Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies

Josena L. Murillo-Luna a, Concepcin Garcs-Ayerbe b, Pilar Rivera-Torres c, *
a

University of Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y del Trabajo, Dpto. Direccin y Organizacin de Empresas, C/ Violante de Hungra 23, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
University of Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas y Empresariales, Dpto. Direccin y Organizacin de Empresas, C/ Gran Va 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain
c
University of Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Econmicas y Empresariales, Dpto. Direccin de Marketing e Investigacin de Mercados, C/ Gran Va 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 22 October 2010
Received in revised form
1 April 2011
Accepted 8 May 2011
Available online 18 May 2011

This study contributes to the knowledge of the difculties or barriers found by rms when adopting
proactive environmental strategies, providing empirical evidence from 240 Spanish industrial rms. A set
of 25 barriers are initially evaluated by the managers of the sample rms and are grouped into four types
of difculties facing rms: external barriers, endemic limitations of the rm, limited environmental
motivation and limited preparation of employees and operational inertia. The estimation of a structural
equation model leads us to conclude that only the barriers identied as endemic limitations of the rm
can be characterized as effective barriers, dened as problems preventing rms from progressing
toward proactive environmental behavior.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Environmental strategies
Environmental Proactivity
External and internal barriers to
environmental progress
Industrial rms

1. Introduction
Environmental degradation caused by industrial activity is
becoming one of the main concerns of current society. As a result,
numerous agents are demanding that rms assume their civic
responsibility and improve their performance by minimizing their
impact on the natural environment (Walker et al., 2008). Additionally, rms can also obtain different competitive advantages
through more proactive or advanced environmental strategies
(Hart, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995; Rojsek, 2001). Given that, on the one
hand, there are pressure agents pushing rms toward environmental adaptation and, on the other hand, there are potential
competitive advantages that encourage rms to do so on their own
initiative, we could expect rms to be interested in the implementation of developed or proactive environmental strategies.
However, Bansal and Roth (2000) claim that response to environmental demands differs considerably from one rm to another.
More specically, the different environmental conduct of rms has
been described in the literature as a continuum ranging from
passive or reactive strategies to more advanced or proactive strategies (Hunt and Auster, 1990; Roome, 1992; Aragn-Correa, 1998;
Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Murillo-Luna et al., 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 976762094; fax: 34 976761767.
E-mail addresses: jmurillo@unizar.es (J.L. Murillo-Luna), cgarces@unizar.es
(C. Garcs-Ayerbe), privera@unizar.es (P. Rivera-Torres).
0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.005

The reasons for a lack of environmental proactivity are complex.

According to authors such as Ashford (1993), Dieleman and de Hoo
(1993) or Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), rms often face difculties or
barriers which hinder, and in some cases even make impossible, the
development of pollution prevention methods. The identication of
barriers to environmental adaptation was widely considered in the
literature of the 1990s from a theoretical perspective or through
case studies or reports (Ashford, 1993; Dieleman and de Hoo, 1993;
Post and Altman, 1994; Shrivastava and Hart, 1994). More recently,
there has been growing interest in empirically analyzing the extent
to which such barriers hinder development of environmental
strategies (Van Hemel and Cramer, 2002; Murillo-Luna et al., 2007;
Chan, 2008; Dahlmann et al., 2008; Massoud et al., 2010; Zhu and
Geng, 2010). Van Hemel and Cramer (2002) use the term no-go
barriers to refer to barriers which prevent the adoption of environmental responsibility measures, distinguishing them from
barriers which do not prevent such measures, which they call initial
barriers. This study contributes to our knowledge of initial barriers
and no-go or effective barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies, providing empirical evidence from 240
Spanish industrial rms. The objective of our research is to identify
which of the barriers perceived by managers can be classied as nogo or effective barriers, preventing rms from progressing toward
proactive environmental conduct.
This research differs from prior studies in the eld, as it analyzes
the possible existence of a linear relationship between internal and

1418

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

external barriers and the degree of proactivity of environmental

strategies. Although some interesting papers use descriptive
exploratory analyses to provide empirical evidence concerning the
impact of certain barriers on the environmental behavior of rms e
Murillo-Luna et al., 2007; Dahlmann et al., 2008; Massoud et al.,
2010-, we hardly nd any that shows the existence of a signicant linear relationship eZhu and Geng (2010) nd a signicant
linear relationship between some internal barriers and the implementation of certain environmental practices. Therefore, the
results obtained enable us to reach conclusions that contribute to
the knowledge of a relationship little explored before.
The paper is structured as follows: In the following section, we
describe the main theoretical contributions gathered from a review
of the literature on the topic. In the third section, we describe the
sample, dene the variables and present the basic aspects of the
methodology. In the fourth section, we present the results obtained
in the empirical analyses. Finally, in the fth section we summarize
the main conclusions of our research.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Proactivity of environmental strategy of rms
Henriques and Sadorsky (1999) perform a cluster analysis on
a series of items related to more or less advanced environmental
practices of rms: having an environmental committee, having an
environmental plan, having a written environmental plan, informing shareholders and employees of the environmental plan and
having an environmental, health and safety unit. With the results of
this analysis, they classify the environmental strategies of rms into
four groups, which the authors call Reactive Strategy, Defensive
Strategy, Accommodative Strategy and Proactive Strategy. Buysse
and Verbeke (2003), on the other hand, propose three categories
of environmental strategy: Reactive Strategy, Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Leadership. They obtain this classication
through a cluster analysis performed on a series of items that are
indicative of the environmental practices developed by the rm:
conventional green competencies, employee skills, organizational
competencies, management systems and procedures and the strategic planning process. Murillo-Luna et al. (2008) propose four
types of environmental response pattern: Passive Response,
Attention to Legislation Response, Attention to Stakeholders
Response and Total Environmental Quality Response. The validation
of the proposed types enables them to present the most proactive
environmental response patterns as those involving stakeholder
management, investment in environmental research and development, the adoption of measures aimed at both preventing and
correcting pollution, staff training in environmental issues and the
allocation of environmental responsibilities.
The different environmental strategies considered by Henriques
and Sadorsky (1999), Buysse and Verbeke (2003) or Murillo-Luna
et al. (2008) are consistent with the scheme generally set forth in
the literature (Schot,1992; Steger,1993; Post and Altman,1994; Vastag
et al., 1996; Aragn-Correa, 1998). As indicated by Aragn-Correa
(1998), this scheme is based on a continuum that ranges from the
most passive or reactive strategies, to the most proactive ones.
Sharma and Vredenburg (1998: 733) consider that a rms
environmental strategy is proactive if it exhibits a consistent
pattern of environmental practices, across all dimensions relevant
to their range of activities, not required to be undertaken in
fulllment of environmental regulations or in response to isomorphic pressures within the industry as standard business practices. In
this paper, as in Murillo-Luna et al. (2008), we propose four types of
environmental attitudes according to their degree of proactivity,
that is, whether they tend to anticipate rather than react to

environmental requirements and use prevention rather than

corrective action in relation to pollution. The Measures section
contains an explanation of how these four types of conduct differ in
their degree of proactivity.
2.2. Barriers to the adoption of environmental measures
Since the 1990s, different authors have focused on identifying,
classifying and analyzing the main barriers to the environmental
adaptation process of rms (Post and Altman, 1994; Hillary, 2004;
Chan, 2008; Shi et al., 2008, among others).
Using a case study approach, Post and Altman (1994) classify the
set of barriers to environmental adaptation into two groups:
industry barriers and organizational barriers. Industry barriers are
related to the type of business activity in which rms are engaged,
and these barriers mainly affect rms operating in the most highly
polluting sectors. Organizational barriers, however, affect rms
regardless of the business activity in which they are engaged, given
that they originate from rms specic organization and common
practices. Post and Altmans classication (1994) shows important
similarities with that proposed by Hillary (2004) ten years later and
with those presented more recently by Chan (2008) or Shi et al.
(2008) (Table 1). Hillary (2004), Chan (2008) and Shi et al.
(2008), however, use the terms external barriers and internal
barriers in their respective classications.
Based on this terminology, in this paper we use external environmental barriers to denote environmental factors or aspects
which cannot be directly controlled by a rm and hinder the
implementation of environmental strategies. Internal environmental barriers are rm-specic factors which hinder environmental protection but can be controlled by assigning the necessary
resources. In Table 2 we present the main problems considered in
the literature that are associated to external and internal environmental barriers.
This preliminary review of the numerous barriers to environmental adaptation shows the challenge facing rms interested in
Table 1
Classication of barriers to environmental adaptation.
Classication of barriers by Post and Altman (1994)
Industry barriers

Organizational barriers












Capital costs
Competitive pressures
Industry regulations
Technical information
Uncertainty about
potential results

Employee attitude
Inadequate top management leadership
Poor communications
Past practice

Classication of barriers by Hillary (2004)

External barriers

Internal barriers

 Cost of certication/verication
 Insufcient drivers and
uncertainty about market
benets
 Institutional weaknesses
 Lack of support and guidance

 Lack of human resources

 Wrong perception of Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs)
 Difculties with the implementation
of EMSs
 Negative attitudes and unfavorable
rm culture

Classication of barriers by Shi et al. (2008)

External barriers

Internal barriers

 Policy and market barriers

 Financial and economic barriers

 Technical and information barriers

 Managerial and organizational barriers

Classication of barriers by Chan (2008)

External barriers

Internal barriers











Certiers/veriers
Economics
Institutional weaknesses
Support and guidance

Resources
Understanding and perception
Implementation
Attitudes and company culture

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

1419

Table 2
Problems associated to external and internal barriers to environmental proactivity.
External barriers

Associated problems

Authors

High costs of environmental

technologies/services

High prices of environmental technologies

High prices of environmental services

Priority of other external

matters or requirements
Inadequate industry regulation

Other competitive pressures

Other regulatory pressures
Rigidity of regulation (limited exibility
in deadlines
and measures of compliance)
Scarcity of information
Bureaucratic obstacles
Poor development of clean
technologies and procedures
Lack of information about the technologies
and procedures available
Uncertainty about the potential environmental and
economic benets resulting from
the implementation of clean technologies

Post and Altman (1994), Rojsek (2001), Hillary (2004),

Zilahy (2004), Zutshi and Sohal (2004), Moors et al. (2005),
Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Chan (2008), Shi et al. (2008),
Walker et al. (2008).
Post and Altman (1994), Zilahy (2004), Murillo-Luna et al. (2007).

Insufcient supply of equipment and

information for environmental adaptation

Post and Altman (1994), Bianchi and Noci (1998),

Hillary (2004), Zilahy (2004), Zutshi and Sohal (2004),
Moors et al. (2005), Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Chan (2008),
Shi et al. (2008), Walker et al. (2008), Massoud et al. (2010).
Post and Altman (1994), Rojsek (2001),
Van Hemel and Cramer (2002), Hillary (2004), Zilahy (2004),
Zutshi and Sohal (2004), Murillo-Luna et al. (2007),
Chan (2008), Walker et al. (2008), Massoud et al. (2010),
Zhu and Geng (2010).

Internal barriers

Associated problems

Authors

Lack of organizational capabilities

Limited environmental motivation

and preparation of employees
Inadequate top management leadership
Lack of employee involvement
Poor communication systems
Operational inertia
Lack of management commitment
Lack of research and development
Conict with managers personal goals
Short term planning
Lack of nancial resources available
High opportunity cost of environmental
investment
Replacement of current technologies
that are still protable

Post and Altman (1994), Noci and Verganti (1999),

Hillary (2004), Zilahy (2004), Zutshi and Sohal (2004),
Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Chan (2008), Shi et al. (2008),
Walker et al. (2008), Massoud et al. (2010),
Zhu and Geng (2010).

Lack of strategic capabilities

Lack of nancial capabilities

changing to sustainable environmental behavior. Not all barriers,

however, involve the same degree of difculty. Different authors
have attempted to compare their relative importance and there
appears to be a degree of consensus regarding which internal
barriers are more problematic than external barriers (Post and
Altman, 1994; Dahlmann et al., 2008; Hillary, 2004; Murillo-Luna
et al., 2007).
The impact of different barriers on the degree of adoption of
environmental protection measures has recently been analyzed by
Chan (2008), Van Hemel and Cramer (2002), Murillo-Luna et al.
(2007), Dahlmann et al. (2008), Massoud et al. (2010) or Zhu and
Geng (2010). In these studies, the objective goes beyond the identication, classication or prioritization of barriers and analyzes
how they are related to environmental behavior.
Chan (2008) identies six types of barriers from the information
provided by the managers of a sample of 83 hotels. Using an
exploratory analysis, he nds that the six types of barriers are
negatively related to environmental behavior: 1) lack of know-how
and skills, 2) lack of professional advice, 3) uncertainty of outcome,
4) participation of certiers/veriers, 5) lack of resources and 6)
implementation and maintenance costs.
Van Hemel and Cramer (2002), however, also using an exploratory analysis, nd that only three of the eleven barriers initially
identied for a sample of 77 small- and medium-sized rms are
indeed no-go barriers, that is to say, only three of the barriers
certainly hinder environmental progress in the rm: 1) no clear
environmental benets, 2) no perception as responsibility and 3)
no alternative solution available. Murillo-Luna et al. (2007) and
Dahlmann et al. (2008) nd that the lack of resources and capabilities in the rm is the most relevant barrier to environmental

Rojsek (2001), Zilahy (2004), Moors et al. (2005),

Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Chan (2008),
Walker et al. (2008), Massoud et al. (2010), Zhu and Geng (2010).
Walker et al. (2008), Zilahy (2004), Zutshi and Sohal (2004),
Moors et al. (2005), Murillo-Luna et al. (2007), Chan (2008),
Massoud et al. (2010), Zhu and Geng (2010).

proactivity. Finally, Massoud et al. (2010), based on the analysis of

barriers to adopting ISO 14001, establish the lack of government
support and incentives, the lack of clear benets and the lack of
legally request as the main barriers to ISO 14001 certication.
The arguments presented in this section justify our interest in
learning which of the external and internal environmental barriers
identied in the literature actually prevent rms from progressing
toward proactive environmental behavior.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample
We have focused our study on the population of industrial rms
with at least three employees located in Aragn e a medium-sized
industrial region in Northeastern Spain. We obtained information
about these rms by mailing them a questionnaire, a cover letter
with detailed instructions on how to complete it and a stamped
reply envelope, to the 3984 rms in the population. According to
the National Statistics Institute, these industrial rms e we did not
include rms in the construction, trade and other services sectors e
represent 9.53% of the countrys total.
We addressed the questionnaire to the person responsible for
dealing with environmental issues at the rm or otherwise to the
general manager. We offered the opportunity of responding anonymously and guaranteed complete condentiality. The questionnaire included questions designed to obtain information about
barriers to environmental adaptation and the environmental
strategy followed by the rm. These questions were based on
theoretical literature on the topic. We also requested the

1420

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

cooperation of a panel of experts in order to evaluate the validity of

the items in the questionnaire. The panel was formed by 11 experts
familiar with managing environmental matters: 6 business
management professionals (executives), 4 representatives of
national and regional public institutions and 1 academician. Using
Likert scales with 11 categories (from 0 to 10), the experts appraised
two aspects of the initial questionnaire: the ease with which the
items are understood and their relevance to the object of our study.
They were also invited to propose new relevant items for our
research. Their active participation enabled us to reduce the most
common problems associated with the use of survey data, as they
are largely determined by the questionnaires design.
The reply rate was approximately 6%. Other previous studies
obtained similar response rates (Bro and Junquera, 2001; Bro
et al., 2002; Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004; Lpez-Gamero et al.,
2009a,b). The reception of 240 valid questionnaires provided
information about the sample of rms. We considered a questionnaire to be valid when it included responses to at least 75% of the
relevant questions. The case deletion method that we used in the
multivariate analyses was the Listwise deletion method. This
means that for each set of variables, we considered observations to
be valid if they showed no data missing in any of the variables
under study. The sector and size distribution of the sample rms
are presented in Table 3. These distributions are not substantially
different from the distributions of the population.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Degree of proactivity of environmental strategy
We constructed the variable Proactivity of environmental
strategy according to literature on the topic and following the
opinion of the panel of experts, thereby considering four levels of
strategic behavior e a Passive strategy, an Attention to legislation
strategy, an Attention to stakeholders strategy and a Total environmental quality strategy e to which we assigned values from 1 to 4,
respectively. These four patterns of behavior differ in their degree
of proactivity, as they each represent a specic and internally
consistent conguration of both the scope of environmental
objectives and the allocation of internal resources for their
achievement. Table 4 shows the denition of each of these strategies by listing the environmental practices associated with each
level of proactivity: the voluntary nature of environmental objectives, the expenditure of time and nancial resources on
Table 3
Description of the samplea.
Variable

Description

Size

Less than 25 employees

From 25 to 249 employees
More than 249 employees
Food, beverage and tobacco
Textiles and tailored goods
Wood and cork
Paper; printing, graphic arts
Chemicals
Metallurgy
Machinery manufacturing
Electrical, electronics and
optical materials/equipment
Manufacturing of transport materials
Various manufacturing industries
Othersb

73.58
17.10
9.33
16.52
7.83
4.35
5.65
6.09
20.00
6.96
9.13

Sectorc

4.78
7.39
11.30

a
Percentages calculated based on the number of responses obtained for each
variable.
b
The Others category includes those sectors whose representation in the
sample is below 4%.
c
National Classication of Economic Activities (CNAE-93).

Table 4
Proactivity levels of the strategic environmental behavior.
Description 1: Passive Strategy
e The environmental objective is not an objective
currently pursued by your rm.
e Your rm hardly dedicates any time and nancial
resources to environmental protection.
e Your rm does not adopt any kind of technical or organizational
environmental protection measure.
e Your rm does not plan on obtaining environmental certications.
e Your rm does not have a person responsible for dealing
with environmental matters.
Description 2: Attention to Legislation Strategy
e The environmental objective of your rm only consists
of complying with legislation on environmental matters.
e Your rm only dedicates the time and nancial resources
necessary to environmental protection in order to comply with legislation.
e The environmental measures adopted by your rm have not involved any
signicant change in production and work methods or
in organizational structure.
e The environmental measures adopted by your rm are not certied.
e The environmental matters of your rm are resolved by external
professionals and/or by internal personnel who are not exclusively
dedicated to the environment.
Description 3: Attention to Stakeholders Strategy
e The environmental objective of your rm is not just limited to complying
with legislation on the environment, but rather it also attends to the
requirements of customers, suppliers. on the subject.
e Your rm dedicates the necessary time and resources
to environmental protection in order to comply with legislation and,
furthermore, in order to attend to environmental pressures from other agents.
e The environmental measures adopted by your rm have required
modication of production and work methods and/or organizational structure.
e Some of the environmental measures adopted by your rm are certied
or are in the process of being certied.
e The rm regularly requests the services of external professionals specialized
in environmental matters and/or has qualied internal personnel to take care
of these matters.
Description 4: Total Environmental Quality Strategy
e The environmental objective is one of the priority objectives of your rm.
e Your rm dedicates important budgets to environmental protection for
reasons that go beyond complying with legislation and attending to pressures
from other agents.
e The environmental measures adopted by your rm are highly relevant
to conditioning both production processes and organizational structure
and how work is performed at your rm.
e The environmental measures adopted by your rm are certied.
e The responsibility for environmental matters is clearly assigned to one
or various persons of your rm who are specialized in this matter and/or to
a department.

environmental matters, the corrective versus preventive nature of

the technical and organizational measures adopted, the degree of
implementation of an environmental management system, and
nally, the assignment of environmental responsibilities within the
rm. We classied the rms according to strategy levels using
a controlled self-classication variable. Specically, we included
descriptions 1 to 4 in the questionnaire, and we asked the
respondents, rst, to choose the most appropriate description for
environmental management at their rms and, second, to identify
the characteristics that had led them to choose that particular
description. We also informed them that, for one of the four
descriptions to be chosen, it needed to comply with at least three of
the characteristics of that description.
3.2.2. Barriers to environmental adaptation
We proposed the variables according to the literature on the
topic as well as the opinions of the panel of experts. The set of
variables includes 14 variables for measuring barriers that are
external to the rm and 11 variables for measuring barriers that are
internal to the rm (Tables 6 and 7). We dened the categories of
these 25 variables based on 7-point Likert scales where value 1

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

goods; Wood and cork; Machinery manufacturing; Electrical and

electronics material/equipment; Manufacturing of transport
materials; Various manufacturing industries], High polluting
sectors (n 73) [Paper, printing, graphic arts; Chemicals;
Metallurgy].

Table 5
Goodness-of-t statistics.
d.f. c2 S-B
External barriers
FO-CFA: 5FODa
SO-CFA: 5 FODb
1SOF (D4-D5c)
Internal barriers
FO-CFA: 4FODa
SO-CFAb:
4 FOD e 1SOF

R-RMSEA SRMR GFI

AGFI

R-BBN R-CFI

67 173.038 0.097
71 185.251 0.098

0.072 0.860 0.780 0.906

0.077 0.851 0.779 0.900

0.940
0.935

38
40

0.056 0.913 0.849 0.894

0.059 0.912 0.855 0.891

0.935
0.934

1421

3.3. Methodology
88.994 0.083
91.550 0.082

Considering that the number of variables for analyzing barriers

to environmental adaptation was too large for the size of our
sample, we considered the possibility of identifying an underlying
structure in the set of 25 variables, which would allow us to
consider a smaller number of non-correlated constructs before
analyzing their effect on the variable representative of strategic
environmental behavior. In order to obtain specic results for
internal and external barriers, however, the variables were grouped
into constructs separately for each of the two groups, thus preventing a construct from including both internal and external
barriers.
The determination of the underlying structure in a set of variables requires the specication of latent dimensions or, in other
words, variables not susceptible to direct observation which are
inferred based on a set of observed variables and which may have
measurement errors. The models specied for this purpose are
commonly called Measurement Models. On the other hand, when
relating different measurement models with other variables, we
use Structural Equation Models. Our research tackles both topics,
with the basic methodological approach used in this study consisting of Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables (SEM)
(Joreskog, 1993).
In relation to SEMs, Satorra and Bentler (1994), and Bentler and
Dudgeon (1996) have developed and tested estimation methods
and robust statistics in situations not meeting continuity, and
therefore multivariate normality. In this paper, we have used the
Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation method, thus using the
robust covariance matrix as the base (Satorra and Bentler, 1994).
This means that the estimation of all the statistics and some indices

a
FO-CFA: NFOD: First-Order Conrmatory Factor Analysis e N First-Order
Dimensions.
b
SO-CFA: NFOD-MSOF: Second-Order Conrmatory Factor Analysis e N FirstOrder Dimensions and M Second-Order Factors.
c
D4-D5: Error correlation.

meant Not at all important barrier and value 7 meant Extremely

important barrier.
3.2.3. Control variables
Following authors such as Zhu and Geng (2010), we considered
control variables for analyzing the inuence of barriers on the
adoption of environmental protection measures. The most
commonly used control variables in the analysis of environmental
proactivity are the size -associated with both nancial and organizational capacity and the degree of exposure to stakeholders-, and
the business sector -which determines the kind of pollution
generated and, consequently, the type of regulation and exposure to
stakeholders-. Both variables have been considered in our analysis.
The size has been measured by the number of employees. With
regard to the business sector, we created a dummy variable to
distinguish highly polluting sectors from moderately polluting
sectors. The division of CNAE (National Classication of Economic
Activities) industrial sectors into the high polluting and moderately
polluting categories was established in accordance with Mani and
Wheeler (1998) or Cole (2000), as follows: moderately polluting
sectors (n 157) [Food, beverage and tobacco; Textiles and tailored
Table 6
External barriers: descriptive statistics, estimated parameters and reliability coefcients.

SO-CFA: 5FOD 1SOF (D4-D5a)

Mean Std. FO-CFA: 5FOD

F1
V1-Scarcity of information on environmental legislation
V2-Lack of clarity in the environmental legislation
V3-Difculties associated to the process of applying/complying
with legislation
V4-Scarce exibility in regulation compliance times
V5-Scarce exibility in regulation compliance measures
V6-Scarcity of services/technologies for environmental adaptation
V7-Insufcient supply of environmental advisory/consultancy services
V8-Insufcient supply of equipment for environmental adaptation
V9-Uncertainty about effect on results
V10-Difculty to adapt while keeping products at competitive prices
V11-High cost of environmental services/technologies
(manufacturing measures)
V12-High cost of environmental services/technologies (product measures)
V13-Complexity of implementation of an EMS
V14-Priority of other external requirements

F2

F3

F4

F5

F1

3.47
3.88
4.37

1.99 0.90
1.99 0.91
1.94
0.78

0.81 V1
0.82 V2
0.61 V3

3.50
3.55
3.44
3.11
3.08
3.38
4.36
4.41

1.81
1.81
1.83
1.80
1.78
1.86
2.06
2.05

0.86
0.96
0.70
0.63
0.64
0.50
0.80
0.87

4.03
4.01
4.43

2.15
1.92
2.13

0.93
0.98
0.84
0.79
0.80
0.71
0.89
0.93
0.83

V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
V11

0.69 V12
0.76 0.58 V13
0.82 0.67 V14

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6b

0.88
0.93

0.77
0.86
0.61

0.78
0.93
0.98

0.86
0.96
0.69
0.63
0.66
0.50
0.80
0.87

0.83
0.79
0.81
0.71
0.89
0.93
0.83

0.69
0.58
0.66

0.76
0.81

RC1 (Fornell and Larcker)

RC2 (Omega)

0.82 0.81 0.66 0.72 0.62

0.90 0.93 0.85 0.91 0.77

RC1 0.82 0.81 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.60

RC2 0.90 0.93 0.85 0.91 0.77 0.88

F1-Scarcity of information and lack of clarity on environmental legislation

F2-Rigidity of legislation and bureaucratic complexity
F3-Limited development of the environmental supply sector
F4-High cost of the environmental services/technologies
F5-Difculties derived from competitive pressure

1
0.59
0.67
0.50
0.57

F1
F2
F3
F4
F5

All coefcients: p-value < 0.05.

a
Error correlation between D4eD5 0.69.
b
F6 e External barriers.

1
0.58 1
0.66 0.57 1
0.67 0.57 0.87 1

R2

0.75
0.81
0.76
0.76
0.79

0.56
0.66
0.58
0.58
0.62

1422

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

Table 7
Internal barriers: descriptive statistics, estimated parameters and reliability coefcients.
Mean

Std.

FO-CFA: 4FOD
F10

V15-Limited nancial capability for environmental investments

V16-Reduced participation of the employees in decision-making
V17-Non-availability of technological information
and communication advances
V18-Aversion to innovative projects due to risk involved
V19-Decient investment of resources in R&D
V20-Lack of environmental training of the employees
V21-Limited environmental awareness of the employees
V22-Lack of environmental training of the directors
V23-Limited environmental awareness of the directors
V24-Unfavorable attitude of the workers respect to changes
in working habits
V25-Unfavorable attitude of the directors respect to changes
in working habits
RC1 (Fornell and Larcker)
RC2 (Omega)
F10 -Budgetary and organizational limitations
F20 -Aversion to innovation and technological change
F30 -Limited environmental motivation and preparation of the employees
F40 -Operational inertia

4.49
4.24
3.37

2.05
1.94
1.85

4.17
4.52
3.47
3.29
3.21
3.01
3.94

1.94
2.13
1.82
1.75
1.80
1.77
1.70

3.41

1.63

F20

F30

SO-CFA: 4FOD 1SOF

F40

0.72
0.70

0.52
0.49
0.53

V15
V16
V17

0.74

0.49
0.50
0.50
0.66
0.82
0.79
0.54

V18
V19
V20
V21
V22
V23
V24

0.87

0.76

V25

0.73
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.82
0.91
0.89

0.50
0.67
1
0.87
0.14
0.34

0.51
0.76
1
0.03
0.40

0.70
0.90

1
0.21

F10

R2

0.65
0.79

RC1
RC2
F1 0
F2 0
F30
F40
F50

F20

F30

F40

F5a

0.72
0.71

0.52
0.50
0.52

0.72
0.70
0.72

0.74

0.49
0.51
0.50
0.66
0.82
0.79
0.55

0.87

0.76

0.71
0.82
0.91
0.89

0.51
0.68

0.51
0.76

R2

0.70
0.90

1
0.21
0.06

0.65
0.79

1
0.38

0.87
0.93
0.90
0.97

0.81
0.94

Italics: p-value > 0.05.

a
F50 : Endemic limitations of the rm.

not only considers rst- and second-order, but also third- and
fourth-order moments between the observed variables. Therefore,
to evaluate the global suitability of these models and to compare
nested models, we refer to the different robust statistics and indices
found in the psychometric literature. Finally, the statistics and
indices that we have used are as follows: the Satorra-Bentler Robust
Chi Square (c2 S-B), the Robust Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (R-RMSEA), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the Adjusted Goodness-ofFit Index (AGFI), the Robust Normed Fit Index (R-NFI) and the
Robust Comparative Fit Index (R-CFI) (Bollen, 1989; Bentler, 1995;
Jreskog and Srbom, 1996; Browne and Cudeck, 1993), together
with the Standardized Residuals (SR) (Bollen, 1989). Values close to
zero for the R-RMSEA, SRMR and SR indices and values close to one
for the GFI, AGFI, R-NFI and R-CFI indices would indicate that the
evaluated model is consistent with the theoretical model generating the structures observed among the variables.
4. Results and discussion
The mean values shown in Tables 6 and 7 enable us to validate
the 25 variables designed to measure environmental barriers.
Indeed, these values show that the environmental managers of the
rms in the sample recognize all the aspects considered in our
analysis as barriers to environmental adaptation, as all the variables
have a value of more than 3 on a scale from 1 (not at all important
barrier) to 7 (extremely important barrier).
4.1. Identifying an underlying structure in the set of barriers to
environmental adaptation
4.1.1. Exploratory analyses
The rst step in this analysis consists of exploratory testing using
Principal Components Analysis on the set of variables representing
the external barriers (v1 to v14), and the set representing the internal
barriers (v15 to v25). The results of this rst exercise suggest the
existence of an underlying structure in both sets of variables.
From the results of the exploratory analyses, we can identify two
structures that arise a priori. These structures consist of ve

dimensions that summarize the external barriers - for 82.98% of the

explained variance -, and four dimensions that summarize the
internal barriers - for 74.43% of the explained variance -. Consistent
with the items that they represent, we have denoted the ve
dimensions relative to external barriers as follows: F1 e Scarcity of
information and lack of clarity on environmental legislation (v1v2); F2 e
Rigidity of legislation and bureaucratic complexity (v3v5); F3 e Limited
development of the environmental supply sector (v6v8); F4 e High cost
of environmental services/technologies (v9v12); and F5 e Difculties
derived from competitive pressure (v13v14). With regards to the four
dimensions related to the internal barriers, they are denoted as
0
0
follows: F1 e Budgetary and organizational limitations (v15v16); F2 e
0
Aversion to innovation and technological change (v17v19); F3 e Limited
environmental motivation and preparation of the employees (v20v23);
0
and F4 e Operational inertia (v24v25).
4.1.2. Conrmatory analyses
Once the possible structures have been determined a priori, the
next step consists of proposing different Conrmatory Factor
Analysis Models in order to judge the suitability of the proposed
structures. In order to evaluate the suitability of the structures, we
follow Bagozzis methodological approach (1980, 1982a, b, 1984) for
validating multidimensional constructs and the model generating
approach proposed by Joreskog (1993).
In Table 5 we present the goodness-of-t statistics and indices of
these models. We also present the reliability parameters and
coefcients of these models in Tables 6 (external barriers) and 7
(internal barriers).
With regards to the external barriers (Tables 5 and 6), rst we
propose a First-Order Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model with Five
Dimensions (FO-CFA: 5FOD). However, we observe that the correlation matrix between the ve dimensions or factors of this model
shows very high values, especially between factors F4 and F5. This
observation leads us to a Second-Order Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model.
We then propose a Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model with
a single Second-Order Factor (SO-CFA: 5FOD 1SOF) e that we call
External Barriers (F6)-, in which we include the covariance between
the measurement errors of factors F4 and F5. The t statistics of this

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

most cases. The reliability coefcients of the latent variables, RC1

(Fornell and Larcker) and RC2 (Omega), provide evidence of the
reliability and convergent validity of these variables. Finally, as
regards discriminant validity, the factor loadings (correlations
between the observed variables and their respective dimensions)
exceed the correlations that are observed between the dimensions.
From the analysis of the internal barriers, then, we deduce that
there is a positive association between the rst two of the four
dimensions.
In summary, from the analysis of the underlying structure of the
set of external and internal barriers we obtain novel results concerning how these barriers are perceived by people responsible for
environmental management. We rst detect a strong correlation
between the ve dimensions relative to external barriers. This
means that managers do not perceive external barriers individually.
Indeed, when they perceive any of these dimensions as an environmental barrier, they also see all the other dimensions as
barriers. Secondly, we detect a strong correlation between the
internal barriers which represent endemic limitations of rms,
which not only hinder environmental adaptation but also any other
change process. These limitations include both budgetary and
organizational limitations and aversion to innovation and technological change.

last Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model with a single Second-Order

Factor (SO-CFA: 5FOD 1SOF), as well as the reliability coefcients,
show suitable values (Tables 5 and 6). As regards the estimated
parameters, all the factor loadings reach values that are greater
than 0.7. The reliability coefcients of the observed variables (R2) in
all cases exceed 0.5. In addition, the reliability coefcients of the
latent variables or dimensions (RC1 Fornell and Larckers (1981)
and RC2 McDonalds (1985) omega) indicate reliability and
convergent validity.
The results of the analysis suggest that these ve barriers are not
isolated from each other at rms. On the contrary, the correlation
detected between these ve aspects indicates that when managers
perceive one of them as a barrier to environmental adaptation, they
also perceive the four remaining aspects as barriers. We therefore
consider external barriers as a whole when analyzing their effects
on strategic environmental behavior.
With regards to the internal barriers, we present the results
derived from the Conrmatory Factor Analysis Models in Tables 5
and 7. We rst propose a First-Order Conrmatory Factor Analysis
Model with Four Dimensions (FO-CFA: 4FOD). Nevertheless, based
on the observation of the correlation matrix between these four
dimensions, we deem it appropriate to state a Second-Order
Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model (SO-CFA: 4FOD 1SOF) that
groups together dimensions F10 e Budgetary and organizational
limitations e and F20 e Aversion to innovation and technological
change e from the previous model into a single factor F50 , which we
call Endemic limitations of the rm. The name given to this factor
refers to the types of barrier that it includes. They not only limit
environmental adaptation but also any other proposed change.
In Table 5, we see that the Second-Order Conrmatory Factor
Analysis Model (SO-CFA: 4FOD 1SOF) shows better results in terms
of goodness-of-t indices and statistics than the First-Order
Conrmatory Factor Analysis Model (FO-CFA: 4FOD). As regards
the estimated parameters, in Table 7 we observe that the majority
of the factor loadings are greater than 0.7, and therefore the reliability coefcients of the observed variables (R2) exceed 0.50 in

R2=0.50

Scarcity of Information
and Lack of Clarity on
Environmental
Legislation

4.2. Identifying the impact of environmental barriers on the

proactivity of environmental strategy
After analyzing the underlying structure of the set of barriers,
and in order to validate this structure within the theoretical
framework (nomological validity), we include the variable that
measures the degree of proactivity of environmental strategy. The
result is a Structural Equation Model that consists of Nine FirstOrder Dimensions and Two Second-Order Factors (SEM: 9FOD
2SOF (D4-D5)) which determine the strategic environmental
behavior of rms (Fig. 1). As we can see in Fig. 1, only Endemic
limitations of the rm can be classied as effective barriers, as they

R2=0.50

Rigidity of
Legislation and
Bureaucratic
Complexity

R2=0.68

Limited
Development of the
Environmental
Supply Sector

External Barriers
FIRM SIZE

R2=0.55

High Cost of
Environmental
Services/Technologies

0.74

0.82

0.71

0.74

RC1 =0,56
RC2 =0.87

0.20

R2=0.37

BUSINESS SECTOR

Proactivity of environmental strategy

- 0.50

Endemic Limitations of the Firm

0.97

R2=0.55

Difficulties Derived
From Competitive
Pressure

0.80

Goodness-of-fit statistics:
Chi-square: 545.46
d.f.: 326
R-RMSEA: 0.074
SRMR: 0.081
GFI: 0.76
AGFI: 0.71
R-BBN: 0.706
R-CFI: 0.888

RC1=0,82
RC2=0.90

0.98
R2=1

R2=0.64

Budgetary and
Organizational
Limitations

1423

Aversion to Innovation
and Technological
Change

Limited Motivation
and Preparation of the
Employees

Fig. 1. Structural model and measurement model of the environmental barriers.

Operational Inertia

1424

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

have a signicant negative impact on the proactivity of environmental strategy. The other barriers do not really prevent progress
toward proactive strategies regarding environmental protection.
Our results show that, among the different difculties affecting
environmental adaptation recognized by the managers of the
sample rms, only budgetary and organizational limitations and
aversion to innovation and technological change actually prevent
rms from advancing in their environmental strategy. The rest
would be better described as initial inconveniences or initial
barriers, as they do not prevent adoption of proactive environmental strategies.
These results are consistent with the claims by Post and Altman
(1994), Hillary (2004) or Murillo-Luna et al. (2007) that, although
external barriers make environmental process difcult, internal
barriers are what basically prevent the application of advanced
measures to protect the environment. Furthermore, although the
effective barriers identied in our sample are not the same as those
found by Van Hemel and Cramer (2002) for a sample of Dutch
SMEs, we agree with these authors in the establishment of
a distinction between initial and no-go barriers.
With regards to the control variables, the results illustrate that
the fact of operating in a moderately polluting sector or in a highly
polluting sector has no signicant inuence on the degree of
environmental proactivity of industrial rms. On the contrary, the
signicance of the size variable indicates that larger rms tend to
be more proactive in their environmental strategy.

internal barriers related to endemic limitations are unable to adopt

proactive or advanced environmental strategies, based on over
compliance with and anticipation of pollution-related requirements. These endemic limitations include aspects such as 1) limited
nancial capabilities for environmental investment, 2) low
employee involvement in decision-making, 3) lack of technological
information and communication capabilities, 4) aversion to innovation, and 5) decient investment of resources in R&D.
Our conclusions have important practical and policy-related
implications. Governmental action will only temporarily mitigate
the problem of industrial pollution if it does not remove its root
cause. Critical barriers to environmental adaptation thus have to be
identied, ranked and prioritized before formulating appropriate
public policies. According to our results, people responsible for
environmental management in rms and for the design of
environment-related public policies should focus their attention on
improving internal aspects related to the way of managing
resources and capabilities in the rms, which hinder them from
anticipating environmental requirements.

5. Conclusions

References

The different environmental behaviors of industrial rms can be

classied along a continuum in which more advanced or proactive
positions are characterized by pollution prevention -rather than
correction- and anticipation - rather than reaction- to environmental requirements. The rst conclusion from the results obtained
in this research indicates that Spanish industrial rms tend to be
positioned in advanced or proactive strategies regardless of
whether they operate in high or moderately polluting sectors, but
to a greater extent the higher the rm size. Indeed, small rms
predominate in the Spanish industry, face greater difculties than
large enterprises to adopt advanced environmental protection
measures. Indeed, small rms, which are predominant in the
Spanish industry, face greater difculties than large rms to adopt
advanced environmental protection measures.
As a second conclusion we been found that, besides the size, the
difculties or barriers faced by Spanish industrial rms for
advancing toward proactive environmental strategies are both
external and internal. The external barriers are related to these ve
aspects: scarcity of information and lack of clarity on environmental legislation, rigidity of legislation and bureaucratic
complexity, limited development of the environmental supply
sector, high cost of environmental services/technologies, and
difculties derived from competitive pressure. On the other hand,
the main internal obstacles recognized by managers can be
summarized in four aspects or dimensions: budgetary and organizational limitations, aversion to innovation and technological
change, limited motivation and preparation of the employees and
operational inertia.
Managers face all these external and internal difculties when
adopting environmental protection measures. However, an analysis
of the possible impact of such difculties on the behavior of rms
leads us to establish, as a third conclusion, that the difculties that
can actually prevent rms from progressing in their environmental
strategy are within the rm and, therefore, they are difculties that
rms could control by allocating the necessary resources. Indeed,
from the results of this research we can conclude that rms with

Aragn-Correa, J.A., 1998. Strategic proactivity and rm approach to the natural

environment. Academy of Management Journal 41, 556e567.
Ashford, N.A., 1993. Understanding technological responses of industrial rms of
environmental problems: implications for government policy. In: Fischer, K.,
Schot, J. (Eds.), Environmental Strategies for Industry. Island Press, Washington,
pp. 277e307.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1980. Causal Models in Marketing. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., North
Carolina.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1982a. The role of measurement in theory construction and hypothesis
testing: toward a holistic model. In: Fornell, C. (Ed.), A Second Generation of
Multivariate Analysis, vol. 2. Praeger Publishers, New York, pp. 5e23.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1982b. An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. In:
Fornell, C. (Ed.), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, vol. 2. Praeger
Publishers, New York, pp. 145e184.
Bagozzi, R.P., 1984. A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of
Marketing 48, 11e29.
Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why rms go green: a model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 717e736.
Bentler, P.M., 1995. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software, Inc, Encino, CA.
Bentler, P.M., Dudgeon, P., 1996. Covariance structure analysis: statistical practice
theory and directions. Annual Review Psychology 47, 563e592.
Bianchi, R., Noci, G., 1998. Greening SMEs competitiveness. Small Business
Economics 11, 269e281.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., North Carolina.
Bro, J.A., Fernndez, E., Junquera, B., 2002. The role of the public administrations in
the promotion of the environmental activity in Spanish industrial companies.
Ecological Economics 40, 279e294.
Bro, J.A., Junquera, B., 2001. Level of implementation of the ISO 14001 standard in
Spanish industrial companies. Eco-Management and Auditing 8, 193e199.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model t. In:
Bollen, K., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136e162.
Buysse, K., Verbeke, A., 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder
management perspective. Strategic Management Journal 24 (5), 453e470.
Carmona-Moreno, E., Cespedes-Lorente, J., De Burgos-Jimnez, J., 2004. Environmental strategies in Spanish hotels: contextual factors and performance. The
Service Industries Journal 24, 101e130.
Chan, E.S., 2008. Barriers to EMS in the hotel industry. Hospitality Management 27,
187e196.
Cole, M.A., 2000. Air pollution and dirty industries: how and why does the
composition of manufacturing output change with economic development?
Environmental and Resource Economics 17, 109e123.
Dahlmann, F., Brammer, S., Millington, A., 2008. Barriers to proactive environmental
management in the U.K.: implications for business and public policy. Journal of
General Management 33 (3), 1e20.

Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the results obtained under the framework of
the research projects ECO2009-09623 and ECO2010-21393-C04-04,
nanced by MEC-FEDER.

J.L. Murillo-Luna et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1417e1425

Dieleman, H., de Hoo, S., 1993. Toward a tailor-made process of pollution prevention
and cleaner production: results and implications of the PRISMA project. In:
Fischer, K., Schot, J. (Eds.), Environmental Strategies for Industry. Island Press,
Washington, pp. 245e275.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research XVIII, 39e50.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the rm. Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 986e1014.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1999. The relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy
of Management Journal 42 (1), 87e99.
Hillary, R., 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise.
Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 561e569.
Hunt, C.B., Auster, E.R., 1990. Proactive environmental management: avoiding the
toxic trap. Sloan Management Review 31 (2), 7e18.
Joreskog, K.G., 1993. Testing structural equation models. In: Bollen, K., Long, J.S.
(Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 294e316.
Jreskog, K.G., Srbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide. SSI Scientic
Software International, USA.
Lpez-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorn, J.F., Claver-Corts, E., 2009a. The potential of
environmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmental
management, competitiveness and nancial performance. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18, 963e974.
Lpez-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorn, J.F., Claver-Corts, E., 2009b. The whole relationship between environmental variables and rm performance: competitive
advantage and rm resources as mediator variables. Journal of Environmental
Management 90, 3110e3121.
Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 1998. In search of pollutions havens? Dirty industry in the world
economy, 1960e1995. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (3), 215e247.
Massoud, M.A., Fayad, R., El-Fadel, M., Kamleh, R., 2010. Drivers, barriers and
incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the food
industry: a case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3), 200e209.
McDonald, R.P., 1985. Factor Analysis and Related Methods. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Moors, E.H.M., Mulder, K.F., Vergragt, P.J., 2005. Towards cleaner production:
barriers and strategies in the base metals producing industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 13 (7), 657e668.
Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcs-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2007. What prevents rms
from advancing in their environmental strategy? International Advances in
Economic Research 13 (1), 35e46.
Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcs-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2008. Why do patterns of
environmental response differ? A stakeholders pressure approach. Strategic
Management Journal 29 (11), 1225e1240.

1425

Noci, G., Verganti, R., 1999. Managing "green" product innovation in small rms.
R&D Management 29 (1), 3e15.
Post, J.E., Altman, B.W., 1994. Managing the environmental change process: barriers
and opportunities. Journal of Organizational Change Management 7 (4), 64e81.
Rojsek, I., 2001. From red to green: towards the environmental management in the
country in transition. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (1), 37e50.
Roome, N., 1992. Developing environmental management strategies. Business
Strategy and the Environment 1 (1), 11e24.
Satorra, A., Bentler, P., 1994. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. In: von Eye, A., Clogg, C.C. (Eds.), Latent Variables
Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 399e419.
Schot, J., 1992. Credibility and markets as greening forces for the chemical industry.
Business Strategy and the Environment 1 (1), 35e44.
Sharma, S., Vredenburg, H., 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and
the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal 19 (8), 729e753.
Shi, H., Peng, S.Z., Lui, Y., Zhong, P., 2008. Barriers to the implementation of cleaner
production in Chinses SMEs: government, industry and expert stakeholders
perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 842e852.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Academy of Management Review 20 (4), 936e960.
Shrivastava, P., Hart, S., 1994. Greening organizations-2000. International Journal of
Public Administration 17 (3e4), 607e635.
Steger, U., 1993. The greening of the board room: how German companies are
dealing with environmental issues. In: Fischer, K., Schot, J. (Eds.), Environmental
Strategies for Industry. Island Press, Washington, pp. 147e166.
Van Hemel, J., Cramer, J., 2002. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign en SMEs. Journal
of Cleaner Production 10, 439e453.
Vastag, G., Kerekes, S., Rondinelli, D.A., 1996. Evaluation of corporate environmental
management approaches: a framework and application. International Journal of
Production Economics 43 (2e3), 193e211.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private
sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14 (1), 69e85.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2010. Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for
energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. Journal of
Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.017.
Zilahy, G., 2004. Organizational factors determining the implementation of cleaner
production measures in the corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 12,
311e319.
Zutshi, A., Sohal, A., 2004. Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organizations: Part 1: reasons, benets and impediments. Technovation 24, 335e357.