Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy

0301-42

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

(K.I. Ev

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

A SWOT analysis of environmental management practices in Greek Miningand Mineral Industry

I.E. Nikolaou a, K.I. Evangelinos b,n

a Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi, Greeceb Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilini, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 February 2009

Received in revised form

16 February 2010

Accepted 16 February 2010

JEL classifications:

Q57

L71

M14

Keywords:

Environmental management practices

Mining and mineral industry

SWOT analysis

Greece

07/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.resourpol.2010.02.002

esponding author. Tel.: +30 2251 0 36292; fa

ail addresses: inikol@env.duth.gr (I.E. Nikolao

angelinos).

a b s t r a c t

Over the last two decades, mining and mineral exploration companies have adopted various

environmental management practices in response to society’s pressure for better environmental

protection. The literature highlights a number of benefits and challenges for companies adopting

environmental management practices with the Greek Mining and Mineral Industry (GMMI) facing

similar issues. In order to analyze the challenges faced by the GMMI, a Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted, which examined the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats faced by the industry when adopting environmental management practices.

The analysis prescribes policy recommendations both for the government and industry which, if

adopted, could facilitate improved environmental performance.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In an effort to promote cleaner production and environmentalmanagement tools in the mining industry, certain countries –both industrialized and industrializing – have revamped sector-specific environmental regulations. On one side, industrializedcountries such as Canada and the USA have enacted strictenvironmental regulations for mining companies such as theResource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act (Hilson, 2000a). On the other side,industrializing countries have also prepared environmentalregulation but there are some important weaknesses such as alack of clear, supportive plans for facilitating waste minimizationand incompleteness of present regulatory frameworks.

To respond to these increasing environmental regulations,mining and mineral companies have adopted environmentalmanagement practices. These have helped companies minimizetheir impacts on the environment. For instance, Suppen et al.(2006) refer to certain Mexican mining companies that haveadopted environmental management tools with very significant

ll rights reserved.

x: +30 2251 0 36254.

u), kevag@aegean.gr

environmental improvements. In the same sense, Newbold (2006)pays more attention to holistic environmental managementsystems (EMSs), which ‘‘are designed to help [mining] companies

manage their environmental responsibilities and liabilities’’. Apartfrom deriving environmental benefits, authors also examine therelationship of these practices with accountability issues. Driussiand Jansz (2006) highlight that the adoption by Australian miningcompanies of specific management practices such as environ-mental management systems (EMSs), pollution control technol-ogies, environmental education programs for staff and otherstrategies may assist them to improve their accountability inrelation to environmental issues.

The lessons of other countries on the benefits and obstacles ofenvironmental management practices are followed in differentways by the Greek Mining and Mineral Industry (GMMI).Recently, several Greek medium and large-scale mining compa-nies have introduced environmental considerations into theirstrategic management as a result of the current environmentalregulatory framework as well as in response to society’srequirements for environmental quality maintenance. The Greekmining industry has responded to these challenges by introducingenvironmental management practices or holistic environmentalmanagement systems mainly to restore environmentally depre-ciated operation sites, by eliminating the use of environmentalresources, managing waste production, eliminating water use and

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234 227

controlling other environmental impacts. By implementing suchmanagement practices, some members of the GMMI state, inenvironmental reports and internet sites, that the environmentalmanagement practices they adopted have assisted them to gain‘the social licence’ to operate from local communities. However,there are a significant number of obstacles to the implementationof such practices, including short-run compliance costs and a lowlevel of environmental awareness by staff. Thus, this paperutilizes a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats(SWOT) analysis to examine the strengths, weaknesses, opportu-nities and threats for the GMMI in implementing environmentalmanagement strategies. The data were taken from the environ-mental reports of GMMI and annual environmental reportspublished by the Greek Association of Minerals and MiningIndustry. Finally, the results of this method are utilized to preparespecific environmental policies for the GMMI.

The remainder of the paper is divided to the followingsections: (a) the global experience regarding mining and mineralenvironmental management practices is described in the Environ-

mental management practices of the mining and mineral industry: a

short review of the global experience section, (b) the Greekexperience of mining and mineral environmental managementpractices is presented in the Environmental management practices

of the mining and mineral industry: the Greek experience section, (c)the basic steps of methodology are demonstrated in theMethodology section, including the steps of the analysis, sampleselection and the SWOT analysis, (d) policy recommendations arepresented in the Policy and strategies recommendations section and(e) conclusions are discussed in the Conclusions section.

Environmental management practices of the mining andmineral industry: a short review of the global experience

Environmental management practices can be divided to twomajor categories based on the mandatory or voluntary characterof the driving forces. The first category encompasses theenvironmental management practices of the mining companiesresulting from the pressure from ‘command and control’ and

Table 1Environmental management practices of mining and mineral industries.

Environmental management practices

Ex ante Ex post

(A) (B)

Mandatory

measures

� Environmental

management plan

� Environmental impact

statement report

� Rehabilitation of minin

� Restoration of ecosyste

� Payment of fines

� Payment of taxes

� Waste management ac

� Water restoration activ

(C) (D)

Voluntary measures � Environmental

management systems

� Life cycle assessment

� ‘Cradle to grave’ analysis

� Environmental accounting

� Environmental indicators

- Rehabilitation of mining

of ecosystems,- Investmen

projects,- Report environm

performance.

‘market-based’ instruments. The second category includes thoseenvironmental management practices that the mining industryadopts on a voluntary basis.

Furthermore, another useful distinction for environmentalmanagement practices is the period in which these practices areapplied, namely ex ante or ex post environmental managementpractices. The environmental management practices of themining companies to restore the physical environment areapplied at the end of the production process and could beconsidered as ex post. This category includes environmentalmanagement practices based mainly on the idea of the rehabilita-tion of mining environmental damage and is principally a result ofthe regulatory regime, thus may be considered as reactive actions.The other category encompasses environmental managementpractices that mining and mineral industries adopt to maintain agood level of environmental quality and can be classified as anex ante practice and may be considered as more proactive.Although this distinction is very difficult to define in the case ofthe mining industry, it may be a useful framework for makingrelevant literature clearer and manageable.

Following this rationale, Table 1 indicates the basic mining andmineral environmental management practices. The rows illustratethe environmental management practices of the mining industryas a result of either mandatory or voluntary measures, while thecolumns classify these practices according to the period in whichthey are applied. In particular, the first quadrant (A) includesmining environmental management practices as compliance withenvironmental regulatory requirements to predict environmentalimpacts (ex ante activities). The second quadrant (B) relates to anenvironmental regulatory framework like the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, the Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA) and the European Mine Waste directive, which classifycompanies according to the costs of restoration and rehabilitationafter environmental damage has taken place. The third quadrant(C) includes voluntary environmental management practices likeenvironmental management systems that mining companiesadopt to assure environmental quality. Finally, the last quadrant(D) indicates voluntary environmental activities that areimplemented at the end of the extraction procedures or generalproduction procedures.

Authors

g sites

ms

tivities

ities

Annandale (2000), Annandale and Taplin (2003), Macedo

et al. (2003), Ghose (2003), Patarmatzi et al. (2005),

Damigos (2006), Evangelinos and Oku (2006), Sarrasin

(2006)

sites,- Restoration

t in local societies

ental

Bomsel et al. (1996), Santos and Zaratan (1997), Hilson

and Murck (2000), Peck and Sinding (2003), Azapagic

(2004), Jenkins (2004), Mutagwada (2006), Newld

(2006), Jenkins and Yakovleva (2006), Suppen et al.

(2006), Durucan et al. (2006), Mudd (2007), Carrick and

Kruger (2007)

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234228

Environmental management practices of the mining andmineral industry: the Greek experience

There are currently more than 600 large- and small-scalemining companies in Greece that contribute about 1.7% of theGross National Product (Evangelinos and Oku, 2006). The Greekmining and mineral sector employs at least 23,000 people (GMMIEnvironmental Report, 2007). The most important mineralcommodity in Greece is bauxite and the GMMI is also consideredthe European Union (EU) leader in producing magnesium, nickeland perlite (over 80% of total EU production).

However, in Greece, the mining industry stands accused ofsignificant environmental impacts. Papanicolaou et al. (2004)found, by examination of the 14 most important representativecoal basins of Greece (e.g. in Thrace, Eastern Greece and centralGreece), significant amounts of alkalies in the soil, rivers andlakes. Arvanitidis (1998) also states that a mining operation toextract zeolite in Alexandroupolis led to significant environmen-tal impacts, which triggered a number of environmental manage-ment measures, including a flue gas treatment used to remove theremaining mercury and dioxins in the sludge of the incinerationplants, a waste water treatment with activated carbon filters andsoil protection using layers underneath large industrial areas.

To overcome these problems, both the Greek government byenacting mandatory measures and the mining industry by imple-menting voluntary measures have taken an active role in environ-mental protection. Key regulations have been enacted to deal with theenvironmental effects of mining and mineral operations such as

(5) (4.2) Research developm

(4.3) Sample S

Association of Grand Mineral In

(4.4) Report ColAnalys

(4.5) SWOT

(S) Strengths(4.5.2.1.1)

(W)Weaknesses(4.5.2.1.2)

(5) Discussion Policy and StraRecommendations

Fig. 1. Research metho

regulations 1180/1981 (Site Arrangement and the Environment),1360/1983 (Promotion of Investments and Permit Provisions) and1650/1986 (Environmental Protection). To comply with these regula-tions, the mining and mineral companies have produced specificenvironmental impact statement reports to record the presentenvironmental status and future environmental impacts associatedwith their operations (Appendix A).

Some companies have voluntarily adopted environmentalmanagement practices to preserve the environment such asenvironmental management systems (e.g. ISO 14001), alternativeuses of operation sites, dust auditing systems, air pollutionsystems and fire safety zones. For example, Aluminum of GreeceS.A. has voluntarily adopted ISO 14001, greenhouse gas emissions(GHG) and air pollution management. Similarly, the miningcompany Biogyps Kvelis Co. has implemented environmentalpractices such as site restoration, recycling of materials and airpollution management on a voluntary basis. Additionally, S&BIndustrial Minerals S.A. has implemented voluntary measures forsite restoration, dust management and water, energy and solidwaste management (Detailed information about the GMMI islisted in Appendix A).

Methodology

Research structure

This Methodology section is sub-divided to five parts (Fig. 1). Inthe first part, the research questions are developed. Secondly, four

questions ent

election

eek Mining dustries

lection and is

analysis

(O)Opportunities

(4.5.2.2.1)

(T)Threats

(4.5.2.2.2)

tegy (5) NationalLevel Part II

Part I

dology structure.

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234 229

basic research questions derived from the SWOT analysis areanalyzed (Research questions development). Thirdly, the sample ofcompanies examined is justified (Sample selection). The fourthpart includes the techniques of environmental reporting analysis(Environmental report collection and analysis). Finally, the fifth partpresents the SWOT analysis results (SWOT analysis).

Research questions development

The main research questions of this study are presentedderived from the SWOT analysis, as follows:

Question 1. What are the strengths of GMMI companies when

adopting environmental management practices?

The first question aims to examine the internal strengths thatmembers of the GMMI may have when implementing (ormaintaining from pre-existing) environmental managementpractices. For example, this question aims to find the benefitsgained or those that may be faced by a mining company fromimplementing environmental management practices such aselimination of operational costs, gaining competitive advantageor enhancing market share.

Question 2. What are the weaknesses of the GMMI when adopting

environmental management practices?

The second question examines the weaknesses that those Greekmining companies and the industry in general may face whenadopting such environmental management practices. For exam-ple, this question refers to limited access to relevant information,lack of funds, current bureaucratic requirements and a lack ofappropriate management.

Question 3. What are the opportunities of the GMMI when

adopting environmental management practices?

The third question examines the opportunities companies mayface externally when adopting such management practices. Thisquestion requires information about challenges such as productattractiveness and new financial challenges.

Question 4. What are the threats for the GMMI when adopting

environmental management practices?

The last question analyzes the threats to companies whenadopting such environmental practices. Specifically, this inform-ation involves future environmental regulations or additionalfinancial funds.

Sample selection

Data were collected using a survey design. A sample comprisedof 17 Greek mining and mineral companies was formed based onthe GMMI. The sample contains companies that have adoptedsome type of environmental management practices. The timeperiod examined was 2000–2008.

Environmental report collection and analysis

Eight aggregate annual reports and twenty individual environ-mental reports of the companies selected were examined. Thesereports were analyzed according to the four research questions.Namely, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats forGMMI in adopting environmental management practices areexamined based on the aggregate and individual environmentalreports. In particular, the evaluation of environmental reports isrelated to the content analysis technique and SWOT analysis.

Traditionally, content analysis techniques are commonly used toevaluate the annual environmental reports of companies andinvolve a variety of measurements to quantify the content such asnumber of statements and number of words. This study used thenumbers of statements that indicated strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats. However, the findings of this studywere based both on individual company reports and theindustry’s aggregate environmental reports. Thus, in the Internal

parameters section, the categories of SWOT analysis and howcompanies relate to each of these categories are presented.

SWOT analysis

Brief review of theoretical background

SWOT analysis could be a useful tool for the strategic planningprocess of environmental management. Lozano and Valles (2007)state that ‘‘SWOT analysis is widely recognized and it constitutes an

important basis for learning about the situation and for designing

future procedures which can be seen necessary for thinking in a

strategic way’’. However, the use of this method gives rise to someimportant advantages and disadvantages. The advantages, forinstance, may include the idea that this method is very simple andeverybody can use it without having advanced knowledge orexternal technical support. The disadvantages refer to a variety ofshortcomings regarding this method such as its simplistic, staticand subjective character. These shortcomings have influenced thetransparency of the results of SWOT analysis. In order toovercome some of these challenges, this study draws informationfrom the annual environmental reports of companies in whichthey disclosed real and more accurate data and overcame thesubjectivity of managers’ answers, which can be a prevalentproblem on similar research efforts.

This method identifies the strengths, weaknesses, opportu-nities and threats of an implemented plan (or managementstrategy/ practice) or for a new plan that will be applied in thefuture. Firstly, the strengths of a plan may be the advantages foran organization in implementing a plan or the benefits that arisefrom one already implemented by the organization. Secondly, theweaknesses of the plan could be obstacles that should be avoidedin order for an organized plan to respond sufficiently to designedgoals. Thirdly, it seeks to identify the opportunities associatedwith the plan and finally, the method detects the threats that willbe faced by the implemented plan from external factors.

SWOT analysis of the GMMI

The data of the SWOT analysis are based on the aggregateenvironmental reports of GMMI as well as individual environ-mental reports of member companies as previously stated. Theterm ‘strengths’ encompasses advantages and benefits from theadoption of environmental management practices. In order tofacilitate the findings of strengths, some typical questions shouldbe answered such as what the advantages of such practices are,what environmental management practices can do well and ifthere are financial benefits. Similarly, weaknesses would includefactors and items that are obstacles in the attempts of companiesto adopt any environmental management practices. Somerelevant questions could be what is not done properly, whatshould be improved and what should be avoided. Additionally,opportunities may include external benefits for companies fromthe adoption of environmental management practices. Someimportant questions are what future benefits may occur forcompanies, what competitive advantages will companies gain andwhat changes may take place in consumer tastes. Finally, threatsmay contain future problems and obstacles from the avoidance ofimplementing any environmental management practices. Some

Table 2SWOT analysis and policy recommendations.

SWOT analysis Policy recommendations

Internal Strengths

S.1: Costs reductionS.2: Productivity improvementS.2: Innovation

development

Weakness State policies

W.1: Lack of fundsW.2: Bureaucratic requirementsW.3: Lack of

management and staff involvement

PR1: The State should offer specific financial services to facilitate GMMIs

to adopt environmental practicesPR2: The State should prepare

essential guidelines to promote environmental practices within GMMIs

Association strategies

PR3: Seminars for managers and staffs of GMMIs

External Opportunities

O.1: New markets, new consumers and competitive advantagesO.2:

Enhanced financing opportunitiesO.3: ExportsO.4: Public awareness

Threats

T.1: Additional fundsT.2: Severe future legal requirementsT.3: Lack of

broad environmentally friendly clientele

State policies

PR4: The State should prepare rational environmental regulations for

GMMIsPR5: The State should inform consumers of the environmental

practices of GMMIs.

Association strategies

PR6: Awards for the most environmentally friendly company

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234230

useful questions relate to what the future trends are and what thefuture commitment in relation to these practices is. These factorscomprise the context and the sense in which environmentalreports are analyzed. This analysis gives rise to a variety ofinteresting issues that facilitate the discussion in the Policy

recommendations section. Additionally, the basic parameters ofthe following SWOT analysis are separated, as commonly happensin similar research efforts, to two general categories: external andinternal. The former category involves strengths and opportu-nities and the latter encompasses external parameters, e.g.weaknesses and threats (Table 2).

Internal parameters

Strengths. This section presents the resources andcapabilities of GMMI when adopting environmental managementpractices. It encompasses issues such as advantages of imple-menting environmental management practices, the best charac-teristics of practices and factors supporting those practices.Specifically, the evaluation of environmental reports of membersof GMMI indicates that the most important factors are as follows.

Cost reduction: It is generally recognized that environmentalmanagement practices assist in reducing the operating costs ofcompanies mainly in the long run. This argument is supportedfrom both aggregate annual reports of GMMI (for the year 2008)and the annual environmental reports of five members (from2005 to 2008). In particular, they support the idea that theimplementation of such practices incurs considerable savings inthe future such as reductions in the cost of energy and rawmaterials used as well as decreasing the costs of the amount ofwaste produced.

Productivity improvement: The GMMI considers that well-implemented environmental management practices reduce theuse of material resources and, as a consequence, they have betterproductivity improvements. These elements are particularlyfound in the environmental reports of all members as well asgenerally in the annual reports of GMMI for all years(2000�2008).

Innovation development: The majority of GMMI invests in newtechnology as well as in research and development (R&D)environmental programs such as technologies to manage airpollution or dust pollution. These programs benefit the image,profits and competitive position of these companies.

Weaknesses. This section includes the weaknesses that theGMMI faces in the attempt to implement environmental manage-ment practices. Specifically, they face lack of funds, low levels ofmanagement and staff environmental awareness, and bureau-cratic requirements.

Lack of funds: The GMMI states that environmental manage-ment practices need high levels of funding. Specifically, somecompanies spend over 20% of their total revenue in adoptingenvironmental measures, employee environmental training andappropriate equipment. Quantitative information for costs andthe requirements of environmental management practices’ im-plementation is presented very briefly. However, three companiesin their individual environmental reports as well as the GMMI inthe aggregate report refer to the need for additional funds for agood environmental policy.

Bureaucratic requirements: The majority of the companiesexamined claim that the implementation of such practices aswell as of holistic environmental management systems entail avariety of bureaucratic requirements not only for the staff ofcompanies’ environmental departments but also for the overallstaff of those companies. Such requirements are the frequentcompletion of numerous documents and obligatory internalenvironmental auditing surveys. Approximately 80% of companieshighlighted this issue.

Lack of management and staff involvement: The staff of thecompanies examined has low qualifications, trust, interest andunclear expectations about supporting environmental practices.The majority of members (approximately 60%) state that theyused qualified consultants to train their staff for environmentalmanagement issues.

External parameters

Opportunities. This section describes the opportunities gainedby the GMMI in adopting environmental management practices.These are as follows.

New markets, new consumers and competitive advantages: TheGMMI says that the environmentally responsible attitude ofmining companies can provide a competitive advantage due tothe fact that they meet the environmental needs of consumers.Additionally, they consider that holistic environmental practicessuch as EMS may assist GMMI to gain competitive advantages notonly over environmentally friendly companies but also over other

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234 231

companies of the industry that do not implement correspondingpractices. Such information appears only in the aggregateenvironmental reports of the GMMI, specifically for 2008.

Enhanced financing opportunities: Today, there are severalfinancial opportunities for GMMI, which adopts or is willing toadopt environmental practices. In Greece, the banking sector hasdeveloped a variety of new financial products for both envir-onmentally friendly companies (e.g. better lending criteria) andcompanies that implement environmental management practices(e.g. cleaner technology funds). In order to enhance their financialhorizons, most members of GMMI have introduced environmentalconsiderations into their management. Relevant information isrevealed only in the aggregate environmental report of GMMI.

Licence for exports: Additionally, it is necessary for some Greekmining and mineral companies to implement globally recognizedand holistic environmental management practices in order tohave easy access to foreign markets. In order to accept foreignproducts, the majority of western countries require companies togain accredited environmental status from a global organizationlike the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Thisinformation is common practice for the majority of the membercompanies that export products (approximately 50%).

Public awareness:The main reason for such companies toimplement environmental management practices is pressurefrom the general public for a cleaner environment. The environ-mental reports of GMMI make reference to a variety of localcommunity complaints about environmental quality. It should beemphasised that all member companies refer to this in theirenvironmental reports

Threats. This section discusses the threats those companies willface from the adoption of environmental management practices.

Additional financial funds: These companies consider that theconcept of continuous improvement of environmental perfor-mance may require additional funding, which will impact on theirannual budget. Indeed, the GMMI claims that there is a need forsignificant financial resources for environmental managementpractices and foresees the need for additional funds in the future(aggregate environmental reports of GMMI, for 2007).

Strict future legal requirements: The environmental reports ofthe companies implicated state that the present and futureenvironmental regulation frameworks are very strict. At thenational level, Evangelinos and Oku (2006) find Greek environ-mental regulations significantly impact on the operations ofmining companies. At the European level, a range of currentlegislation and regulations affect the mining industry of Greece asa member state. Some important regulations are 74/326/EEC(Mine Safety), 85/337/EEC (Environmental Impact Assessment),2001/118/EC (European Waste Catalogue) and finally, the morerecent regulation 2006/21/EC (Waste Management of ExtractiveIndustries). Complying with those regulations may impede thedesign of other important operating and strategic measures.

Lack of broad environmentally friendly clientele: The current lowlevel of consumer demand for environmentally friendly productshas caused concern to the senior management of companies thathave heavily invested in improving environmental quality.Nevertheless, the major focus of those companies is still toidentify future demand for environmentally friendly productseither in the domestic or foreign markets. This view is revealedfrom one member (in its annual environmental report of 2006) asa result of the absence of environmental awareness of consumers.

Policy and strategies recommendations

This section aims to analyze a variety of policy recommenda-tions that will be adopted at both the state level in promoting

environmental management practices in GMMI and at theassociation level to stimulate such practices within the membercompanies (Fig. 1). At the state level, the focus is mainly onproposals for modulating new institutional conditions to assistGMMI to have win–win strategies such as good environmentalperformance and improved competitive position. At the associa-tion level, the idea is for strategies to stimulate GMMI to adoptenvironmental practices with low informational and financialcosts to be designed. Specific proposals for the state are as follows(Table 2).

Specific financial services to facilitate GMMI to adopt environmental

management practices

State agencies should design particular financial incentivessuch as funding, financial products and financial services forstimulating those companies to implement environmental man-agement practices. These policies aim to assist those companies toovercome the barrier of financing environmental managementstrategies, a very important point as shown by the SWOT analysis.Such practices are proposed as a common practice for othersectors as well as other countries.

Appropriate guidelines to promote environmental practices within

the mining and mineral industry

The Environmental Agency Department should design a guideto promote basic environmental requirements for the companiesthat operate in the mining and mineral industry. The potentialresults of this policy are the supply of adequate information andincentives for those companies within a fair competition frame-work and common standards, which will incorporate the overallparticularities of the Greek economy, environmental status andlegal regime.

Rational environmental regulations

One of the basic objections of the GMMI is the recent strictnational and European legal environmental regulations. Thoserequirements have generated obstacles to GMMI not only to meetthe compliance costs associated with environmental practices butalso to achieve general financial goals. To overcome thosebarriers, the state should reform the current legal regime towardsmore flexible requirements in line with the environmentalbehavior of such companies.

Inform consumers about the environmental performance of the

companied involved

In recent years, issues such as consumer environmentalawareness and demand for environmentally friendly productshave gained great momentum. This trend can drive companies toadopt environmental management practices in order to meet therequirements of consumers. This is a corporate strategy that isbased on the economic theory for product differentiation and thewillingness of consumers to pay a premium in order to obtain aproduct. Reinhardt (1998) presents two main schools of thoughtabout environmental product differentiation. The first claims thatcompanies gain competitive advantage by adopting environmen-tal management practices, while the other believes that thepositive relation between profits and companies’ environmentalperformance is not a panacea. Reinhardt (1998) considers that asignificant factor for supporting something like this is the kind ofindustry and the existence of an imperfect market environment.Mineral markets do not provide opportunities for product

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234232

differentiation between companies and competition is basedmainly on cost. However, the same authors support the idea thatthe new technological initiatives of mining companies, within‘environmental imperative’, can represent a potential new profitopportunity and a determining factor for companies’ stock marketvalue. Additionally, some authors and NGOs (e.g. Oxfam-America)support the environmental education of consumers that buymining and mineral materials (e.g. the Gold campaign). As a resultof the new trends of modern globalized markets for greenproducts and the latest environmental regulations for miningindustries, some GMMI members have focused on identifying theextent to which consumers are willing to pay for environmentallyfriendly products and furthermore, to fund green investment. Tothis end, the government should publish a guide to informconsumers about the benefits of buying environmentally friendlyproducts as well as league tables on corporate environmentalperformance.

Additionally, the association should design strategies topromote environmental management practices as follows.

Awards for the most environmentally friendly company

Today, there are several associations in different sectors orinstitutions that provide general methods to measure theenvironmental performance of their members and some of themreward companies with better environmental or sustainableperformance. The main goal of those associations is firstly tostimulate their members to begin some type of environmentalmanagement practice and secondly to assist their members atleast to maintain or to improve environmental performance.Following this trend, GMMI should design appropriate environ-mental performance measuring systems for its members andaward better environmental performers.

Seminars for managers and staffs of GMMI companies

Some GMMI members have organized seminars for theiremployees. Although this practice is suitable for large interna-tional mining companies, Greek mining companies have limitedfunds to invest in such activities. Consequently, a good practicefor GMMI to educate their employees about environmentalmanagement at a low cost is for the GMMI members to organizethe seminars themselves.

Conclusions

This paper answers four research questions, which highlightthe strong and weak points of GMMI in the attempt toimple-ment environmental practices. In answer to the first question‘what are the strengths for GMMI when adopting environmental

actions?’, the majority of GMMI points out that strengths couldbe cost reduction, productivity improvement and new innovations.Such internal benefits related to environmental managementpractices can assist both economic and environmental perfor-mance of those companies. These results are similar to those ingeneral mining literature (Warhurst and Bridge, 1996). To this end,Greek mining companies seem to adopt similar environmentalmanagement practices in order to gain benefits likethose experienced by the industry at an international level.This may be explained by the institutional theory as a mimeticstrategy.

However, these practices are not without obstacles for thosecompanies concerned. Specifically, GMMI states that there areseveral weaknesses when implementing environmental practices

such as lack of funds, bureaucratic requirements and thelow level of employee involvement. These factors play animportant role for GMMI to implement environmental manage-ment practices effectively. In order to deal with these weaknesses,the policies proposed include the necessity of the state tooffer specific financial services to facilitate the environmentalmanagement practices and to prepare essential guides topromote environmental practices and seminars for employees ofGMMI. Similarly, international experience comes to the sameconclusions. For example, Hilson (2000b) supports that the lack ofavailable funds for environmental management practices is acommon barrier faced by the mining industry. Additionally, hestates that the implementation of such management practicesneeds essential environmental training programs for staff andengineers.

The third research question is answered though the analysis ofthe opportunities of GMMI, in relation to environmental manage-ment practices. Indeed, GMMI notes that these practices helps itto find new markets and consumers and gain competitiveadvantages over non-environmentally friendly companies. It alsoclaims that exports may be enhanced because environmentallyfriendly production is necessary for European and other westerncountries. Finally, several companies view good environmentalpractices as the licence to operate since the general publicdemand these. Similar results appear in the general miningliterature that environmental management practices could assistmining companies to maintain acceptance of products in theworldwide market place as well as gaining client approval(Newbold, 2006).

The last research question highlights a variety of threats thatarise from the adoption of environmental management practices.These threats are mainly related to external factors such asadditional financial funds, rigorous future legal requirements anda lack of significant environmentally friendly clientele. The threatsmay be dealt with if the state prepares effective environmentalregulations for GMMI and informs consumers about GMMIenvironmental practices as well as if GMMI rewards the bestenvironmental practice. Mudd (2007) indicates that the environ-mental management practices of mining companies may involvehigh costs in the long run. Additionally, in an assessment of theinfluence of the environmental regulatory regime on the decisionsof the mining industry, Annandale (2000) finds that miningcompanies take environmental regulations very seriously. Thisalso exists in Greece, where mining companies consider environ-mental regulation very important. This could be explained due tothe fact that Greece, as a member of the European Union, hasstandardized its regulative and legislative regime with EU laws,which has led to strict environmental requirements for Greekcompanies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous refereesfor their useful comments. The authors are also indebted toPhilippa Harris for her proofreading of the English. Any remainingerrors on any aspect of the paper are solely the authors’responsibility.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1Environmental actions of Greek Mineral and Mining Industry.

Company/web site Environmentalactions

Driving forcesa

Aluminum of Greece S.A.http://www.alhellas.gr/static/index.html ISO 14001 VGHG actions VAir pollution management V

Biogyps Karvelis Co.http://www.biogyps-karvelis.gr Sites restoration VAir pollution management VRecyling V

S&B Industrial Minerals S.A.http://www.s.andb.gr ISO 14001 VSites restoration VDust management VWater and energy management VSolid waste management VBiodiversity conservation VEnvironmental Impact Statement Report M

Public Power Corporation S.A.http://www.dei.gr ISO 14001 VCO2 actions VSites restoration VEnvironmental impact statement report M

Delfi-Distomo S.A. Recycling VAir and noise auditing system V

Hellenic Mining S.A. EMAS VDust auditing system VSites restoration VStudies for alternative use of sites V

Grecian Magnesitehttp://www.grecianmagnesite.com Air pollution management VElmin Hellenic Mining Enterprises S.A.http://www.elmin.gr ISO 14001 V

Natural resources management VWaste management VLandscape management VEnvironmental impact statement report M

Intercement Structurally Material S.A.http://www.titan-cement.com Sites restoration VLarco S.A.http://www.larco.gr ISO 14001 V

Dust management VCO2 actions VSites restoration VWaste water treatment VEnvironmental impact statement report M

Dionyssos-Penteligon Commercial & Industrial Marbelhttp://www.dionyssomarbel.gr Sites restoration VMevior Industrial Minerals S.A.http://www.mevior.com Natural resources management V

Sites restoration VAegean Perlites S.A.http://aegean-perlites.com Air pollution management VHalyps Cement S.A.http://www.halyps.gr Recycling VKimolos Cement Enterprise ISO 14001 V

Fair safety zones VHellenic Gold S.A. Sites restoration V

Water management VMaterial management V

a M: mandatory measures, V: voluntary measures.

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234 233

References

Annandale, D., 2000. Mining company approaches to environmental approvalsregulation: a survey of senior environmental managers in Canadian firms.Resources Policy 26 (1), 51–59.

Annandale, D., Tablin, R., 2003. The determinants of mining company response toenvironmental approvals regulation: a report of Australian research. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 46 (6), 887–909.

Arvanitidis, N., 1998. Northern Greece’s industrial minerals: production andenvironmental technology developments. Journal of Geochemical Exploration62, 217–227.

Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable developmentindicators for the mining and mineral industry. Journal of Cleaner Production12, 639–662.

Bomsel, O., Borkey, P., Glachant, M., Leveque, F., 1996. Is there room forenvironmental self-regulation in the mining sector? Resources Policy 22(1/2), 79–86

Carrick, P.J., Kruger, R., 2007. Restoring degraded landscapes in lowland Namaqua-land: lessons from the mining experience and from regional ecologicaldynamics. Journal of Arid Environments 70, 767–781.

Damigos, D., 2006. An overview of environmental valuation methods for themining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 234–247.

Driussi, C., Jansz, J., 2006. Pollution minimization practices in the Australianmining and mineral processing industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 14,673–681.

Durucan, S., Korre, A., Munoz-Melendez, G., 2006. Mining life cycle modelling: acradle-to-gate approach to environmental management in the mineralindustry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1057–1070.

Evangelinos, K., Oku, M., 2006. Corporate environmental management andregulation of mining operations in the Cyclades, Greece. Journal of CleanerProduction 14, 262–270.

Ghose, M., 2003. Environmental impacts of Indian small-scale miningindustry—an overview. Minerals & Energy—Raw Materials Report 18 (2),24–33.

Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry:clarifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy 26, 227–238.

Hilson, G., 2000a. Barriers to implementing cleaner technologies and cleanerproduction (CP) practices in the mining industry: a case study of the Americas.Mineral Engineering 13 (7), 699–717.

Hilson, G., 2000b. Pollution prevention and cleaner production in the miningindustry: an analysis of current issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 8, 119–126.

Jenkins, H., Yakovleva, N., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the miningindustry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal ofCleaner Production 14, 271–284.

Jenkins, H., 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: conflictsand construct. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-ment 11, 23–34.

Lozano, M., Valles, J., 2007. An analysis of the implementation of an environmentalmanagement system in a local public administration. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 82, 495–511.

I.E. Nikolaou, K.I. Evangelinos / Resources Policy 35 (2010) 226–234234

Macedo, A.B., De Freive, A.M., Jose, D., Akimoto, H., 2003. Environmentalmanagement in the Brazilian non-metallic small-scale mining sector. Journalof Cleaner Production 11 (2), 197–206.

Mudd, M.G., 2007. Global trends in gold mining: towards quantifying environ-mental and resource sustainability? Resources Policy 32, 42–56.

Mutagwaba, W., 2006. Analysis of the benefits and challenges of implementingenvironmental regulatory programmes for mining: Tanzania case study.Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 397–404.

Newbold, J., 2006. Chile’s environmental momentum: ISO 14001 and thelarge-scale mining industry—case studies from the state and private sector.Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 248–261.

Papanicolaou, C., Kotis, T., Foscolos, A., Goodarzi, F., 2004. Coals of Greece: a reviewof properties, uses and future perspectives. International Journal of CoalGeology 58, 147–169.

Peck, P., Sinding, K., 2003. Environmental and social disclosure and data rich-ness in the mining industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 12,131–146.

Petavratzi, E., Kingman, S., Lowndes, I., 2005. Particulates from mining opera-tions: a review of sources, effects and regulations. Minerals Engineering18, 1183–1199.

Reinhardt, L.F., 1998. Environmental product differentiation: implications forcorporate strategy. California Management Review 40 (4), 43–73.

Santos, M.T., Zaratan, L.M., 1997. Mineral resources accounting: a technique formonitoring the Philippine mining industry for sustainable development.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 15 (2-3), 155–160.

Sarrasin, B., 2006. The mining industry and the regulatory framework inMadagascar: some developmental and environmental issues. Journal ofCleaner Production 14, 388–398.

Suppen, N., Carranza, M., Huerta, M., Hernandez, A.M., 2006. Environmentalmanagement and life cycle approaches in the Mexican mining industry.Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1101–1115.

Warhurst, A., Bridge, G., 1996. Improving environmental performance throughinnovation: recent trends in the mining industry. Minerals Engineering 9 (9),907–921.