The Awareness and Application of Sustainability Management Tools in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Matthew Johnson Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM) Leuphana University Lüneburg Scharnhorststr. 1, D-21335 Lüneburg, Germany [email protected]; Tel. +49 4131 677-2182

5 September 2012 Paper submitted to the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference 2012, ‘Beyond the Limits – Below Potential’ BEM Management School, Bordeaux, France 12th – 14th September 2012.

Abstract A range of literature on corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability has stressed the development and implementation of social and environmental tools for companies to measure, manage and communicate sustainability issues. Despite the abundance of proposed tools in the literature, several concerns persist for the application of such tools in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). After 15 years of research in this field, it still remains uncertain which of these tools are even applicable to SMEs, considering the resources, personnel and expertise necessary for proper application. In order to assess the awareness and application of such tools in SMEs, a web-based survey was distributed to 1,000 German SME managers from various industrial sectors. The initial results suggest that the respondents are unaware of most tools provided, and thus, the application remains low. The findings reveal, however, that the two variables, awareness and application, are positively correlated. This paper argues that an increase in awareness would improve the application of tools in SMEs. Furthermore, several influential factors relating to the awareness and application of tools are analyzed in detail.

Keywords: Corporate social responsibility (CSR); Corporate sustainability; Sustainability management tools; Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME); Awareness and application

1

1. Introduction Sustainable development can only be achieved if all companies embrace it as well (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005). This paper insists that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will have to play a major role in contributing to sustainable development since the majority of registered enterprises fall into this category (European Commission, 2005). While the environmental and social impacts of an individual SME might appear insignificant, especially when compared to the impacts of multinational corporations, the collective impacts of SMEs should not go overlooked. A growing amount of literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability has encouraged the development and implementation of social and environmental management tools for companies to measure, manage and communicate sustainability issues (Gladwin et al., 1995; Robert et al., 2002; Kuhndt, 2004; Epstein, 2008). Furthermore, sustainability management tools have been increasingly addressed in the academic literature with special attention to SMEs (e.g. Graafland et al., 2003; Tencati et al., 2004; Lawrence et al., 2006; Zorpas, 2010). Despite the abundance of proposed tools, several concerns exist pertaining to the widespread application in SMEs, including SME-specific implementation barriers, such as the absence of perceived benefits by SME managers, the lack of external drivers and pressures, and the lack of governmental support programs. Furthermore, most of these tools were originally developed by, and for, large enterprises. It remains uncertain which tools are even applicable to SMEs, considering the resources and personnel required for implementation (Ammenberg and Hjelm, 2003; Graafland et. al, 2003; Hillary, 2004; Lee, 2009). In order to assess which tools are known (awareness) and which ones are applied (application) in SMEs, a web-based survey distributed to 1,000 German SME managers from various business sectors. This survey invited managers to indicate their awareness and application of 36 individual sustainability management tools. The initial results suggest the majority of respondents are unaware of most tools; hence, the degree of application remains low. However, the findings reveal that the two variables, awareness and application, are positively correlated. An increase in awareness would presumably improve the overall implementation of tools. This paper is structured as follows. The second section provides a background on the role SMEs should play with regards to sustainable development as well as highlight the importance of sustainability management tools. The third section explains the research method, which is based on an exploratory quantitative study approach. The fourth section reveals the initial findings from the survey, providing a descriptive analysis of the results. The fifth section discusses the results relating to the state-of-the-art research in this field. The final section concludes the paper, providing suggestions for further research in this field.

2

2. Role of SMEs and Sustainability Management Tools 2.1 Role of SMEs for Sustainable Development

Traditionally, the academic literature on CSR and corporate sustainability has primarily concentrated on the impacts and solutions of large, multinational corporations. However, these approaches are not strictly reserved for large enterprises. In fact, the amount of research on the importance of sustainable development in the SME sector is growing progressively (e.g. Tilley, 1999; Hillary, 2000; Schaper, 2002; Ebinger and Schwarz, 2003; Kerr, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2006; Revell and Blackburn, 2007; Seidel et al., 2008; Walker and Preuss, 2008; Zorpas, 2010). The collective economic, environmental and social impacts of SMEs are overwhelming. These measures provide key insights into the role SMEs will have to play for sustainable development. Beginning with economic impacts, altogether SMEs employ approximately 65% of all workers and contribute to over 65% of the total sales turnover in the European Union (Liedtke and Kaiser, 2006; Dresewski, 2007; Moore and Manring, 2009). In addition, SMEs contribute to approximately 70% of the entire European gross domestic product (Fresner and Engelhardt 2004). While economic statistics are obtainable and measurable, environmental and social statistics are more difficult to quantify (Lawrence et al., 2006). While the environmental impacts of an individual small enterprise do not raise immediate concern for drastic policy changes, especially when compared to a multi-national corporation, the collective impacts on the natural environment are overwhelming. Evidence in the literature (e.g. Tilley, 1999; Hillary, 2000; European Commission, 2004) signifies that SMEs are contributing roughly 70% of global pollution. A study conducted in the United Kingdom illustrated that British SMEs are responsible for approximately 80% of all pollution incidents and over 60% of all commercial and industrial waste in England and Wales (DEFRA, 2006). A related problem is that SMEs are mostly unaware, or at least not fully aware, of their environmental impacts. (European Commission, 2004). Looking at social impacts of SMEs, it has been observed that small firms contribute to societies in various constructive ways. SMEs provide a balanced distribution of income and secure a high level of social stability in many countries (Morsing and Perrini, 2009). The Austrian Institute for SME Research in collaboration with the Institute for SME Research Bonn (KMU Forschung and IfM Bonn, 2007) observed that SMEs are aware of their civil responsibilities towards societies, especially in a local context. CSR approaches in small firms, however, might differ considerably from larger firms, especially in this local context (Perrini, 2006). Caska et al. (2004) finds that it is possible for SMEs to engage in CSR activities and improve their business and develop competitive advantages. These benefits can range from better employee recruitment and retention (Bhattacharya et al., 2008) to improved relationships with local stakeholders (Morsing and Perrini, 2009). 3

2.2 Sustainability Management Tools for SMEs Sustainability management entails that a company effectively manages environmental and social aspects relating to its business while simultaneously integrating environmental and social management into the conventional management practices (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005). Sustainability management tools have been proposed in the academic literature for companies to measure, manage and communicate sustainability issues (e.g. Figge et al., 2002; Robert et al., 2002; Kuhndt, 2004; Epstein, 2008). A wide range of sustainability management tools have been developed to assist managers and employees in various business departments (e.g. accounting, research and development, production, marketing, etc.) to integrate environmental and social sustainability aspects into conventional management practices. Most of the literature on sustainability management tools has concentrated on large enterprises. In fact, many international standards and guidelines, such as the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises target large corporations. Sustainability management tools developed by, and for, large enterprises do not always apply to the SMEs when considering the barriers they face (Ebinger and Schwarz, 2003; Jenkins, 2009; Hammann et al., 2009). According to Lawrence et al. (2006, p. 245), “one of the biggest challenges of proposing strategies and tools for SMEs is the uncritical transfer of tools developed for large organizations to SMEs”. Sustainability management tools must be streamlined to meet their unique circumstances of small firms. A one-size-fits-all approach to sustainability management should be avoided (Gelbmann 2010). In particular, SMEs should be able integrate a variety of sustainability management tools that are relevant to their particular goals and circumstances. According to Starkey (2000, p. 106), “not all sustainability management tools will be relevant to all SMEs all the time. What is important is that each SME is in a position to choose the most appropriate tool or set of tools for its particular sustainability management needs”. The academic understanding the barriers and drivers with regards to the application of sustainability tools in SMEs has advanced over the years (Ammenberg and Hjelm 2003; Hillary, 2004). On one hand, the major barriers of application include the lack of awareness (Revell and Blackburn, 2007), lack of expertise (Revell and Blackburn, 2007; Seidel et al., 2008), lack of financial and human resources (Ammenberg and Hjelm, 2003), and the absence of perceived benefits (Brammer et al., 2011; Friedman and Miles, 2002). On the other hand, the drivers for implementation include the owner-manager’s willingness to implement (Revell et al., 2010), assistance provided by business networks and public-private partnerships (Halila, 2007; Moore and Manring, 2009), and demands by major customers along the supply chain (Kerr, 2006; Morsing and Perrini, 2009; von Malmborg, 2003).

4

Furthermore, many studies have emphasized facilitating criteria that tools must possess to improve the dissemination and application of tools. These facilitating criteria of tools include practicability, also referred to as ‘user-friendliness’ (Friedman and Miles, 2002; Gerstenfeld and Roberts, 2000), economic-feasibility or ‘value for money’ (Friedman and Miles, 2002; Seidel et al., 2008), flexibility (Graafland et al., 2003; Kerr 2006; Zorpas, 2010), company-tailored (Burke and Gaughran, 2007; Fresner and Engelhardt, 2004; Hillary, 2004) and locally-based (Gerstenfeld and Roberts, 2000; Graafland et al., 2003; Tencati et al, 2004). In addition, tools that are group and network-oriented can overcome many of the barriers to application. For example, Eco-Profit is a public-private partnership to help communities team up with local companies, mostly SMEs, to improve the environmental conditions of the region (Martinuzzi et al. 2000). Despite the positive development of research in this field, no assurance can be made that most small firms will implement tools in practice. For example, Graafland et al. (2003) and Tencati et al. (2003) compared the application of sustainability management tools between large and small firms. Both studies argue that the size of the company is regarded as a crucial factor to the kind of tools applied. Large companies used more formal tools, such as codes of conduct and social management systems, whereas small firms approached sustainability management adopted less formal tools, such as an authorized person to respond to sustainability-related issues. Moore and Spence (2006) indicated that more empirical research is required to realize the long-term effectiveness of sustainability management tools in SMEs. Further empirical research is required to realize the extent of SME awareness and application of such tools. Prior research has mostly concentrated on the application of individual tools, usually in the context of environmental performance. Therefore, this paper has conducted an exploratory quantitative study with SME managers to investigate which sustainability management tools are known and which ones are applied by SMEs. The following section will present the main research question along with the methods used.

5

3. Method A web-based survey on sustainability management tools in German SMEs was conducted from February to June, 2012. A questionnaire with 19 semi-structured questions (mostly formalized questions complemented with a few open-ended questions) was designed, which was based on the literature on sustainability management tools in SMEs as well as studies that conducted similar surveys on tools (Hahn and Scheermesser, 2006; Herzig and Schaltegger, 2009; Schaltegger et al. 2011). The questionnaire addressed the main research question: Which sustainability management tools are known and which ones are applied by German SMEs? Companies were selected for the survey based on two main criteria: (a) companies fall into the EU definition of an SME (less than 250 employees and not exceeding 50 million Euro annual turnover according to the “New SME Definition”, EC 2005); and (b) company contact information could be found on the Hoppenstedt database (Hoppenstedt, 2012). Hoppenstedt was selected because it provides information on company’s annual turnover and employee headcounts, which allows one to select SMEs exclusively. In order to ensure a good representation of German SMEs, the selection process of companies was based on two sub-categories: (a) company size – an even distribution between small enterprises (10 to 49 employees and maximum 10 million Euro annual turnover) and mediumsized enterprises (50 to 249 employees and maximum 50 million Euro annual turnover) were selected; and (b) industry sector (see Table 1) – companies representing 18 major industry sectors in Germany were selected for the survey (e.g. agriculture, construction, health and social services, IT and communication, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, etc., see Statistical Yearbook 2011, Destatis, 2011). The amount selected from each sector depended on the proportion of companies in each industry.

6

Industry sector

Germany 2008

-

No. of SMEs (10 – 249 employees) 7

3.95

619

0.21

1

0.56

C: Manufacturing

61,484

20.51

59

33.33

D: Electricity, Gas and Air Conditioning Supply

1,087

0.36

5

2.82

E: Water Supply

3,215

1.07

3

1.69

F: Construction G: Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Vehicles and Goods H: Transportation and Storage

33,417

11.15

12

6.78

57,304

19.12

15

8.47

17,359

5.79

11

6.21

I: Accommodation and Food Service

13,148

4.39

6

3.39

J: Information and Communication

9,656

3.22

10

5.65

K: Financial and Insurance

3,508

1.17

3

1.69

L: Real Estate

3,472

1.16

2

1.13

M: Professional, Scientific and Technical

24,299

8.11

12

6.78

N: Administrative and Support Service

16,243

5.42

4

2.26

O, P: Public Administration; Education

10,695

3.57

6

3.39

Q: Health and Social Work

30,364

10.13

18

10.17

R: Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

2,976

0.99

0

0.00

S: Other Service Activities

10,890

3.63

3

1.69

A-S: TOTAL

299,736

100.00

177

100.00

A: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing B: Mining and Quarrying

No. of SMEs (10-249 employees) -

Survey Sample

%

%

Table 1: Comparison of 18 German industry sectors and selection of small and medium-sized enterprises for the survey (Sources: Statistisches Bundesamt, 2011; Hoppenstedt, 2012) A total of 1,000 companies received an e-mail invitation with a link to the web-based survey, in which respondents were asked to click on a personalized link to the survey. The respondents had the opportunity to pause and resume the survey at a later time without losing any progress. The survey produced 177 usable questionnaires, which is a response rate of 17.7%. The next section will explain the initial results of this research project. The majority of the respondents indicated that their company falls into the EU definition of an SME – 133 respondents out of 177 (or 75.1%) in the survey sample (Table 2). Of these respondents, 40 respondents belong within the small enterprise category (10-49 employees), and 94 respondents are considered medium-sized enterprise category (50 to 249 employees). Despite the thoroughness of the population selection for this survey, 40 companies indicated that they have more employees than was specified by the Hoppenstedt database (2012). A possible 7

explanation for this disparity could be that respondents considered the employees of additional companies, such as acquired companies or international subsidiaries, which did not appear in the Hoppenstedt database. These companies were not excluded from the results because it was unclear how inconsistent Hoppenstedt data was with the entire population.

Company Size

Germany 2008

Survey Sample

No. of companies

%

3,324,781 245,833 53,903

91.43 6.76 1.48

1 – 9 employees 10 – 49 employees 50 – 249 employees 250 – 499 employees

No. of companies 1 40 93 34 6

% .57 22.60 52.54 19.21 3.39

11,978* 0.33 500 or more companies Not specified 3 1.69 Total 3,636,495 100.00 177 100.00 Table 2: Distribution of company size in the sample population in comparison with the national statistics on the German economy (*the last two categories were not separated in the national statistics; Source: Statistisches Bundesamt, 2011)

4. Results 4.1 Awareness and Application of Tools To investigate the current awareness and application of various sustainability management tools in SMEs, 36 tools were identified in the literature to have potential application in SMEs. Similar studies were conducted on the awareness and application of large German companies (Herzig and Schaltegger, 2009; Schaltegger et al. 2011). The respondents were asked to indicate which tools they were aware of and which tools they have applied within the scope of their business. Figure 1 provides an overview of the awareness and application of each tool, revealing the gaps between the two variables. It is apparent that the majority of tools remain below the 40% awareness level and 20% application level. However, it is apparent that the variables, awareness and application, are progressively moving in the same direction from left to right.

8

Eco-Mapping Social Benchmarking Stakeholder Dialogue Ecological Benchmarking Social Management System Fair Trade Labeling Social Audit Sustainability Labeling Design for the Environment Social Report Organic / Eco-Friendly Labeling Sustainability Benchmarking Life Cycle Assessment Sustainability Network Eco-Efficiency Indicators Eco-Efficiency Analysis Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Environmental Declaration Social Performance Indicators Environmental Accounting Social Accounting Sustainability Performance Indicators Sustainability Report Sustainability Audit Environmental Report Eco-Compass Code of Conduct Environmental Management System Incentive Program Risk Analysis Environmental Audit Corporate Citizenship Sustainable Supply Chain Management Employee Suggestion Scheme Education & Training Quality Management System

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0% aware

10.0% applied

0.0%

Figure 1: Awareness and application of sustainability management tools in German SMEs

9

Table 3 gives details on the average awareness (28.2%) and average application (16.4%) of the surveyed tools. The gap between awareness and application is 11.9%. The average ratio of application to awareness, which is taken by dividing the average application by average awareness, is 58%, meaning that almost 60% of tools known are applied in practice.

Knowledge and Application of Sustainability Management Tools

Survey Results with 36 Tools

Average Awareness

28.2%

Average Application

16.4%

Average Awareness-Application Gap

11.9%

Average Ratio of Application to Awareness

58.0%

Correlation of Awareness and Application (Pearson)

0.97**

Correlation of Awareness and Rate of Application to Awareness

0.76**

Table 3: Averages and Correlation between Awareness and Application (** p < 0.01) The relationship between awareness and application of sustainability management tools in SMEs is emphasized by a very positive correlation (0.97). With a few exceptions, this positive relationship indicates that tools that have attracted a greater awareness are absolutely applied more frequently. Furthermore, the relationship between awareness and rate of application to awareness also demonstrates a strong correlation (0.76). Hence, the more a tool is known, the more likely it will be applied by those who know about it. In contrast, tools that are not wellknown are more likely to have a lower level of application. 4.2 Influential Factors of Awareness and Application Following the questions regarding awareness and application of tools, the respondents were asked to indicate what leading driver has drawn their awareness to tools, such as company ledinitiatives and external drivers, including demands from major business clients, external consultants, networks, trade associations, state-funded grants and other minor drivers. Companyled initiatives were chosen most frequently as the leading driver (80%). Taking only external drivers into account, consultants were seen as the leading external driver (32%), followed by demands from major clients (25%), trade associations (15%), network initiatives (9%), and statefunded projects (6%). 10

13%

6%

External consultant

32%

Demand from major client Trade Association

9%

Network initiative State-funded project

15%

Other

25%

Figure 2: Leading External Drivers of the Awareness of Tools Thereafter, the respondents were invited rank facilitating attributes of sustainability management tools that would improve the likelihood of being applied in their organization. From the literature review, five facilitating criteria of tools were identified, including practicability (tools should be understandable and user-friendly), economic-feasibility (tools should be cost effective and economically viable), locally-based (tools should consider the local surroundings of the company), flexibility (tools should be adapted to the size of the company), and company-tailored (tools should be adapted to the structure of the company). Table 4 lists the criteria according to ranking of tools, from 1 being the most significant criteria and 5 being the least significant criteria.

Criteria

Rank 1 71

Rank 2 62

Rank 3 13

Rank 4 10

Rank 5 3

Rank 6 0

Mean

Cost Effectiveness

67

57

16

14

5

0

1.95

Company-Tailored

18

17

46

42

25

0

3.26

Flexibility

4

16

53

49

18

0

3.44

Consideration of Local Context

1

8

22

23

77

2

4.30

Practicability

1.82

Table 4: Ranking of tool criteria for improved application

11

Furthermore, respondents were asked to signify the anticipated effects on business aspects from the application of tools. On a Likert scale from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive), respondents indicated the effects on business aspects, including costs, sales, internal operations, product and service innovation, employee motivation, employee productivity, customer retention and acquisition, company reputation, and overall competitiveness of the firm. As seen in Table 5, the results indicate that company reputation (mean value = 4.07) was anticipated to enjoy the most positive outcome from the application of tools, followed by employee motivation (3.96) and customer retention and acquisition (3.91). Overall, positive expectations can be observed in all business aspects; however, the anticipated effects on costs and sales remain somewhat neutral.

Business Aspect

1-

2

Negative

3-

4

Neutral

5-

Mean

Positive

Company Reputation

0

1

31

85

45

4.07

Employee Motivation and Involvement Customer Retention and Acquisition

1

2

35

94

35

3.96

1

1

41

89

32

3.91

Competitiveness

0

12

39

78

33

3.81

Product and Service Innovation

1

3

65

69

21

3.67

Internal Operations

0

16

48

74

25

3.66

Employee Productivity

2

9

64

62

23

3.59

Sales

1

4

82

60

17

3.54

Costs

10

34

41

53

25

3.30

Table 5: Anticipated effects on business aspects from tool application

5. Discussion While a growing literature on sustainability management tools exists, little is known which tools have a higher awareness and which tools are being applied more than others in the SME context. This paper is an attempt to gain further insight into this field by conducting an exploratory study on the awareness and application of tools in SMEs. This paper also presents influential factors relating to the awareness and application of tools, including leading external drivers of awareness, the facilitating qualities of tools for improved application and the anticipated effects from the application of tools. As seen in the results, a high correlation exists between awareness and application. This positive relationship between awareness and application indicates that tools that have attracted a 12

greater awareness are applied more frequently. Schaltegger et al. (2011) concluded that the increased awareness of tools may be the greatest driver for application in large firms. The same conclusion could be drawn for SMEs; however, the lack of awareness may be the greatest barrier to application. Typically, SME managers are unaware of the environmental and social impacts as well as potential solutions to reduce these burdens. Therefore, they do not see a need to apply tools (Revell and Blackburn, 2007). Compared to multinational enterprises, SMEs often view themselves as exempt from sustainable development as they perceive their organizations to have minimal impacts (Gerstenfeld and Roberts, 2000). Three influential factors of awareness and application of tools were analyzed. First, the leading drivers for the awareness of tools include company-led initiatives, external consultants, demands from a major clients, trade associations and networks. Revell et al. (2010) emphasize that ownermanagers’ willingness to embrace sustainability may be the strongest internal driver for dissemination of sustainability management. A balanced mix of internal and external drivers can encourage SMEs to become more aware and therefore apply appropriate sustainability management tools (Kerr, 2006). Second, a ranking of tools from SME managers was conducted. The two highest ranked attributes were practicability and economic-feasibility. Relating to the literature, the application of a tool must fit within the time, cost and personnel limitations of SMEs (Seidel et al., 2008). Heras and Arana (2010) confirmed that the facilitating criteria, practicability and economicfeasibility, have positive effects on application rates through their research on a streamlined version of an EMS, called Ekoscan. They stressed that higher a rate of application of Ekoscan over a standard EMS could be credited to the minimum requirement of documentation and lower costs for implementation of Ekoscan. Third, SMEs have positive expectations of applied tools with regards to most business aspects. In particular, respondents perceive great anticipated effects on their company’s reputation, employee motivation and involvement, and customer acquisition and retention. Two of the top three aspects are considered non-monetary factors to business success, which could also relate to the improvement of stakeholder relations in a local context. Tools can be very useful to improve the relationships of stakeholders, including employees, customers and local authorities (Gadenne et al., 2009). For example, an EMS could improve stakeholder relations as it encourages active involvement of employees while improving the reputation of a firm with other stakeholder groups, such as customers and local authorities (Fresner and Engelhardt, 2004; Friedman and Miles, 2002; Seiffert, 2008; Zorpas, 2010). Nevertheless, the anticipated effects on sales, costs and employee productivity were rather neutral, which relates to the economic success of a company. Most SMEs have yet to recognize the economic benefits of sustainability management (Brammer et al., 2011; Friedman and Miles, 13

2002). Therefore, most SMEs have little financial incentives to adopt sustainability practices, which would lead to the application of tools. Furthermore, SMEs rarely see the opportunities and programs available to them to educate and support the application of tools (Bradford and Fraser, 2008; Burke and Gaughran, 2007; Seidel et al., 2008; Zorpas, 2010). Therefore, the awareness and application of tools remains low.

6. Conclusion Despite that fact that the awareness and application of tools in SMEs is quite low, this empirical study reveals that there is a positive relationship between the two variables. Hence, it is safe to assume that the greater awareness of a tool, the more frequently it will be applied by SMEs. Furthermore, several influential factors of awareness and application have been investigated. The results reveal that company led initiatives are the greatest driver by far; however, several external drivers, such as external consultants and major customers along the supply chain, play a minor role in SME applications of tools. The two main facilitating criteria for improved application are the practicability and economic-feasibility of tools. In addition, the most positive anticipated effects of application are improved company reputation, employee motivation and customer acquisition and retention. The analyses suggest several areas for further investigation. First, while the facilitating criteria and anticipated effects for application of tools provide helpful insights, perhaps an investigation on drivers for improved awareness could also be further researched. Since the gap between awareness and application is relatively small, it is understood that the problem lies more on awareness than on the application of tools once tools are known. Second, further research could be conducted on the differences of awareness and application between SMEs and large enterprises. In addition, an investigation could be conducted on the differences between the influential factors, including drivers for awareness, facilitating criteria for awareness and application, and anticipated effects of application, between SMEs and large companies could be investigated.

14

References Ammenberg, J., and O. Hjelm (2003). ‘Tracing Business and Environmental Effects of Environmental Management Systems: A Study of Networking Small and Medium-sized Enterprises using a Joint Environmental Management System,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(3), 163-174. Bradford, J., and E. D. G. Fraser (2008). ‘Local Authorities, Climate Change and Small and Medium Enterprises: Identifying Effective Policy Instruments to Reduce Energy Use and Carbon Emissions,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(3), 156-172. Brammer, S., S. Hoejmose, and K. Marchant (2011). ‘Environmental Management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, Pressures and Perceived Benefits,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, Online First DOI: 10.1002/bse.717. Burke, S., and W. F. Gaughran (2006). ‘Intelligent environmental management for SMEs in manufacturing,’ Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 22, 566-575. Burke, S., and W. F. Gaughran (2007). ‘Developing a framework for sustainability management in engineering SMEs,’ Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23, 696-703. Castka, P., M. A. Balzarova, C. J. Bamer, and J. M. Sharp (2004). ‘How Can SMEs Effectively Implement the CSR Agenda? A UK Case Study Perspective,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 140-149. Collins, E., S. Lawrence, K. Pavlovich, and C. Ryan (2007). ‘Business Networks and the Uptake of Sustainability Practices: The Case of New Zealand,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 729-740. DEFRA (2006). Encouraging Sustainability amongst Small Business, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ Document.aspx?Document=SD14007_3807_INF.pdf (Accessed on January 27, 2010). Dresewski, F. (2007). Verantwortliche Unternehmensführung. Corporate Social Responsibility in Mittelstand. Berlin: UPJ-Bundesinitiative. Ebinger, F., and M. Schwarz (2003). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften in kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen, in: G. Linne, G and M. Schwarz (Hrsg.): Handbuch Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Wie ist nachhaltiges Wirtschaften machbar? Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 309 – 320. European Commission (2003): Responsible entrepreneurship. A collection of good practice cases among small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe, http://europa.eu.int/comm /enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/responsible_entrepreneurship/index.htm (Accessed on November 29,2009) European Commission (2004): Public Policy Initiatives to promote the Uptake of Environmental Management Systems in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Final Report of the Best Project Expert Group. http://www. europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise policy/best/best_procedure.htm (Accessed on January 25, 2010) European Commission (2005). ‘The New SME Definition. User Guide and Model Declaration.’ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/sme_definition/sme_user_guide_en.pdf. Accessed on November 6, 2010.

15

Fresner, J., and G. Engelhardt (2004). ‘Experiences with Integrated Management Systems for two Small Companies in Austria,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 623-631. Friedman, A. L., and S. Miles (2002). ‘SMEs and the Environment: Evaluating Dissemination Routes and Handholding Levels,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 324-341. Gadenne, D. L., J. Kennedy, and C. McKeiver (2009). ‘An Empirical Study of Environmental Awareness and Practices in SMEs,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 45-63. Gelbmann, U. (2010). ‘Establishing Strategic CSR in SMEs: An Austrian CSR Quality Seal to Substantiate the Strategic CSR Performance,’ Sustainable Development, 18, 90-98. Gerstenfeld, A., and H. Roberts (2000). ‘Size Matters: Barriers and Prospects for Environmental Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,’ in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment. Ed. R. Hillary. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf Publishing, 106-118. Gladwin, T., J. Kennelly, and T. Krause (1995). ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research,’ Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874907. Graafland, J., B. van de Ven, and N. Stoffele (2003). ‘Strategies and Instruments for Organising CSR by Small and Large Businesses in the Netherlands,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 45-60. Hahn, T., and M. Scheermesser (2006). ‘Approaches to Corporate Sustainability among German Companies,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(3), 150-165. Halila, F. (2007). ‘Networks as a Means of Supporting the Adoption of Organizational Innovations in SMEs: The Case of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) based on ISO 14001,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(3), 167-181. Hammann, E.-M., A. Habisch, and H. Pechlaner (2009). ‘Values that create value: socially responsible business practices in SMEs – empirical evidence from German companies,’ Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 37-51. Heras, I., and G. Arana (2010). ‘Alternative Models for Environmental Management in SMEs: The case of Ekoscan vs. ISO 14001,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 726-735. Herzig, C., and S. Schaltegger (2009). Wie managen deutsche Unternehmen Nachhaltigkeit? Centre for Sustainability Management. University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg: Forschungspapier. Hillary, R. (2000). Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf Publishing. Hillary, R. (2004). ‘Environmental Management Systems and the Smaller Enterprise,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 561-569. Jenkins, H. (2009). ‘A Business Opportunity Model of Corporate Social Responsibility for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises,’ Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21-36. Kerr, I. R. (2006). ‘Leadership strategies for Sustainable SME Operation,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 30-39. Kinderyte, L. (2008). ‘Analysis and Comparison of Methodologies for Corporate Sustainability Assessment,’ Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 46(4), 66-75. 16

KMU Forschung Austria and IfM Bonn (2007). CSR and Competitiveness European SMEs´ Good Practice. National Report Germany. http://www.kmuforschung.ac.at/ de/Projekte/ CSR/Report%20Germany.pdf .(Accessed on February 17, 2010) Koroljova, A., and V. Voronova (2007). ‘Eco-Mapping as a Basis for Environmental Management Systems Integration at Small and Medium Enterprise,’ Management of Environmental Quality, 18(5), 542-555. Kuhndt, M. (2004). ‘Sustainable Business Development,’ in Eco-Efficiency and Beyond. Eds. J. D. SeilerHausmann, C. Liedtke, and E. U. von Weizsäcker. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf Publishing, 64-72. Lawrence, S. R., E. Collins, K. Pavlovich, and M. Arunachalam (2006). ‘Sustainability Practices of SMEs: The Case of New Zealand,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 242-257. Lee, K. H. (2009). ‘Why and how to Adopt Green Management into Business Organizations? The Case Study of Korean SMEs in the Manufacturing Industry,’ Management Decision, 47(7), 1101-1121. Liedtke, C., and K. Kaiser (2006). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften in der Praxis. Projekte und Erfahrungen des Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energie, in: Tiemeyer, E. & Wilbers, K. (Hrsg): Berufliche Bildung für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften: Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmannverlag, 186-204. Maijala, A., and T. Pohjola (2006). ‘Web-Based Environmental Management Systems for SMEs: Enhancing the Diffusion of Environmental Management in the Transportation Sector,’ in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. Eds. S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, and R. Burritt. London, England: Springer Publishing, 655-677. Martinuzzi, A., E. Huchler, and B. Obermayr (2000). ‘Ecoprofit: Promoting Partnerships between Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Local Authorities,’ Greener Management International, 30, 83-96. Masoni, P., B. Sara, E. Scimia, and A. Raggi (2004). ‘VerdEE: A tool for adoption of life cycle assessment in small and medium sized enterprises in Italy,’ Progress in Industrial Ecology, an International Journal, 1(3), 203-228. Moore, S. B., and S. L. Manring (2009). ‘Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises for sustainability and increased value creation,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 276-282. Morsing, M., and F. Perrini (2009). ‘CSR in SMEs: Do SMEs Matter for the CSR Agenda?,’ Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 1-6. Neamtu, B. (2011). ‘Public-Private Partnerships for Stimulating the Eco-Efficiency and Environmental Responsibility of SMEs,’ Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 34, 137-154. Perez-Sanchez, D., J. R. Barton, and D. Bower (2003). ‘Implementing Environmental Management in SMEs,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10, 67-77. Perrini, F. (2006). ‘SMEs and CSR Theory: Evidence and Implications from an Italian Perspective,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305-316. Perrini, F., and A. Tencati (2006). ‘Sustainability and Stakeholder Management: The Need for New Corporate Performance Evaluation and Reporting Systems,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 296-308.

17

Revell, A., and R. Blackburn (2007). ‘The Business Case for Sustainability? An Examination of Small Firms in the UK’s Construction and Restaurant Sectors,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(6), 404-420. Revell, A., D. Stokes, and H. Chen (2010). ‘Small Businesses and the Environment: Turning Over a New Leaf?,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 273-288. Robert, K.-H., B. Schmidt-Bleek, J. Aloisi de Lardeerel, G. Basile, J. L. Jansen, R. Kuehr, P. Price Thomas, M. Suzuki, P. Hawken, and W. Wackernagel (2002). ‘Strategic sustainable development – selection, design and synergies of applied tools,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 197-214. Schaltegger, S., and R. Burritt (2005). ‘Corporate Sustainability,’ in: The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2005/2006: A Survey of Current Issues. Eds. H. Folmer, and T. Tietenberg. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 185-222. Schaltegger, S., and M. Wagner (2011). ‘Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237. Seidel, M., R. Seidel, D. Tedford, R. Cross, and L. Wait (2008). ‘A Systems Modeling Approach to Support Environmentally Sustainability Business Development in Manufacturing SMEs,’ World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 48, 121-129. Seiffert, M. E. B. (2008). ‘Environmental Impact Evaluation using a Cooperative Model for Implementing EMS (ISO 14001) in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1447-1461. Starkey, R. (2000). ‘Environmental Management Tools: Some Options for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,’ in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment. Ed. R. Hillary. Sheffield, England: Greenleaf Publishing, 96-105. Tencati, A., F. Perrini, and S. Pogutz (2004). ‘New Tools to Foster Corporate Socially Responsible Behavior,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 173-190. Tilley, F. (1999). ‘The Gap between the Environmental Attitudes and the Environmental Behaviour of Small Firms,’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(4), 238-248. von Malmborg, F. (2003). ‘Conditions for Regional Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Swedish Perspectives,’ European Environment, 13, 133-149. Walker, H., and L. Preuss (2008). ‘Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses. Public sector perspectives’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1600-1609. Zobel, T. (2007). ‘The ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ of Joint EMS and Group Certification: A Swedish Case Study,’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14, 152-166. Zorpas, A. (2010). ‘Environmental Management Systems as Sustainable Tools in the Way of Life for SMEs and VSMEs,’ Bioresource Technology, 101, 1544-1557.

18