850202

Motivating employeesfor environmentalimprovement

Nalini Govindarajulu and

Bonnie F. Daily

The authors

Nalini Govindarajulu is a PhD Candidate and Bonnie F. Dailyis an Associate Professor, both in the Management Department,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.

Keywords

Human resource management, Management qualities,Empowerment, Feedback, Environmental management

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical framework for environmentalperformance by looking at the crucial employer and employeefactors affecting environmental performance. The model focuseson the integration between top management commitment,employee empowerment, rewards, feedback and review, andenvironmental performance. Suggestions for managers onimplementing core concepts from the model, in addition to thechallenges they may encounter are discussed throughout thearticle.

Electronic access

The Emerald Research Register for this journal isavailable atwww.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal isavailable atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

Introduction

Clearly, in the twenty-first century businesses are

taking a more strategic approach to environmental

management. Conventionally, a majority of US

corporations have used the compliance approach

in their environmental programs driven by laws

and regulations. However, in the past several years,

environmental forces such as consumer boycotts,

dynamic preferences, and new customer

requirements have affected basic business

strategies as well as corporate core values

(Bhushan and MacKenzie, 1994; Quazi, 2001). It

appears corporate strategies for environmental

management are evolving from pollution control to

pollution prevention (Brockhoff et al., 1999).

Presently, there is significant research espousing

the virtues of implementing an environmental

management system (EMS) (Inman, 1999;

Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993). Many articles in

the literature provide technical details of

developing an EMS, yet it appears little discussion

has been provided on the effect of such programs

on employees. Although, some researchers have

suggested that employee attitudes regarding

implementation of an EMS may affect

environmental performance (Daily and Steiner,

2001). Certainly, it seems apparent that any new

management program’s success may hinge on how

employees respond.

This paper provides an overview of the current

management literature regarding increasing

employee motivation for environmental

improvement efforts. Based on the literature

review, four factors: management commitment,

employee empowerment, rewards, and feedback

and review stood out as key elements in

encouraging employees for enhanced

environmental performance. Figure 1 presents an

overview of the four factors and their association to

environmental performance.

Management commitment

According to Argyris (1998, p. 99):

Commitment is about generating human energyand activating the human mind. Without it, theimplementation of any new initiative or idea wouldbe seriously compromised.

Commitment from top management is like a

framework for environmental improvement. Top

management decides the environmental policies to

establish, the level of training and communication

required. Sans a solid framework, it is almost

impossible to motivate employees to take effective

steps for environmental improvement.

Industrial Management & Data Systems

Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · pp. 364-372

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0263-5577

DOI 10.1108/02635570410530775

364

It is necessary that management provide

commitment to environmental improvement

efforts by adopting a formal EMS. An EMS

provides a format that allows management the

ability to better control the company’s

environmental impacts (Barnes, 1996). An EMS

includes documentation of commitment and

policy, planning, implementation, measurement

and evaluation, and review and improvement

(Hersey, 1998; Lin et al., 2001).

Recently, a new template for development of an

EMS has been provided in the form of the ISO

14000 guidelines. Similar to the ISO 9000 Quality

Management Standards, the ISO 14000 series was

created by a collaboration of 90 standard setting

groups and over 100 countries involved in the

International Organization for Standardization.

Essentially, the ISO 14000 guidelines delineate the

international standards for systems of

environmental management (Begley, 1996). The

ISO 14000 series consists of 20 environmental

standards that are voluntary and process-based

(Barnes, 1996; Hersey, 1998). According to

Sroufe et al. (1998, p. 5) “to date, ISO 14000

standards may be the best example of a structured

EMS”.

Through either implementation of an EMS or

ISO 14000 certification, management clearly

establishes its commitment to environmental

improvement. A formal structured program sets

the stage for increased employee awareness of

environmental issues and its significance to the

organization (Barnes, 1996). Essentially, the EMS

structure provides purpose for environmental

improvements. Lacking a clear purpose,

employees often are deficient in their enthusiasm

to take on new responsibilities or get involved

(Ramus, 2001).

On adoption of a formal environmental

management program, senior administrators must

address issues of organizational culture.

Organizational culture is composed of a set of

assumptions and values that guide individuals’

daily work behaviors (Brockhoff et al., 1999;

Wilms et al., 1994). Several researchers have noted

that one of the reasons for the failure of an

organizational change effort is that the

management ignored the strength of cultures

Figure 1 Motivating factors for environmental performance

Motivating employees for environmental improvement

Nalini Govindarajulu and Bonnie F. Daily


Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

365

(Harris and Ogbonna, 1998). It is important to

consider organizational culture, because

companies with rigid, top-heavy, and bureaucratic

structures have a more difficult time implementing

changes than a company that has a flexible and

lean organizational structure (Janson and

Gunderson, 1994). Thus, motivation for

environmental improvement efforts may be

supported or undermined by the organizational

culture.

Management commitment must include a

culture that encourages innovation and risk-

taking. Values, norms, attitudes, and behaviors

that promote environmental improvement efforts

have to be supported (Ramus, 2001). According to

Wilms et al. (1994, p. 108)

People will follow management’s direction.Whatever management does, and in what directionthey push, and how hard they push dictates wherethis company eventually goes.

According to Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000) cultural

change is necessary to support the implementation

of environmental source reduction. Top

management within an environmentally-conscious

organization should strive for a strong culture that

allows its employees the freedom to make

environmental improvements (Mallak and

Kurstedt, 1996). Employees should be allowed

inputs for enhancement and time for

experimentation (Woods, 1993). Employees

should be able to make changes to improve the

environment without excessive management

intervention. Therefore, management can

demonstrate its commitment to environmental

endeavors by adoption of a participative culture.

In addition to setting a participative culture,

management communication of goals and

priorities will be essential in motivating employees

for action. According to Gupta and Sharma (1996,

p. 45):

The environmental goals of the company should becommunicated to the workers. Standards ofperformance, especially with respect toenvironmental concerns, must be subject tocontinuous improvement over time to reach thegoal of zero emission and zero waste.

Environmental programs, initiatives, and goals of

an organization should be communicated

frequently so the employees know what is expected

to accomplish the goals. Recent research suggests

strongly that employees do not feel properly

informed regarding environmental issues (Madsen

and Ulhoi, 2001). Furthermore, studies suggest

that employees are more willing to undertake

environmental initiatives when their supervisors

embrace a democratic and open style of

communication in regards to environmental ideas

(Ramus, 2001; Ramus and Steger, 2000).

Another element essential in signifying

management’s commitment to environmental

improvement is the provision of specific training.

Researchers have determined quality management

efforts demand extensive on-the-job training and

continual educational efforts to achieve continual

improvement (Cook and Seith, 1992; Curkovic,

1998). In the same fashion, successful

environmental improvement mandates employees

receive thorough training. Insufficient training

may result in employees who are unable and

unwilling to participate in environmental

improvement efforts.

Moreover, the need for cultural transformation

in adoption of a formal environmental management

program necessitates training. Through education

and training, employees become more aware of the

need for quality and environmental control,

increase adaptability to change, and change to a

proactive attitude (Wong, 1998). Additionally,

commitment to ongoing environmental training

enables employees to contribute on a daily basis to

specific pollution prevention endeavors (Theyel,

2000). Also, companies may need to conduct

environmental training programs for several other

reasons, including: a change in the corporate

environmental philosophy, heightened liability

concerns, and a complex regulatory climate (Cook

and Seith, 1992). Establishing specific training

efforts regarding environmental issues may lead to

the following benefits: compliance with regulatory

requirements, organizational definitions of

employee responsibility and liability, a positive

public image, employee encouragement to become

stewards of the environment, and employee

motivation to participate in proactive

environmental management (Cook and Seith,

1992).

Companies committed to environmental

excellence require resources to support the

training effort, whether it is financially or

organizationally (Cook and Seith, 1992). A

company can devastate its efforts to become

environmentally responsible if there is little or no

support to train and encourage its employees to

“do the right thing”. Other than specific

environmental training programs, additional types

of training such as interactive skills, team building,

benchmarking, brainstorming, and consensus

building will help promote a culture where

employees feel enabled to participate in

environmental improvement (Begley, 1996;

Woods, 1993).

It is critical for managers to train new employees

and continue education of current staff. Managers

can focus their training efforts on front-line

employees and those who have a direct influence

on the environment, but should not neglect other




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

366

employees in the organization. A company may

enhance its ability to abide by environmental

policy if it trains employees throughout the

organization. At Dusquesne Light, an electric

utility company at Southwestern Pennsylvania,

management’s commitment to environmental

training across the organization was believed to be

a significant factor in the company’s ability to

comply with new and existing environmental

regulations (DeLeo, 1994).

Employee empowerment

Authors Leitch et al. (1995, p. 72) described

employee empowerment as:

. . . the importance of giving employees both theability and the responsibility to take active steps toidentify problems in the working environment thataffect quality or customer service and to dealeffectively with them.

According to Argyris (1998, p. 98), a CEO once

said: “No vision, no strategy can be achieved

without able and empowered employees”.

Moreover, empowered employees are not only

preferable but also essential to implement the

organization’s goal to be fiscally sound and

environmentally responsible (Enander and

Pannullo, 1990).

The introduction of a new program will yield

optimal results when employees are treated as major

stakeholders in an organization (Mohrman et al.,

1996). Empowered employees are motivated and

committed to participate and engage in good

environmental practices. Employees who are not

empowered have less commitment for improvement

than the empowered employees (Argyris, 1998).

Management can encourage employee

empowerment by changing the organizational

structures that support empowerment (Leitch et al.,

1995). One way that management can encourage

employee empowerment is by changing the form of

the organization. The traditional top-down

organization inhibits employee empowerment;

instead, a flatter, horizontal organization should be

in place to encourage employee empowerment.

Companies need to shift to a more open form of

participative management in order to empower their

employees (Mallak and Kurstedt, 1996). Workers

can contribute more effectively when management

moves the decision power down to the employees,

allowing them the freedom and power to make

suggestions and implement good environmental

practices (Wever and Vorhauer, 1993).

Empowered employees who have autonomy and

decision-making power are also more likely to be

more involved in the improvement of the

environment. Employee involvement (EI) can be

described as “a participative process to use the

entire capacity of workers, designed to encourage

employee commitment to organizational success”

(Cotton, 1993, p. 3). In addition, Enander and

Pannullo (1990), believe EI may affect cultural

change and significantly reduce pollutants at their

starting place. Since many of the efforts in

pollution prevention rely on employees working

and interacting with other departments, EI

becomes a necessity to improve chances for

success.

According to Denton (1999, p. 111), “Good EI

planning and activities are the key to pollution

management. A management initiative without EI

is useless”. Furthermore, in a study by Hanna et al.

(2000) data from 349 EI projects were analyzed to

determine the relationship between operational

and environmental performance. According to

(Hanna et al., 2000, p. 160):

. . . results support the concept of a positiverelationship between operational performance andenvironmental performance . . . and that the key tothis positive relationship may be employeeinvolvement itself.

Motivating employees for greater participation in

environmental improvement efforts may also

require employment of teams. The use of

team-based EI programs has become a major

trend. Such programs are particularly popular in

manufacturing organizations, where

manufacturing strategies, competitive pressures,

and advanced technology require shop-floor

employees to take more responsibility (Magjuka

and Baldwin, 1991). As Magjuka and Baldwin

(1991) found in their study, teams well designed

for EI programs are perceived to be the greatest

contributor to improving organizational

performance. For example, Frey and Stephens

(1990) reported that teams designed for EI in a

Midwestern manufacturing plant helped to gain

team members a comprehensive view and make

them listen with feeling. Ultimately, teamwork

resulted in mostly small, but significant gains.

Thus, the use of teams in conjunction with

extensive EI efforts may be conducive in

encouraging employees to actively partake in

proactive pollution prevention efforts. For

example, Beard and Rees (2000) describe “green

teams” used in a UK local authority, Kent County

Council. The authorss state that the teams were

used to “generate ideas, enhance learning

experiences, explore issues, identify conflict and

focus action to enhance understanding about why,

what, how, where, and when to pursue the best

practicable environmental options” (Beard and

Rees (2000, p. 27).

In addition, cross-functional teams may be

particularly helpful in achieving environmental




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

367

improvement across departments. Environmental

improvements (ex: pollution prevention at the

source) require changes in the manufacturing,

planning, and purchasing areas (Kitazawa and

Sarkis, 2000; Lent and Wells, 1994; Zsidisin and

Hendrick, 1998). Cross-functional teams may

help achieve this need coordination across

departments. Benefits of such teams include:

collective knowledge to develop comprehensive

solutions, avoiding duplication of efforts,

accomplishing many tasks simultaneously, and

empowering employees (Cai et al., 1999; Leitch

et al., 1995).

Rewards

A well-designed reward system can be helpful in

promoting employees to perform sound

environmental practices. According to Herzberg

(1966) work rewards refer to the intrinsic and

extrinsic benefits that workers receive from their

jobs. Rewards can be a reinforcement to

continuously motivate and increase commitment

from workers to be environmentally responsible.

There has been some literature that has shown that

reward systems can motivate and reinforce

employees to be environmentally responsible

(Laabs, 1992; Patton and Daley, 1998).

Companies that value environmental performance

need to make parallel the performance evaluation

system with the managerial system in their

corporate environmental objectives (Epstein and

Roy, 1997). Reward systems and incentives need

to reflect corporate commitment to the importance

of environmental performance (Lent and Wells,

1994).

Rewards can be implemented in several forms

such as financial rewards and recognition awards.

Award and recognition programs, profit-sharing

programs, increase in pay, benefits and incentives,

and suggestion programs are some of the systems

that can be used to reward employees for good

environmental practices (Atwater and Bass, 1994;

Laabs, 1992; Leitch et al., 1995; Marks, 2001;

Patton and Daley, 1998).

Monetary rewards may be one of the strongest

motivators for inducing employees to participate in

environmental improvement efforts. Research

suggests that monetary rewards significantly affect

job satisfaction and work motivation (Lawler,

1973).

A recent study of worldwide environmental

companies indicated that even in companies that

encouraged EI, the financial incentives, such as

bonuses, incentives, or salaries were rarely tied to

environmental performance (Denton, 1999). In

some cases, supervisors have indicated that

additional compensation should be given to

employees for giving them the additional

responsibility of participating in environmental

improvement efforts (Forman and Jorgensen,

2001). In this regard, managers need to decide if

environmental initiatives or improvements should

be a part of employees’ performance appraisal, as it

could be a major motivating factor for some

employees (Denton, 1999).

On the other hand, research also suggests that

employees are not likely to be motivated by money

all the time. In fact, innovative non-monetary

rewards like paid vacations, time off from work,

favored parking, or gift certificates can be quite

effective in encouraging employees (Bragg, 2000;

Geller, 1991). There is anecdotal evidence that

some businesses are stimulating environmental

activities through non-monetary rewards. For

example, Dow Chemical, a leading environmental

firm, motivates its employees by awarding plaques

to employees that come up with innovative waste

reduction ideas (Denton, 1999).

Some employees may be more motivated by

recognition and praise than other factors. In a

nationwide study, employees admitted that they

would do their best if their input was recognized

(Jeffries, 1997). Research indicates that employees

expect appreciation from supervisors, colleagues

and even their families for their effort (Miller,

1991) and, often, praise beats out monetary

rewards (Kohn, 1993). An empirical study by

Ramus (2001) has shown that supervisory

behaviors that encouraged daily praise and

environmental awards were ranked as being among

the most important factors for environmental

innovativess and problem solving by employees.

Similar studies in Dutch companies have also

shown that recognition awards for innovative ideas

pertaining to environmental improvements have

worked for employers as well as employees

(Cramer and Roes, 1993). These awards are

usually given in the form of plaques, personal

letters of commendation, publication of

employees’ outstanding inputs towards

improvement, recognition in the company’s

newsletters, and merit certificates to individuals

and teams (Enander and Pannullo, 1990).

Parker and Wright (2001) indicate that devising

a good reward system is not sufficient; it also has to

be backed by effective communication of the

reward plans. All aspects of the reward system,

including accommodating work arrangements and

other features of employee welfare, should be

clearly conveyed to employees. McConnell (1997)

and Geller (1991) suggest that group meetings

could help employees in getting a better focus of

what to do. Geller (1991) recommends that top

management could give formal presentations using




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

368

films, lectures and demonstrations to educate

employees the importance of safety in the

workplace. These same techniques should also

apply when engaging employees for environmental

initiatives.

Managers cannot follow a “one program fits all”

approach to employee incentives. They must keep

in mind the different motivating factors of the

various employees in the organization and develop

a reward system that satisfies everybody. In

addition, it is up to managers to observe what

factors motivate employees and customize

compensation packages to suit each employee

(Barrier, 1996; Geller, 1991). For employees to

stay committed to company goals and the

organization itself, they should be satisfied with

their compensation packages (Parker and Wright,

2001).

Sometimes, negative reinforcement may be

necessary for making employees perform certain

tasks including environmental improvement

efforts. For instance, if punishments like

suspension, criticism, warnings, etc., are given for

sloppy handling of solid or hazardous waste,

employees may not indulge in such behaviors. On

the other hand, this does not teach them how to

properly dispose the waste. Therefore, while

“negative rewards” can avoid certain kinds of

behaviors, it may not be the right thing to do. The

drawbacks of punishments are turnover,

absenteeism, and self-protective behaviors

(i.e. failure to disclose environmental problems

when they arise). Research has shown that

“positive rewards” are generally more effective

motivators than their negative counterparts

(Lawler, 1973).

Regardless of the type of rewards used, the

benefits should fit the needs of the employees.

Reward systems can be used systematically to

motivate employees to perform desired behaviors

so that both the company and its workers can

benefit from the program. It is important for

managers and supervisors to not only reward

employees for quality and daily work efforts but

also for innovating environmentally-sound

processes and products.

Feedback and review

In order to achieve long-term success most

managerial programs need some form of review

and feedback for continued improvement. For

instance, MacStravic (1990) has indicated the

importance of providing feedback to improve

employee relations, employee satisfaction, and

productivity in the health care sector. However,

Chinander (2001) pointed out many

environmental management programs fail to stress

the importance of feedback on environmental

issues. Chinander (2001) also suggested that

feedback ensures employees know their

responsibilities and communicates the link

between their performance outcomes and rewards

in environmental endeavors. Furthermore, it has

been shown that employees value verbal feedback

from supervisors as much as formal rewards

(Ramus, 2001); informal verbal feedback in

addition to formal written feedback may help

motivate employees for environmental

improvement.

The enthusiasm and interest that is often

associated with project initiation and the early

stages of implementation of an environmental

program may wane over time. Moreover, the focus

and goals of the program may need adjusting after

implementation. If an EMS is successful it would

be expected that change has occurred; thus,

requiring an overview and readjustment to new

goals and initiatives. Hence, employees need

continual feedback concerning their impact and

effectiveness on environmental improvement

efforts. Without appropriate feedback and

communication, employee efforts may come to a

standstill.

It must be noted that a positive feedback

“environment” should be based on trust between

supervisors and employees and that employees

solicit accurate and complete information

regarding their progress (MacStravic, 1990).

Employees will therefore need communication of

specific environmental improvement measures.

This requires that the organization conduct

thorough environmental monitoring on a

continuous basis. The EMS system should seek to

measure results in environmental improvement,

identify improvements, and the weaknesses or

flaws still existing in the organization. These

weaknesses should be minimized so that

environmental performance can improve.

Some of the guidelines of the ISO 14001

standard include monitoring environmental

performance and advancement made towards

attaining environmental targets. Moreover,

ISO 14001 requires correction of any problems

and prevention practices be put in place

(Hersey, 1998; Peacock, 1993). ISO 14001 also

includes comprehensive review and

documentation of the whole process by top

management (Hersey, 1998; Rondinelli and

Vastag, 2000; Sierra, 1996; Zabihollah and Rick,

2000). Authors Cramer and Roes (1993);

Zabihollah and Rick (2000) take it a step further

and stress that EMS policies and procedures

should be monitored by all employees in the




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

369

organization, thus, creating a automatic and

systematic review and feedback program.

Another form of review and source of feedback

is the environmental audit. Essentially, an EMS is

not complete without auditing procedures or

policies in place. One of the most imperative

guidelines recommended by the ISO 14001

standard is the periodic auditing of a company’s

EMS by independent and well-trained auditors.

According to Rezaee and Elam (2000, p. 68) an

environmental audit is:

[. . .] the systematic, documented verificationprocess of objectively obtaining and evaluatingaudit evidence to determine whether specifiedenvironmental activities, events, conditions,management systems, or information about thesematters conform with audit criteria andcommunicating the results of this process to theclient.

Furthermore, environmental auditing helps

companies comply with environmental laws and

regulations in addition to its own goals and

objectives (Rezaee and Elam, 2000). Hence, the

written report received from the environmental

auditor may be used to communicate areas for

environmental improvement to employees. Thus,

audits are a great source of environmental

feedback.

Conclusion

It is a misnomer that environmental improvement

efforts benefit only society or the community.

Employees themselves, in addition to companies

incorporating improvement practices, can also

accrue several benefits. For instance, some of the

gains to an organization that can result from

introducing employee empowerment and EI in

environmental improvement efforts include:. improvements in environmental health,

worker health, and safety (Atwater and Bass,

1994);. improvements in economic, liability and

public image (Barnes, 1996);. development of more knowledgeable

supervisors and employees; and. reduced environmental impact of the

company, improved competitiveness, and

increased overall company performance

(Enander and Pannullo, 1990).

In addition, it may be assumed that employees

actively involved in environmental endeavors may

significantly enhance a company’s chance for

superior environmental performance. Employees

who feel empowered to make changes for

environmental efficiencies may provide

opportunities for improvement to the product and

reduce waste. This should lead to a greener

product and green savings from waste elimination.

These efficiencies should also, in some way,

either indirectly or directly, increase customer

satisfaction. Many customers today are specifically

asking their suppliers to adopt environmental

standards.

This article has outlined the crucial steps that

organizations should take when implementing an

environmental improvement program to ensure

employee motivation. In particular, there are

several implications for managers and supervisors

that attempt to bring about changes in employee

behaviors in the organization.

We recommend that while top management

should provide a framework by formalizing the

EMS and communicating the importance of

employee motivation in environmental

improvement, managers and supervisors should

also actively involve employees at all levels towards

fulfilling environmental improvement goals (see

Figure 1). Therefore, the importance of

empowerment and continual feedback and review

cannot be understated. It must be noted that these

factors are dynamic in nature and the relationships

between them continuously evolve and change. We

stress that the relationship between these major

elements be given careful thought and

consideration if environmental improvements are

desired. Furthermore, it is important to remember

these factors do not stand alone; for example,

rewards alone will not lead to significant

environmental improvement, but rewards in

conjunction with feedback, empowerment and

clear communication can lead to environmental

enhancements.

Moreover, it is imperative that researchers and

practitioners continue to examine ways that

employees are motivated to improve

environmental conditions. Additionally, further

research is required to measure the factors

proposed in this model and provide a

comprehensive framework for managers on the

factors that influence employee motivation.

References

Argyris, C. (1998), “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”,Harvard Business Review, pp. 98-105.

Atwater, D.C. and Bass, B. (1994), “Transformational leadershipin teams”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds), ImprovingOrganizational Effectiveness through TransformationalLeadership, Sage Publication, London, pp. 48-83.

Barnes, P.E. (1996), “Green standards”, B & E Review, October/December, pp. 24-8.

Barrier, M. (1996), “Improving worker performance”, Managing,September, pp. 29-31.




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

370

Beard, C. and Rees, S. (2000), “Green teams and themanagement of environmental change in a UK countycouncil”, Environmental Management and Health,pp. 27-38.

Begley, R. (1996), “Is ISO 14000 worth it?”, Journal of BusinessStrategy, September/October, pp. 50-5.

Bhushan, A.K. and MacKenzie, J.C. (1994), “Environmentalleadership plus total quality management equalscontinuous improvement”, in Willig, J.T. (Ed.),Environmental TQM, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,pp. 72-93.

Bragg, T. (2000), “How to effectively reward and inspire yourteam”, Occupational Hazards, October, pp. 131-4.

Brockhoff, K.A., Chakrabarti, K. and Kirchgeorg, M. (1999),“Corporate strategies in environmental management”,Research Technology Management, July/August,pp. 26-30.

Cai, S., Daily, B. and Jun, M. (1999), “Employee involvement: aconceptual model of process and effects”, NationalDecision Sciences Institute Conference, New Orleans, LA,pp. 1362-4.

Chinander, K.R. (2001), “Aligning accountability and awarenessfor environmental performance in operations”, Productionand Operations Management, Fall, pp. 276-91.

Cook, J. and Seith, B.J. (1992), “Designing an effectiveenvironmental training program”, Journal ofEnvironmental Regulation, pp. 53-62.

Cotton, J.L. (1993), Employee Involvement, Sage Publications,Newbury Park, CA.

Cramer, J.M. and Roes, B. (1993), “Total employee involvement:measures for success”, Total Quality EnvironmentalManagement, Autumn, pp. 39-52.

Curkovic, S. (1998), “Investigating the linkage betweentotal quality management and environmentallyresponsible manufacturing”, UMI Dissertation Services,UMI No. 9839628.

Daily, B. and Steiner, R. (2001), “An empirical analysis ofenvironmental performance: examining the impact ofhuman resource factors on the implementation of ISO14001”, Proceedings of National Decision ScienceInstitute Meeting, San Francisco.

DeLeo, W.J. (1994), “Successful e-compliance starts off withwell-trained staff”, Environment Today, December,pp. 35-7.

Denton, D.K. (1999), “Employee involvement, pollution control,and pieces to the puzzle”, Environmental Managementand Health, October, pp. 105-11.

Enander, R.T. and Pannullo, D. (1990), “Employee improvementand pollution prevention”, The Journal for Quality andParticipation, July/August, pp. 50-3.

Epstein, M.J. and Roy, M. (1997), “Using ISO 14000 for improvedorganizational learning and environmental management”,Environmental Quality Management, pp. 21-30.

Forman, M. and Jorgensen, M.S. (2001), “The social shaping ofthe participation of employees in environmental workwithin enterprises – experiences from a Danish context”,Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, March,pp. 71-90.

Frey, M.E. and Stephens, T. (1990), “Self-managed work teams:an application seeking a sense of direction”, paperpresented at the International conference on Self-managed Work Teams, Denton.

Geller, S. (1991), “Safety first”, Incentive, December, pp. 59-61.Gupta, M. and Sharma, K. (1996), “Environmental operations

management: an opportunity for improvement”,Production and Inventory Management Journal, pp. 40-6.

Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), “Linkingoperational and environmental improvement throughemployee involvement”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 148-65.

Harris, L. and Ogbonna, E. (1998), “Employee responses toculture change efforts”, Human Resource ManagementJournal, pp. 78-92.

Hersey, K. (1998), “A close look at ISO 14000”, EnvironmentalManagement, July, pp. 26-9.

Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World,Cleveland, OH.

Inman, R.A. (1999), “Environmental management: newchallenges for production and inventory managers”,Production and Inventory Management Journal,Third Quarter, pp. 46-9.

Janson, R. and Gunderson, R.L. (1994), “The team approach tocompanywide change”, in Willig, J.T. (Ed.), EnvironmentalTQM, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 52-61.

Jeffries, R. (1997), “Reaping the rewards of recognition”,HR Focus, January, p. 9.

Kitazawa, S. and Sarkis, J. (2000), “The relationship between ISO14000 and continuous source reduction”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 225-48.

Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1993), “TQM andenvironmental excellence in manufacturing”, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 14-22.

Kohn, A. (1993), “Why incentive plans cannot work”, HarvardBusiness Review, September/October, pp. 77-8.

Laabs, J.J. (1992), “The greening of HR”, Personnel Journal,August, pp. 60-71.

Lawler, E. III (1973), Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks/Cole Publishing, Monterey, CA.

Leitch, J., Nieves, D., Burke, G., Little, M. and Gorin, M. (1995),“Strategies for involving employees”, The Journal forQuality and Participation, pp. 68-74.

Lent, T. and Wells, R.P. (1994), “Corporate environmentalmanagement survey shows shift from compliance tostrategy”, in Willig, J.T. (Ed.), Environmental TQM,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 8-32.

Lin, B., Jones, C. and Hsieh, C. (2001), “Environmental practicesand assessment: a process perspective”, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 71-80.

McConnell, C.R. (1997), “Employee recognition: a little oil on thetroubled waters of change”, The Health Care Supervisor,June, pp. 83-90.

MacStravic, R.E. (1990), “A new role-and-feedback system forthe supervisor and the organization”, The Health CareSupervisor, January, pp. 23-34.

Madsen, H. and Ulhoi, J.P. (2001), “Greening of humanresources: environmental awareness and training interestswithin the workforce”, Industrial Management & DataSystems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 57-65.

Magjuka, R.J. and Baldwin, T.T. (1991), “Team-based employeeinvolvement programs: effects of design andadministration”, Personnel Psychology, pp. 793-812.

Mallak, L.A. and Kurstedt, H.A. (1996), “Understanding andusing empowerment to change organizational culture”,Industrial Management, Vol. 38 No. 6.

Marks, S. (2001), “Incentives that really reward and motivate”,Workforce, June, pp. 108-14.

Miller, C. (1991), “How to construct programs for teams”,Training, August, pp. 4-7.

Mohrman, S.A., Lawler, E.E. and Ledford, G.E. (1996), “Doemployee involvement and TQM programs work?”, The




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

371

Journal for Quality and Participation, January/February,pp. 8-10.

Patton, K.R. and Daley, D.M. (1998), “Gainsharing in Zebulon:what do workers want?”, Public Personnel Management,Spring, pp. 117-31.

Parker, O. and Wright, L. (2001), “The missing link: pay andemployee commitment”, Ivey Business Journal, January/February, pp. 70-3.

Peacock, M. (1993), “Developing environmental performancemeasures”, Industrial Engineering, September, pp. 20-4.

Quazi, H.A. (2001), “Sustainable development: Integratingenvironmental issues into strategic planning”, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 64-70.

Ramus, C. (2001), “Organizational support for employees:encouraging creative ideas for environmentalsustainability”, California Management Review, Spring,pp. 85-105.

Ramus, C. and Steger, U. (2000), “The roles of supervisorysupport behaviors and environmental policy inemployee ‘ecoinitiatives’ at leading-edge Europeancompanies”, Academy of Management Journal, August,pp. 605-26.

Rezaee, Z. and Elam, R. (2000), “Emerging ISO 14000environmental standards: a step-by-step implementationguide”, Managerial Auditing Journal, pp. 60-73.

Rondinelli, D. and Vastag, G. (2000), “Panacea, common sense,or just a label? The value of ISO 14001 environmentalmanagement systems”, European Management Journal,pp. 499-510.

Sierra, E. (1996), “The new ISO 14000 series: what exportersshould know”, International Trade Forum, March,pp. 16-31.

Sroufe, R.P., Melnyk, S.A. and Vastag, G. (1998), “Environmentalmanagement system as a source of competitiveadvantage”, unpublished manuscript, Michigan StateUniversity at East Lansing, MI.

Theyel, G. (2000), “Management practices for environmentalinnovation and performance”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 249-66.

Wever, G.H. and Vorhauer, G.F. (1993), “Kodak’s framework andassessment tool for implementing TQEM”, Total QualityEnvironmental Management, pp. 19-30.

Wilms, W.W., Hardcastle, A.J. and Zell, D.M. (1994), “Culturaltransformation at NUMMI”, Sloan Management Review,pp. 99-113.

Wong, W.Y.L. (1998), “A holistic perspective on quality questsand quality gains: the role of environment”, Total QualityManagement, pp. 241-5.

Woods, S. (1993), “Making pollution prevention part of theCoors culture”, Total Quality Environmental Management,pp. 31-8.

Zabihollah, R. and Rick, E. (2000), “Emerging ISO 14000environmental standards: a step-by-step implementationguide”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1/2,pp. 60-7.

Zsidisin, G.A. and Hendrick, T.E. (1998), “Purchasing’sinvolvement in environmental issues: A multiculturalperspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,Vol. 98 No. 7, pp. 313-20.




Volume 104 · Number 4 · 2004 · 364-372

372

Documents

850202