Environmental best practice and performance benchmarks among EMAS-certified organizations: An empirical study

Environmental management certification and environmental performance: Greening or greenwashing?

“…These findings are consistent and complementary with other contributions of the scholarly literature (e.g., Boiral, 2007; Heras‐Saizarbitoria et al, 2013; Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, García et al, 2020; Testa, Boiral, & Heras‐Saizarbitoria, 2018). According to a recent systematic literature review in the field of voluntary certifiable standards for EMSs (Boiral et al, 2018), although the dominant scholarly literature is optimistic with regard to the impacts of these certifiable standards, an increasing body of research questions their effectiveness.…”

“…As shown in Figure 1, with the exception of the Building and Printing sectors, the average percentage of unimproved environmental performance indicators was higher than the percentage of improved indicators. These figures may be considered as weak or bad considering that the analyzed companies are supposed to be leading companies in terms of environmental awareness and introduction of environmental practices (Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, García, et al, 2020). It should also be noted that the environmental practices mentioned in the public environmental statements have been evaluated not only by the staff of the EMAS‐registered organization but also by an experienced external third party.…”

“…The criticism of these groups with regard to the “lack of performance requirements and the absence of a mandatory set of comparable performance indicators which would allow for a differentiation between good and bad performers” (ANEC, 2006, p. 1) seems reasonable in the light of the evidence collected. The inclusion of sectoral benchmarks and best practices does not appear to have benefited registered companies much, at least on the evidence in the literature (Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, García, & Allur, 2020). Despite the limits of certifiable EMSs and criticism on their lack of effectiveness, in the case of the EMAS standard, stakeholders could pay more attention to the statements released by companies.…”

“…The process‐focused rather than performance‐focused perspective of certifiable EMSs has been criticized, as these standards only require firms to implement the systems or structures for monitoring environmental aspects. The implementation of the standard is supposed to reduce environmental impact (Bansal & Bogner, 2002; Boiral, 2007, 2011; Heras‐Saizarbitoria et al, 2013), but the certifiable EMSs do not set environmental performance levels, as underlined in the scholarly literature (e.g., Boiral, 2011; Chiarini, 2017; Delmas, 2002; Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, García & Allur, 2020; Iatridis & Kesidou, 2018). Bansal and Bogner (2002) note that, “a firm's environmental performance could even deteriorate while the firm is certified” (Bansal & Bogner, 2002, p. 282).…”

“…For example, in their literature review on the outcomes of ISO 14001, Boiral et al (2018) found that 80.9% of the works studied used perceptual measures, whereas only 13.8% used data on environmental impact. Therefore, doubts about the real, substantive, or relevant impact of certifiable EMSs to improve the environmental greening or performance of the certified organizations, and the need to gather more different types of evidence, can be understood, especially in the case of the EMAS scheme (Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, Allur, et al, 2020; Heras‐Saizarbitoria, Boiral, García, et al, 2020; Testa et al, 2014; Testa, Iraldo, & Daddi, 2018).…”