Greening negative factors in the activities of enterprises and organizations

Introduction. Environmental certification in accordance with ISO 14001 and EMAS makes it possible to understand and assess the impact of economic activities on ecosystems, as well as to set environmental goals and objectives for improving the activities of enterprises and organizations. The effects of the EMS (environmental management and audit scheme) depend on how companies decide to use them after certification. In this regard, the authors investigate the organizational climate issues associated with the use of ISO 14000 and EMAS series standards to improve the environmental efficiency of companies.

Materials and methods. The methodology is presented in the form of an environmental safety model related to the enterprises and organizations, including environmental audit, environmental standardization and environmental assessment of compliance with various environmental requirements at different levels of organization of enterprises’ activities. The object of research is the international environmental standards of the ISO 14000 and EMAS series. The subject of the study is the environmental safety of negative factors in the activities of enterprises and organizations. The concept of the necessity of greening personnel training and a positively environmentally oriented organizational climate in enterprises and organizations is proposed.

Results. The implementation of EMS does not always lead to an improvement in the environmental performance of companies. Some companies focus on formal criteria without taking into account real environmental problems. In addition, environmental indicators can take the form of coefficients and can be improved with unchanged or even worsened environmental impact. The organizational climate is important for the realization of EMS goals, especially the attitude of employees to the environment and environmental values. Despite limitations, EMS, environmental audit and ISO 14000 principles can help companies reduce their negative impact on the environment and increase their competitiveness, as well as make more informed choices when planning their activities.

Conclusions. The importance of creating an organizational climate for the successful greening of negative factors in the activities of enterprises and organizations is emphasized. There is also a need for a more accurate assessment of the effectiveness of environmental measures when formulating environmental standards and assessing compliance with their implementation.

1. Ammenberg J., Sundin E. Products in environmental management systems: Drivers, barriers and experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2005; 13(4):405-415. DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2003.12.005

2. Testa F., Rizzi F., Daddi T., Gusmerotti M., Frey M., Iraldo F. EMAS and ISO 14001: The differences in effectively improving environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 68:165-173. DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.12.061

3. Budi I.Y., Karuniasa M., Nurcahyo R. Effectiveness of ISO 14001: 2015 implementation in small and medium enterprises (case study: a laundry machine industry SME in Bantul Yogyakarta). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020; 423(1):012010. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/423/1/012010

4. Wong C.W., Wong C.Y., Boon-itt S. Environmental management systems, practices and outcomes: Differences in resource allocation between small and large firms. International Journal of Production Economics. 2020; 228:107734. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107734

5. Bravi L., Santos G., Pagano A., Murmura F. Environmental management system according to ISO 14001:2015 as a driver to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2020; 27(6):2599-2614. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1985

6. Montobbio F., Solito I. Does the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme Foster Innovation in European Firms? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27(1):82-99. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1986

7. Younis H., Sundarakani B. The impact of firm size, firm age and environmental management certification on the relationship between green supply chain practices and corporate performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2019; 27(1):319-346. DOI: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2018-0363

8. Smirnova E.E. Risk analysis and management according to Russian and international safety standards. Izvestiya vuzov. Investitsii. Stroitelstvo. Nedvizhimost. 2023; 13(2):336-347. DOI: 10.21285/2227-2917-2023-2-336-347. EDN EARQBL. (rus.).

9. Zimon D., Madzík P., Dellana S., Sroufe R., Ikram M., Lysenko-Ryba K. Environmental effects of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management system implementation in SSCM. The TQM Journal. 2021. DOI: 10.1108/TQM-01-2021-0025

10. Heras-Saizarbitoria I., Boiral O., de Junguitu A.D. Environmental management certification and environmental performance: Greening or greenwashing? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020; 29(6):2829-2841. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2546

11. Ronalter L.M., Bernardo M., Romaní J.M. Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: a cross-regional empirical study. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2022; 25(9):9067-9109. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02425-0

12. Arimura T.H., Hibiki A., Katayama H. Is a voluntary approach an effective environmental policy instrument? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2008; 55(3):281-295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.09.002

13. Valenciano-Salazar J.A., Andre F.J., Martín-de Castro G. Sustainability and firms’ mission in a developing country: The case of voluntary certifications and programs in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2022; 65(6):2029-2053. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2021.1950658

14. García-Álvarez M., de Junguitu A.D. Shedding light on the motivations and performance of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2023; 99:107045. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107045

15. Slesarev M., Kovrigin A., Kafanova J. Mathematical and mental modeling for ecological reconstruction of the environment of construction objects. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020; 869:062017. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/869/6/062017

16. Hinojosa A.S., Gardner W.L., Walker H.J., Cogliser C., Gullifor D. A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research. Journal of Management. 2017; 43(1):170-199. DOI: 10.1177/0149206316668236

17. Daddi T., Magistrelli M., Frey M., Iraldo F. Do environmental management systems improve environmental performance? Empirical evidence from Italian companies. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2011; 13(5):845-862. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-011-9294-8

18. Wagner M. The influence of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification on environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis. Environmental Management Accounting — Purpose and Progress. 2003; 367-386. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0197-7_16

19. Svensson E., Andersson K. Inventory and evaluation of environmental performance indices for shipping. Report No R 11:132. Gothenburg, Chalmers University of Technology, 2011; 71.

20. Rajesh R. Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 247:119600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119600

21. Broadstock D.C., Chan K., Cheng L.T.W., Wang X. The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters. 2021; 38:101716. DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101716

22. Ammenberg J. Do standardised environmental management systems lead to reduced environmental impacts? Ser.: Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations. Linköping, Linköping University, 2003; 109.

23. Telichenko V.I., Slesarev M.Yu. System of assessment of ecological safety of construction processes in the megalopolis: problem and solution. Ecology of Urban Areas. 2013; 1:13-17. EDN PZTSLL. (rus.).

24. Slesarev M. Modeling and formation of environmental safety management systems of construction technologies. E3S Web of Conferences. 2021; 258:09084. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202125809084

25. Heras-Saizarbitoria I., García M., Boiral O., de Junguitu A.D. The use of eco-efficiency indicators by environmental frontrunner companies. Ecological Indicators. 2020; 115:106451. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106451

26. Smirnova E. Problems of ecology and ensuring environmental safety in relation to toxic “Krasny Bor” dump site. E3S Web of Conferences. 2020; 175:14015. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202017514015

27. Flagstad I., Hauge A.L., Johnsen S.Å.K. Certification dissonance: Contradictions between environmental values and certification scheme requirements in small-scale companies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 358:132037. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132037

28. Fagioli F.F., Paolotti L., Boggia A. Trends in environmental management systems research. A content analysis. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 2022; 26(1):46-63. DOI: 10.2478/rtuect-2022-0005

29. Todaro N.M., Daddi T., Testa F., Iraldo F. Organization and management theories in environmental management systems research : a systematic literature review. Business Strategy & Development. 2020; 3(1):39-54. DOI: 10.1002/bsd2.77

30. Erauskin-Tolosa A., Zubeltzu-Jaka E., Heras-Saizarbitoria I., Boiral O. ISO 14001, EMAS and environmental performance: A meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020; 29(3):1145-1159. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2422

31. Smirnova E.E. Risk assessment in Russian and international safety and sustainable development standards. Modern Problems of Civil Protection. 2023; 1(46):57-71. EDN OFRJSZ. (rus.).