Land Econ 72(4): 413–432
Clausen J, Keil M, Jungwirth M (2002) The state of EMAS in the EU: literature survey. http://ec.europe.eu/environment/emas/pdf/general/literture_survey_020506_en.pdf
Cole M, Elliott R, Shimamoto K (2006) Globalization, firm-level characteristics and environmental management: a study of Japan. Ecol Econ 59: 312–323
Dasgupta S, Hettige H, Wheeler D (2000) What improves environmental compliance? Evidence from Mexican industry. J Environ Econ Manage 39: 39–66
DeCanio S, Watkins W (1998) Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter?. Rev Econ Statist 80(1): 95–107
Delmas M (2002) The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and in the United States: an institutional perspective. Policy Sci 35: 91–119
Delmas M, Terlaak A (2002) Regulatroy commitment to negotiated agreements: evidence from the United States, Germany, The Netherlands and France. J Comp Policy Anal Res Pract 4: 5–29
EC (2004) Annex to the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on incentives for EMAS registered organisations. COM(2004)745 Final, Brussels
Fairtrade Labelling Organization International (2006) Building trust: annual report 2005
Gujarati D (2003) Basic econometrics. McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Henriques I, Sadorsky P (1996) The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an empirical approach. J Environ Econ Manage 30: 381–395
Hibiki A, Higashi M, Matsuda A (2003) Determinants of firms to acquire ISO 14001 certificate and market valuation of the certified firm. Discussion paper no. 03–06, National Institute for Environmental Studies
Hillary R (1998) Pan European Union assessment of EMAS implementation. Eur Environ 8: 184–192
Honkasalo A (1998) The EMAS scheme: a management tool and instrument of environmental policy. J Cleaner Prod 6: 119–128
International Organization for Standardization (2006) The ISO survey of certifications 2005. Geneva
Khanna M, Anton R (2002) Corporate environmental management: regulatory and market-based incentives. Land Econ 78(4): 539–558
Khanna M, Damon L (1999) EPA’s voluntary 33/50 program: impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. J Environ Econ Manage 37: 1–25
King A, Lenox M (2000) Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry’s responsible care program. Acad Manage J 43(6): 698–716
Kollman K, Prakash A (2002) EMS-based environmental regimes as club goods: examining variations in firm-level adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in U.K., U.S. and Germany. Policy Sci 35: 43–67
Nakamura M, Takahashi T, Vertinsky I (2001) Why Japanese firms choose to certify: a study of managerial responses to environmental issues. J Environ Econ Manage 42: 23–52
OECD (1999) Voluntary approaches for environmental policy—an assessment. Paris
Perkins R, Neumayer E (2004) Europeanization and the uneven convergence of environmental policy: explaining the geography of EMAS. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 22(6): 881–897
Potoski M, Prakash A (2005) Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. Am J Pol Sci 49(2): 235–248
Steger U (2000) Environemntal management systems: empirical evidence and further perspectives. Eur Manage J 18: 23–37
Videras J, Alberini A (2000) The appeal of voluntary environmental programs: which firms participate and why?. Contemp Econ Policy 18(4): 449–461
Vogel D (1986) National styles of regulation: environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States. Cornell University Press, London
Watson M, Emery A (2004) Law, economics and the environment: a comparative study of environmental management systems. Manage Audit J 19(6): 760–773
Welch E, Hibiki A (2002) Japanese voluntary environmental agreements: bargaining power and reciprocity as contributors to effectiveness. Policy Sci 35: 401–424
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors thank anonymous referees for providing helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bracke, R., Verbeke, T. & Dejonckheere, V. What Determines the Decision to Implement EMAS? A European Firm Level Study. Environ Resource Econ 41, 499–518 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9207-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9207-y