Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 221–235 | Cite as

A conceptual model and IS framework for the design and adoption of environmental compliance management systems

For special issue on governance, risk and compliance in IS
  • Tom ButlerEmail author
  • Damien McGovern


Environmental concerns have led to a significant increase in the number and scope of compliance imperatives governing electrical, electronics, and IT products across global regulatory environments. This is, of course, in addition to general compliance and risk issues generated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, data protection and information privacy legislation, ethics and integrity regulations, IT governance concerns, and so on. While the latter dimensions of enterprise-wide governance, compliance, and risk (GRC) are far from straightforward, the complexity and geographical diversity of environment-based regulatory sources cause considerable problems for organisations in the electrical, electronics and IT sectors. Although a variety of enterprise-level information systems are presently available to help manage compliance and reduce risk across all areas, a majority of firms still employ ad-hoc solutions. This paper focuses on the very-much underexplored issue of environmental compliance and risk. The first objective of this exploratory study is to delineate the problems facing GRC and Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) functions in dealing with environmental regulations globally and to identify how these problems are being solved using Environmental Compliance Management Systems (ECMS). The second objective is to propose a process-based conceptual model and related IS framework on the design and adoption of ECMS that will inform future research and, it is hoped, the IS adoption decisions of GRC and EH&S practitioners.


Environment Governance Risk and compliance IS framework IT Enterprise systems Environmental compliance management systems 


  1. AMR Research. (2008). Governance, risk and compliance management report, 2008–2009,, 2008.
  2. Avila, G. (2006). Product development for RoHS and WEEE compliance. Printed Circuit Design and Manufacture, 23, 28–31.Google Scholar
  3. Bachmann, E. & Clese, F. D. (2008). REACH, RoHS, LCA–managing several complex material requirements efficiently, fulfilling customers’ needs and evaluation of the environmental effects of a product during the whole lifecycle in SAP. In H. Reichl, N. F. Nissen, J. Muller, J. & Deubzer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green Conference 2008+ (pp. 683–688). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Bloem, J., Van Doorn, M., & Mittal, P. (2006). Making IT governance work in a Sarbanes-Oxley world. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Boudreau, M. C., Watson, R. T., Chen, A., et al. (2008). From Green IT to Green IS. In B. Biros (Ed.), The organizational benefits of Green IT (pp. 79–91). Arlington: Cutter Information LLC.Google Scholar
  6. Brodkin, J. (2007). Hosted software manages environ-mental compliance. Network World, 08/01/07, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. (2006). The product compliance Benchmark report: Protecting the environment, protecting profits. The Aberdeen Group, September.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, S. (2007). EU’s REACH Directive will hit electronics firms,, Wednesday 28 February.
  9. Butler, T. (2003). An institutional perspective on the development and implementation of intranet- and internet-based IS. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, T., & McGovern, D. (2008). In D. Biros, M.-C. Boudreau, T. Butler, A. J. W. Chen, A. Dickens, B. J. Dooley, D. Grove, M. Hass, D. McGovern, S. Murugesan, I. Osborne, J. Park, G. Piccoli, E. J. Ryan, J. Sarkis, D. Sikolia, B. Unhelkar & R. T. Watson (Eds.), The greening of the IT sector: Problems and solutions in managing environmental compliance. The organizational benefits of Green IT. Arlington: Cutter Information LLC. ISBN 1-57484-224-2, 37-50.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, T., & Murphy, C. (2007). Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organisations: a pragmatic perspective. 2006. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Cummings, J. (2008). Getting to grips with spreadsheet risk, business finance,, 08/19/2008–17:47.
  15. Eisner, M. A. (2004). Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-Regulation: toward genuine regulatory reninvention in the United States, governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administrations and Institutions, 17(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2007). REACH in brief,, Accessed May 2007, 2006.
  17. Evans, G., & Benton, S. (2007). The BT risk cockpit—a visual approach to ORM. BT Technology Journal, 25(1), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goosey, M. (2007). Implementation of the RoHS directive and compliance implications for the PCB sector. Circuit Design, 33(1), 47–50.Google Scholar
  19. Greenemeier, L. (2007). Greenpeace: Apple iPhone more brown than green, Scientific News, October 18.Google Scholar
  20. Hayward, K. (2007). Enterprise Compliance Management Systems (ECMS): choosing the right sys-tem and the real costs involved. Pharma IT Journal, 1(2), 2–5.Google Scholar
  21. Hristev, I. (2006). RoHS and WEEE in the EU and US. European Environmental Law Review, 15(2), 62–74.Google Scholar
  22. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kellow, A. (2002). Steering through complexity: EU environmental regulation in the international context. Political Studies, 50(1), 3–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerrigan, S. & Law, K. (2003). Logic-based regulation compliance-assistance. In the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL) (pp. 126–135).Google Scholar
  25. Kleijnen, J. P. C., & Smits, M. T. (2003). Performance metrics in supply chain management. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(5), 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kubin, R. (2005). Electronic data exchange standards and technology developments to support eco-compliance. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 163–166, 16–19 May 2005.Google Scholar
  27. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McClean, C., & Rasmussen, M. T. (2007). The forrester wave: enterprise governance, risk, and compliance platforms, Q4 2007. Forrester Inc., 21 December.Google Scholar
  29. McGovern, D., & Butler, T. (2008). From greenwash to corporate social responsibility. In H. Reichl, N. F. Nissen, J. Muller, & Deubzer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green Conference 2008+ (pp. 683–688). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. Palpanas, T., Chowdhary, P., Mihaila, G., & Pinel, F. (2007). Integrated model-driven dashboard development. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(2–3), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pecht, P. (2004). The impact of lead-free legislation exemptions on the electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, 27(4), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sammer, J. (2005). New horizons: Enterprise-wide compliance. Journal of Accountancy, August,
  33. Schroder, F., & Turnbull, A. (2008). Industry-led substances declarations web database. In H. Reichl, N. F. Nissen, J. Muller & Deubzer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Electronics Goes Green Conference 2008+ (pp. 667–670). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, H. A., & McKeen, J. D. (2006). Developments in practice XXI: IT in the new world of corporate governance reforms. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(32), 1–33.Google Scholar
  35. Spiegel, R. (2005). Cost of compliance–2 to 3 percent of cost of goods,, Tuesday, September 6.
  36. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, H. (2006). The joy of SOX. Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Volonino, L., Gessner, G. H., & Kermis, G. F. (2004). Holistic compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 219–233.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Information SystemsUniversity College CorkCork CityIreland
  2. 2.Compliance and Risks LtdCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations