Continuous Application of Preventive Environmental Strategies as a Way to Introduce Social Responsibility in Companies

  • Jurgis Kazimieras StaniškisEmail author
  • Eglė Staniškienė
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


The social sustainability challenge is still receiving relatively little attention but in future the social aspects will become a more important as a result of the growing expectations and demands addressed to business enterprises by employees and external stakeholders. Profit- oriented business companies run primarily for economic purposes, therefore environmental and social issues in most cases are confronted with the goals of making profit or at least minimising operating costs. As usual environmental and social aspects from management and organizational point of view are dealt separately. The aim of the research to investigate the integration challenge of ecological and social dimensions in the context of economic activity by implementation of different preventive environmental strategies and programs in the companies. The research method is based on development and implementation of special training and preventive innovations generation methodology for company‘s management and employees. There are many preventive environmental strategies, for instance, pollution prevention, waste minimization, cleaner production, etc. For a particular investigation, the resource efficient and cleaner production (RECP) strategy which applies to industrial processes, products and services was mainly introduced. This is because RECP has a potential to achieve production efficiency through optimization of productive use of natural resources to minimize the adverse impacts on environment and to reduce risks to employees and communities. Sustainable development strategy requires behavioural change by individuals as well. Therefore, the employees engagement is crucial. At the same time, resource efficient and cleaner production concept besides the potential mentioned above provides the possibilities to support their personal development. The methodology for preventive environmental innovations generation and implementation was introduced in more than 150 industrial companies and economic, environmental and social benefits were identified and assessed. Companies, which implemented a successful preventive environmental programs benefitted by significantly lowering operating costs, enhancing the safety of their employees, improving product quality and productivity, reducing environmental liability, improving public image, and chances for broader cooperation. Besides that, companies managed to implement employees‘engagement strategy by (1) communicating the professional impact that employees contribution had on the company, (2) enabling cross-functional communication and idea exchange. From another point of view, these programs helped financiers secure better clients and make more profitable investments and assists government agencies in their pursuit of a safer and healthier environment.


Social responsibility Business company Preventive environmental strategies Resource efficient and cleaner production Sustainable development 



This research was funded by a grant (No. S-MIP-17-122) from the Research Council of Lithuania.


  1. Asif M, Searcy C, Zutsi A, Fisscher OAM (2013) An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. J Clean Prod 56:7–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manag J 43(4):717–736Google Scholar
  3. Baunann-Pauly D, Wickert C, Spence LJ, Schrer (2013) Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: size matters. J Bus Ethics 115:693–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs J (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university. What the students does. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, BuckhinghamGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen JL, Mackey A, Whetten D (2014) Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: the role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors. Acad Manag Perspect 28(2):164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Environment Canada (2009) Pollution prevention handbook. http:/ Last Accessed 27 Mar 2018
  7. International organization for standardization (2010) ISO 26000: 2010 (en) Guidance on social responsibilityGoogle Scholar
  8. Khan Z (2008) Cleaner production: an economical option for ISO certification in developing countries. J Clean Prod 16(1):22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kliopova I, Staniškis JK (2006) The evaluation of cleaner production performance in Lithuanian industries. J Clean Prod 14(18):1561–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marsick V, Watkins K, O’Connor BN (2011) Researching workplace learning in the United States. The SAGE handbook of workplace learning, 198–209Google Scholar
  11. Martinez-Conesa I, Soto-Acosta P, Palacios-Manzano M (2017) Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: an empirical research in SMEs. J Clean Prod 142:2374–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nedenes OS (1994) The Norwegian industrial transfer of know-how programs on waste minimization/cleaner production to Central and Eastern European countries. In: Material of invitational expert seminar. Introducing cleaner production in Eastern Europe. Lund University, Sweden, pp 13–19Google Scholar
  13. Silva DAL, Deai I, de Castro MAS, Ometto AR (2013) Quality tools applied to cleaner production programs: a first approach toward a new methodology. J Clean Prod 47:174–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Staniskis JK, Katiliute E (2017) Systems approach to resource efficient and cleaner production solutions: method and implementation. In: sustainability through innovation in product life cycle design. Springer, Singapore, pp 385–398Google Scholar
  15. Staniškis JK, Stasiškienė Ž, Kliopova I, Varžinskas V (2010) Sustainable innovations in Lithuanian industry: development and implementation. Kaunas, Technologija, p 460Google Scholar
  16. Tynjala P (2010) Workplace learning in transformation. Keynote presentation at the EARLI Learning and professional development SIG conference. Germany, Munich, pp 25–27Google Scholar
  17. Tynjala P (2013) Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: a literature review. Vocations and Learning. Springer. pp 11–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UNEP DTIE (United Nations Environmental Program, Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics (2012) Understanding Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production. Last Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  19. Wickert C, Scherer AG, Spence LJ (2016) Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: implications of firm size and organizational cost. J Manage Stud 53(7):1169–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurgis Kazimieras Staniškis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eglė Staniškienė
    • 1
  1. 1.Kaunas University of TechnologyKaunas, Gedimino 50Lithuania

Personalised recommendations