Green Management Concept and Strategies€¦ · Green Management – Concept and Strategies Y. Loknath [email protected] B. Abdul Azeem Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences

National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development October 13-14, 2017

ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 688

Green Management – Concept and Strategies

Y. Loknath

[email protected]

B. Abdul Azeem

Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences

There are far reaching repercussions of human industrial activities resulting in the extinction

and endangering of many life forms. Upon realisation of this alarmingly increasing threat on

its own survival, the human industrial activities have started to transform itself which has led

to discussions on newer concepts like green management. Hence, this paper attempts to

provide a basic overview of the concept of green management at the introductory level and

discuss different types of green management strategies adopted by organisations. The paper

attempts to contribute to the emerging field of green management and the stakeholders of

sustainable development.

Keywords: Green Management, Green Business, Sustainable Development, Triple Bottom

Line

1. Introduction

Since the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, we (humans) have been acting in ways

and multiplying at rates which affect the balance of life on the surface of the Earth as whole.

Before the industrial revolution some 250 years ago, the effects of human activity were local,

or at most regional, rather than global. Now the impact is indeed global. The idea may be

hard to accept, but in its long history with all its variations the Earth has never been in this

situation before. Business has always depended on – and had an impact on – the natural

world. But the development of the relationship between business and the environment – from

the extraction of raw materials to the management of resources to the generation of waste –

has long been neglected by business historians. In business, when we use these natural

resources without any limit, natural environment changes. Global warming, floods, famines,

tsunami and earth quake are its result.

Environmental degradation has been a part of human history forever specifically from

business operations. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, however,


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 689

brought with it the ability to degrade the natural environment to a greater extent and at a

faster rate than ever before. Each of these monumental environmental events is largely due to

human activity, and specifically to our present arrangements of modern industrial society.

Simply put, the way we have done business over the last two centuries has brought us up

against the biophysical limits of the earth‘s capacity to support human life, and it has already

crossed those limits in the case of countless other forms of life.

Sustainability and TBL

After two centuries of industrialism and urbanisation, people now began to rediscover the

idea that they were part of nature. The combination of actual changes in the environment and

people‘s perceptions generally at this time brought widespread public support for the

environmental movement, particularly amongst the younger groups. For the new

environmentalists, it was not solely their local outdoor environments which were perceived to

be under threat, but human survival itself. The scientific consensus on the occurrence of

ecological imbalances has gradually coming to the conclusion that the damage inflicted by

human activities on the natural environment render those activities unsustainable. This has

created a need for a new world view to serve as a basis for global consensus, which

eventually led to the coining of the term ―sustainable development‖.

In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (The

Bundled Commission) defined sustainable development as one that ―meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖

(Matusya & Yarime, 2014). Sustainability has three interdependent dimensions relating to the

environment, economics and society —often referred to as the triple bottom line. Since the

publication of Brundtland report by the United Nations, industry practice has embraced the

notion that sustainability derives from focusing on the triple bottom line (Slaper & Hall,

2011). The term ―Triple Bottom Line‖ (TBL) dates back to the mid 1990‘s, when

management think tank Accountability coined and began using the term in its work. The term

found public currency with the 1997 publication of the British edition of John Ellington‘s

Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. The TBL approach

pioneered by the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability emphasises that companies are

responsible for multiple impacts on society, with associated bottom lines. TBL as it is

evolving is a systematic approach to managing the complete set of a company‘s

responsibilities.


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 690

At its broadest, the term is used to capture the whole set of values, issues and processes that

companies must address in order to maximise the positive impacts of their activities and

generate added economic, social and environmental value. At its narrowest, the term is used

to refer to a framework for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic,

Social and environmental parameters (UNIDO). The TBL approach is grounded in the

simple realisation that corporations can add value and should publicly account along three

drivers, namely the economic, the environmental and the social drivers. Traditional economic

indicators have persisted including typical performance measures such as net profit, gross

margin and return on average capital employed. Much progress has been made in recent years

in evolving high quality global environmental standards (e.g. quantity of main pollutants to

air, land and water, management systems and eco-labels) but social reporting is still in its

infancy with a range of diverse indicators grouped under the social dimension (e.g. health and

safety, wages, training, discrimination, freedom of association and gender equality). The TBL

approach therefore looks at how corporations manage all three responsibilities and attempts

to account for these inter-related spheres of activity for a more balanced view of overall

corporate performance.

With being blamed for much of the environmental ills plaguing the world, as well as being

held responsible for finding solutions to these problems, organizations had little choice but to

attempt to incorporate green management initiatives into all of their business functions.

Nattrass and Alto mare (1999) discussed the development of industrial sustainability, or what

may be considered green management, and maintained that organizations encountered a steep

learning curve process when adopting green management practices. Specifically, they

constructed a model of organizational adoption of green management practices by which

organizations obtained knowledge, responded to environmental issues, and set goals for

environmental protection and restoration. This paper attempts to identify such knowledge for

the purpose of providing basic understanding in more cohesive form for the readers.

Specifically, objective is to identify literature which builds an understanding of what the

concept of green management stands for. Subsequently, it is objected to identify literature

which has brought forward green management strategies. The first part of the paper provides

a definition of green management and compares with that of green business. The second part

provides a discussion of what encapsulates green management and finally, types of green

management strategies were discussed.


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 691

2. Definition of Green Management

One of the primary reasons why it is difficult to decipher a consistent and comprehensive

definition of green management is that it is a relatively new term. Database searches yield

relatively few works addressing the exact term ―green management‖ and the majority of such

works focus on environmental management and environmental management systems (EMS)

as ways to improve environmental and business performance [e.g. (Florida & Davison, 2001;

Darnall, Jolley, & Handfield, 2008)]. While both improved environmental and business

performance are basic goals of green management, we believe that a more specific and

extensive conceptualization is warranted. When definitions of the exact term ―green

management‖ are found in the literature, they often appear either too vague or incomplete.

One of the most recent studies on green management defined the term as ―practices that

produce environmentally-friendly products and minimize the impact on the environment

through green production, green research and development, and green marketing‖ (Peng &

Lin, 2008). With no mention of factors such as strategic integration or sustainability, we feel

that this definition falls short of what it means to embrace true green management, but

recognize that developing a definition of the term was not the purpose of these authors. While

researchers have made valiant attempts to develop conceptualizations and typologies, arriving

at a widely-accepted definition of green management does not appear to have been a priority.

In addition to green management being a rather new term, the lack of a comprehensive and

specific definition, and the confusion surrounding the range of practices that actually

constitute green management, another obstacle in determining a solid definition of the term is

that green management is typically labelled with a different nomenclature such as corporate

environmentalism, environmental management, or corporate sustainability. Not only are there

different terms by which we label green management, but each of these terms are defined and

interpreted in a variety of ways by a diverse group of researchers and practitioners. For

example, some suggest that the concept of corporate environmentalism revolves around the

objective of reducing waste, which in turn contributes to the organization‘s ultimate goal of

making money (Costello, 2008). However, others define corporate environmentalism as

something much more broad and profound than financial returns derived from waste

reduction. For instance, one working definition of the term identifies corporate

environmentalism as ―the organization-wide recognition of the legitimacy and importance of

the biophysical environment in the formulation of organization strategy, and the integration

of environmental issues into the strategic planning process‖ (Banerjee, Corporate


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 692

environmentalism: the construct and its measurement, 2002). While this definition stresses

the importance of environmental issues and the need to integrate these issues into the strategy

of the organization, some factors that we believe are critical to the practice of green

management seem to be missing or need to be specified; factors such as continuous

improvement, sustainability, and innovation.

Environmental management and corporate sustainability are also terms that have been used

in close conjunction with or as a substitute for green management. Both concepts seem to

extend beyond simply reducing waste, and therefore more accurately embrace the ideal of

green management than the description of corporate environmentalism offered by Costello

(2008). Environmental management focuses on continuous improvement and environmental

management systems have been looked upon with much favour by large organizations, policy

makers, consultants, and researchers as an effective approach for proactively dealing with

environmental issues (Kautto, 2006). However, we should note that some have defined

environmental management simply in terms of economic profit (e.g. (Denton, 1994)).

Corporate sustainability also stretches beyond waste reduction and requires continuous

improvements to achieve its challenging objectives. In order for sustainability to be possible,

according to Daly (1996), our economy must radically shift from a focus on growth to a

steady-state economy, which requires that rates of consumption do not exceed rates of

regeneration, rates of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable

renewable substitutes are developed, and the rates of pollution emissions do not exceed the

assimilative capacity of the environment (Daly, 1991). Hawke (1993)

Applies an economic golden rule to define what it means to be sustainable when he advises

everyone to ―leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to

harm life or the environment, [and] make amends if you do.‖ Borrowing from the basic

premises of these terms, we feel the need to incorporate ideas such as continuous

improvement and sustainable processes into the definition of green management.

Following careful examination of the preceding review and the additional historically-based,

practitioner-based, and theoretically-based literatures concerning green management, several

recurring concepts were identified. The recurrence of similar concepts across three different

perspectives solidified the importance of their inclusion in the following definition of green

management (Haden, Oyler, & Humphreys, 2009): Green management is the organization-

wide process of applying innovation to achieve sustainability, waste reduction, social

responsibility, and a competitive advantage via Continuous learning and development and by


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 693

embracing environmental goals and strategies that are fully integrated with the goals and

strategies of the organization.

3. Green Business

Green businesses adopt green management principles, policies, and practices that improve the

quality of life for their customers, their employees, the communities in which they operate,

and the environment. Many green businesses begin with a desire to resolve the impacts of

climate change and other environmental problems. Green businesses must follow a green

approach and green standards in their operational management and in the output of products.

Green business can be derived from two perspectives related to the output in the form of

green products (goods and services) as well as the process (or production) of an economic

activity. Entrepreneurs can enter into an overtly ‗green‘ business sector, providing green and

environmentally friendly products (e.g. waste management, renewable energy among others).

Alternately, green business can provide their goods or services through an environmentally

friendly process or with the help of clean technologies (e.g. ecotourism).

Irrespective of the two perspectives upon which green businesses are operated, following

definition embodies the true nature of green businesses: Green business is an organization

that is committed to the principles of environmental sustainability in its operations, strives to

use renewable resources, and tries to minimize the negative environmental impact of its

activities.

In this perception, ―greening‖ of business is part of a long-term strategy of becoming

sustainable, i.e. being able to achieve business tasks in the way that does not develop any

threat – economic, social or environmental – for both current and future generations.

Characteristics of Green Businesses

Hirsch identifies nine categories of green business behaviour. Hirsch explains claiming that:

when firms go green, they exceed legal requirements by:

1. Directly reducing their own regulated—or unregulated—environmental impacts in ways

that will reduce regulatory risk, improve company brand, and allow firms to get out in

front of anticipated regulations;

2. Reducing their customers‘ environmental impacts and decreasing their customers‘

exposure to unhealthy substances;

3. increasing their reuse and recycling of materials used in the production process;


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 694

4. improving their energy efficiency or that of their customers;

5. improving their resource productivity or that of their customers;

6. implementing systems to identify waste reduction, pollution prevention, energy

efficiency, or resource productivity opportunities throughout the company or facility;

7. collecting and disseminating more information about the firm‘s environmental impacts

and performance than the law requires;

8. providing more opportunities for stakeholder input into corporate environmental decision

making than the law requires; and

9. Financing and investing in green products and business models, such as those described

above.

Scope of Green Management

The scope of the meaning of green is considerable. It can relate to issues such as ecological

concerns, conservation (planet and animal), corporate social responsibility (CSR),

humanitarian concerns, fair trade, clean water, animal welfare, equality, and sustainability.

Each of these issues alone is broad and complex. The term ―green‖ may also imply different

things to professionals in various fields. In health and medicine, for example, greening may

mean minimizing damage to human health; in business, the term may imply harmonizing

corporate environmental performance with stakeholders‘ expectations. However, even in

business, the word green differs greatly. This is particularly the case when describing

products as green. Even products that are the same may be green in different ways.

Furthermore, the use of green in products has led to controversy. For example, for products

that may be environmentally friendly in some respects but are at the same time unsafe in the

long term, it could be argued that labelling them as green is incorrect, and it would even be

socially irresponsible to have these products in the marketplace.

Since green management is a new term, researchers and practitioners interpret green

management in a variety of ways. Some may view compliance with regulatory standards or a

simple initiative to reduce paper consumption (i.e. requiring that all photocopying be double-

sided) as green management. Others may feel that green management entails new corporate

strategies, organizational restructuring, or a complete overhaul of manufacturing processes.

The range separating these two viewpoints is vast, suggesting that there is a broad continuum

or spectrum along which a variety of ―green‖ business practices can fall, from the simple and

easy to the complex and challenging. Banerjee (2001) suggests that the range of an


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 695

organization‘s environmentally-based strategies progresses from reactive to proactive; that

organizations can resist or merely comply with environmental standards, or they can view

environmental concerns as an opportunity to be innovative and gain a competitive advantage.

Other researchers have also identified similar continuums of environmental strategies,

models, typologies, and classifications (e.g. (Hass, 1996; Freeman, Pierce, & Dodd, 2000)).

We believe that organizations will vary along a continuum ranging from low to high levels of

green management, based on a definition that fully encapsulates the concept of green

management. As research efforts progress our understanding of green management, we may

find that one basic definition is not sufficient to describe the concept in its entirety and that it

may actually be composed of different types of green management.

Types of Green Management

Various researchers in the field of green management have categorised the concept from

different stand points which can be considered from the point of view of strategic approaches

adopted or the classification of organisations based on the strategic approaches. Meima's

(1994) categorization of the various environmental management paradigms that have

emerged over the past few years into four groups, gives us an overall theoretical framework.

His approach suggests that while there are some who perceive the environment as an

anthropocentric moral/ethical issue, there are others who regard it as a means to gaining

financial benefits. It is here that the concept of competitive strategies and competitive

advantage comes in. The third paradigm perceives environmental management as a function

of quality (e.g. TQEM, BS7750). The fourth approach to environmental management is

determining ways in which industrial action can be made compatible with nature; for

instance, by minimizing emissions, by reducing wastes at source etc.

Simpson (1991) suggests that corporate responses to environmental pressures can be

categorized into three main groups; the `Why Mes', the `Smart Movers' and the `Enthusiasts'.

The `Why Mes' are the companies that have been forced to improve their environmental

performance as a result of some well-publicized event. Some outstanding environmental

accident acts as a catalyst and induces the company to take some action in the field. `Smart

Movers' are the ones that have been able to exploit the opportunity created by the arrival of

the green consumer to gain competitive advantage. The `Enthusiasts' include companies that

have moved beyond compliance, and have incorporated their environmental strategy into

their overall business strategy.


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 696

Similarly, Steger's conceptual model (Roome, Business Strategy, R & D Management and

Environmental Imperatives, 1994) categorizes corporate strategies into four categories;

indifference, offensive, defensive and innovative. Indifferent companies are those that have

low environmental risk and even less environmentally-based opportunities for growth.

Offensive companies are those that have considerable potential for exploiting

environmentally-related market opportunities, and include companies that manufacture

pollution control equipment etc. Those adopting a defensive strategy are companies like the

chemical companies, which have high environmental risk and cannot afford to ignore

environmental issues, or their very survival could be at stake. The innovators are those that

have high environmental risk and also a lot of environmentally-based opportunities for

growth.

In Roome's Strategic Options Model (1992), there are five environmental strategies for

companies, namely; non-compliance, compliance, compliance-plus, commercial and

environmental excellence, and leading edge. These are referred to as; stable, reactive,

anticipatory, entrepreneurial and creative in Ansoff‘s Strategic Posture Analysis (Ketola,

1993). The first three strategies are related to compliance with the environmental standards,

as the name suggests. Compliance-plus implies looking beyond the existing standards and

norms. It involves integration of the environmental management techniques with the entire

management system of the company. Excellence and leading-edge approaches view

environmental management as good management, recognize the opportunities that have

arisen as a result of the environmental revolution and strive towards state-of-the-art

environmental management. Hence, it is through the adoption of excellence and leading-edge

strategies that a company can gain competitive advantage.

The difference between Steger's and Roome's models is that while Steger perceives

corporate response to the environment as based on environmental risks and market-based

opportunities, Roome argues that environmental pressures like legislation, constraints within

the firm, and the ability of managers to bring about an organizational change in order to

incorporate environmental issues, are equally important. James’ framework (1992) is similar

to that of Roome‘s. He believes that there are four categories into which companies can be

divided, in accordance with the environmental strategy adopted by them. The first category is

similar to Steger‘s indifference and Roome‘s non-compliance, where all environmental issues

are simply ignored. Companies that do the minimum that is required by law fall in the second


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 697

category. In the third category are companies that move beyond legislation and the last group

consist of companies that use the environment as a tool for gaining competitive advantage.

Welford’s (1994) categorization of the SME (small- and medium-sized enterprises) sector

into four main groups is slightly different. The first group is referred to as the ‗ostriches‘.

Companies that fall in this category not only assume that concern for the environment is a

passing phase and that their impact on the environment is negligible, but also assume that

their competitors feel the same and hence do nothing to conserve the environment. Then there

are the ‗laggards‘, companies that are aware of the environmental challenges facing them, but

are unable to combat those challenges because of cost constraints, lack of trained manpower,

lack of knowledge etc. The third group consists of the ‗thinkers‘, companies that know that

something should be done, but are still waiting for others to show the way forward. The

‗doers‘ are the ones that have proceeded to put their thoughts into action.

Topfer (Bostrum & Poysti, 1992)also divides companies into four categories, namely;

resistant, passive, reactive and innovative. Companies that fall in the first category are the

ones that view concern for the environment as a hindrance to their growth and do their level

best to hinder the passing of environmental laws. Passive companies are like Steger's

indifferent companies, who ignore the issue altogether. Roome argues that action taken by

reactive companies has been triggered off by legislation, whereas Topfer sees it as a

defensive move to catch up with the competitors. The last category, the innovators, are the

same as Steger‘s innovators and Simpson‘s enthusiasts.

Beaumont, Pedersen and Whitaker (1993) perceive corporations at six different levels, in

accordance to their response to the environment. The first two levels are similar to Roome‘s

non-compliance and compliance. The third level is referred to as ‗corporate action‘, where

management begins to regard environmental matters as important and takes a broader and a

more long-term perspective of the environment. At the fourth level changes take place in the

organization in response to environmental issues. The fifth level is ‗supply chain action‘,

where environmental matters become an integral part of the entire industry's supply chain. At

the final level of ‗business scope action‘, an organization expands its activities, using

environmental issues to get ahead in business.

Dodge and Welford have developed an environmental performance scale which has

become known as the ROAST scale (Welford, 1995) and is now being used by others to

identify aspects of corporate environmental performance. In order to measure improving

environmental performance, Dodge and Welford argue that we need to define an ultimate


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 698

goal towards which the organization must move. This goal may not be achievable, but it will

serve as an upper boundary of sustainable performance on a five-point scale. This utopian

form of organization is referred to as the ‗transcendent firm‘. As a lower boundary, the least

environmentally sensitive measure on the ROAST scale is represented by the ‗resistant

organization‘. Table 1 compares the extremes on the performance scale

Table 1 Environmental Performance Scale Extremes

Resistant Organisation Transcendent Organisation

Resists any green behaviour

Disregards green aspects in decisions

Willing to damage environment if

beneficial to the organisation Negative

environment values Sees resources and

nature for human profit and pleasure

Resists any green intellectual or

philosophical argument as trite views of

extremists

Internalises sustainable development

Green criteria become paramount in decision making

No decision will upset the ecological relations

Environmental values take on an ideology associated

with sustainable development Human being are not

above nature and but with nature, all decisions must

reflect the intrinsic values and interrelationships of other

members of the biosphere

It is argued that an organization's performance can be categorized as lying somewhere

between the resistant firm and the transcendent firm. The five-point ROAST scale is therefore

being represented by the following interval values (Table 2):

Table 2 Five-Point ROAST Scale

Resistance (Stage

I)

Total resistance to environmental values and rules. Organizations would be absolutely

unresponsive and reactive to environmental initiatives.

Observe &

Comply

(Stage II)

The organization observes environmental laws, but actions reflect an unwilling attitude or

lack of ability to comply. Actions are being enforced through legislation or court decisions.

Accommodate

(Stage III)

Organization begins to adapt to change. Early indications of proactive and responsive

behaviours. Actions are no longer based entirely on complying with environmental

legislation; the organization begins to exhibit voluntary behaviour.

Seize & Preempt

(Stage IV)

The organization voluntarily seizes and preempts its actions with environmental concerns. It

proactively engages in setting the agenda. It is responsive to the many external stakeholders.

The latter phases would display the attributes of sustainable development

Transcend (Stage

V)

The organization's environmental values, attitudes, beliefs and culture exhibit a total support

for the environment. The organization would proactively support and be responsive to all

living things. It would act in a way which is fully consistent with sustainable development.

The ROAST scale can be useful in the classification of environmental performance

responses from both external stakeholder groups and internal organizational functions,

systems and activities. It integrates the deep ecology, social and business performance models

of environmental performance. The scale, although it is a continuous spectrum, has been

broken into five descriptive points for convenience. The extreme top end of Stage V

represents near perfect environmental performance reflecting the near-theological views of


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 699

deep ecology. The voluntary environmental actions of the organization represented by Stages

III and IV can be compared to the ideals of a shallower ecology often typified by traditional

approaches to environmental management. The organization displays a proactive and

responsive attitude and stance as it moves from accommodating the greening agenda to

seizing and pre-empting it. At Stage V the firm transcends traditional commercial

performance measures and adopts strategies consistent with ecological management and

sustainable development. It becomes almost evangelical in its green marketing strategy and

considers very carefully whether it is operating at an appropriate scale.

In summary we would suggest that while the frameworks developed by Steger, Roome,

Topfer etc. speak about competitive advantage, they do not specify the various strategies a

company should adopt in order to become greener or to gain competitive advantage.

Pietilainen, Vandermerwe and Oliff, Barisal and Beaumont, Pedersen and Whitaker have

attempted to do this. Their frameworks, however, fail to indicate how competitive advantage

and sustainability can be measured in the way which Dodge and Welford have described. We

can, however, synthesize much of this discussion into a list of the various environmental

strategies adopted by companies.

Table 3 therefore expands much of the literature referenced above into a ten-point strategy

classification. We should note that all these theoretical frameworks have been developed only

during the past couple of years. Although passing references to the environment have been

made by Ansoff (1979) and Porter (1991), earlier strategic management literature has

otherwise been devoid of any mention of the ‗natural‘ environment.

Table 3 The Ten-Point Strategy

No. Strategy Description

1 Ostrich Companies that assume environmental challenge is a

passing fad

2 Resistant Companies that hinder the passing of environmental

laws and regulations

3 Why Mes Companies in which some well publicized event or

accident acts as a catalyst

4 Indifference/non-

compliance/stable/passive/laggards/ignored

Companies having low environmental risks, low

environmental returns, cost constraints etc.

5 Thinkers Companies waiting for others to take the lead

6 Offensive/smart movers Companies having high environmental returns

7 Defensive/compliance/reactive/localized action Companies having high environmental risks

8 Compliance-plus/anticipatory/doers/corporate

action Companies that move beyond compliance (proactive)

9 Commercial and environmental

excellence/entrepreneurial

Companies where there is clean technology and

organizational reform

10 Innovative/enthusiasts/leading edge/business scope

action

Companies having high environmental risk, and also

high return


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 700

4. Conclusions

This monograph has provided a background, overview, and discussion on the basics of green

management practices. The presentation of this material was at the introductory level and

only providing a thin overview of each topic. The complexity and issues facing managers and

engineers when faced with GSCM topics continues to increase. The growth of this field is

necessary as environmental burdens from industrial and supply chain operations continue.

There are still substantial gaps and future directions for which managers and engineers need

to be made aware.

Greening of the economy not only seeks to produce goods in a more resource efficient way

but also to produce goods and services that support greener outcomes such as recycled paper

and solar water heaters. The greener production methods are, the greater the availability of

green goods and services. Therefore, the easier it is to practice greening principles until it

becomes a standard practice and not an add-on or unique feature. This requires a strategic

transformation of management practices to next level of green management practices as

discussed above.

However, since the environment is a complex, variable and extensive system, protecting the

environment is a hard and enduring task. It is impossible that all the existing pollution

problems in the environmental can completely be resolved in the next decade. A wonderful

and quality environment must be achieved by continuous planning, governmental policies,

efforts of the enterprises and public participation.

5. Reference

1. Ansoff, H. (1979). The Changing Shape of the Strategic Problem. In Strategic

Management: A New View of Business and Policy Planning. Boston: Little, Brown and

Co.

2. Banerjee, S. (2001). Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Management

Decision , 39 (1), 36-44.

3. Banerjee, S. (2002). Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement.

Journal of Business Research , 55 (3), 177-191.

4. Beaumont, J., Pedersen, L., & Whitaker, B. (1993). Managing the Environment. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heineman Ltd.

5. Bostrum, T., & Poysti, E. (1992). Environmental Strategy in the Enterprise. Helsinki:

Helsinki School of Economics.


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 701

6. Costello, M. (2008). 13 Steps to Green Your Business. Business & Economic Review , 54

(4), 6-9.

7. Daly, H. (1996). Beyond Growth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

8. Daly, H. (1991). Steady‐State Economics: Second Edition with New Essays. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

9. Darnall, N., Jolley, G., & Handfield, R. (2008). Environmental Management Systems and

Green Supply Chain Management: Complements for Sustainability? Business Strategy

and the Environment, 18, 30-45.

10. Denton, D. (1994). Enviro‐Management: How Smart Companies Turn Environmental

Costs into Profits. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

11. Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from Green Management: Environmental

Management Systems inside and outside the Factory. California Management Review ,

43 (3), 64-84.

12. Freeman, R., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. (2000). Environmentalism and the New Logic of

Business. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13. Haden, S. P., Oyler, J., & Humphreys, J. (2009). Historical, practical, and theoretical

perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis. Management Decision , 47

(7), 1041-1055.

14. Hass, J. (1996). Environmental (‗green‘) management typologies: an evaluation,

operationalization and empirical development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5

(2), 59-68.

15. Hawken, P. (1993). The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New

York, NY: Collins Business.

16. James, P. (1992). The Corporate Response. In M. Charter, Greener Marketing. Sheffield.

17. Kautto, P. (2006). New instruments – old practices? The implications of environmental

management systems and extended producer responsibility for design for the

environment. Business Strategy and the Environment , 15 (6), 377-388.

18. Ketola, T. (1993). The Seven Sisters: Snow Whites, Dwarfs or Evil Queens? A

Comparison of the Official Environmental Policies of the Largest Oil Corporations in the

World. Business Strategy and the Environment , 2 (3), 22-33.

19. Matusya, E., & Yarime, M. (2014). Moving towards Urban Sustainability in Kenya: a

Framework for Integration of Environmental, Economic, Social and Governance

Dimensions. Sustainability Science , 9 (2), 205-215.


ISBN 978-1-943295-10-4 702

20. Meima, R. (1994). 'Making Sense of Environmental Management Concepts and Practices:

A Critical Exploration of Emerging Paradigms. Proceedings of the 1994 Business

Strategy and the Environment Conference. The University of Nottingham.

21. Nattrass, B., & Altomare, M. (1999). He Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology and

the Evolutionary Corporation. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

22. Peng, Y., & Lin, S. (2008). Local Responsiveness Pressure, Subsidiary Resources, Green

Management Adoption, and Subsidiaries‘ Performance: Evidence from Taiwanese

Manufacturers . Journal of Business Ethics , 79 (1/2), 199-212.

23. Porter, M. (1991, April). Green Competitiveness. Scientific American .

24. Roome, N. (1994). Business Strategy, R & D Management and Environmental

Imperatives. R & D Management , 24, 65-82.

25. Roome, N. (1992). Developing Environmental Management Strategies. Business Strategy

and the Environment, 1 (1), 11-24.

26. Simpson, A. (1991). The Greening of Global Investment - How the Environment, Ethics

and Politics are Reshaping Strategies. London: The Economist Publications.

27. Slaper, T., & Hall, T. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does it Work?

Indiana Business Review, 1-7.

28. UNIDO. (n.d.). What is CSR? Retrieved 09 10, 2017, from United Nations Industrial

Development Organization: http://www.unido.org/csr/o72054.html

29. Welford, R. (1994). Cases in Environmental Management and Business Strategy.

London: Rtman Publishing.

30. Welford, R. (1995). Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development: The

Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

Documents

Green Management Concept and Strategies€¦ · Green Management – Concept and Strategies Y. Loknath [email protected] B. Abdul Azeem Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences