An organizing framework for the implementation of environmental voluntary approaches

There is a rich terminology associatedwith environmental voluntaryapproaches. The richness in terminologyis matched by the pervasive nature of theimplementation of voluntary approachesinto the fabric of European environmentalpolicy and regulation. The lack of auniversal definition of what anenvironmental voluntary approach is hasmade the implementation task moredifficult. The richness in terminologydealing with environmental voluntaryapproaches is categorized and thecharacteristics, context andimplementation of environmentalvoluntary approaches are discussed. Thispaper proposes an organizing frameworkfor the implementation of environmentalvoluntary approaches, which includescontext assessment; instrument rationale;

negotiation process; content;implementation; and post-implementation, enforcement andmonitoring. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL VOLUNTARYAPPROACHES

There is a rich and abundant terminologyfor voluntary approaches in an environ-mental context, such as self-regulation,

voluntary accords, voluntary agreements,environmental agreements, voluntary initia-tives, negotiated environmental agreements,self-commitments, public voluntary schemesand private agreements (Carraro and Lévêque,1999; EEA, 1997; Higley et al., 2001; Lévêque,1998; Segerson and Miceli 1998; Storey, 1996;Storey et al., 1999, OECD, 2003; ten Brink,2002). Consequently, there is no standard defi-nition of environmental voluntary approaches.Moreover, the variation in definitions has ledto confusion and terms are sometimes used forthe same or for a different kind of instrument(Baeke et al., 1999; Storey et al., 1999, p. 188). InCopyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

European EnvironmentEur. Env. 14, 30–39 (2004)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eet.338

AN ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTARY APPROACHES

James A. Cunningham1* and J. Peter Clinch2

1 National University of Ireland2 University College Dublin, Ireland

*Correspondence to: Dr. James, Cunningham, Department ofManagement, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.E-mail: [email protected]

ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL VOLUNTARY APPROACHES

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eur. Env. 14, 30–39 (2004)

31

essence, environmental voluntary approachesare commitments from industrial sectors andfirms to improve their environmental perfor-mance (Lévêque, 1998) and can cover a largevariety of different arrangements. Moreover,the differences in classifications focus on themanner in which targets are set, the nature ofthe participant’s commitment, the degree ofregulatory threat and the type of incentiveused to encourage participation (Baeke et al.,1999) (see Table 1).

Environmental voluntary approaches as aninstrument for environmental management areusually preferred by industry and often greetedwith some degree of scepticism by environ-mentalists and other stakeholders (EEA, 1997,p. 50; Jenkins, 1995). Arguments are made that environmental voluntary approaches arepreferred by industry as it buys them time and delays the implementation of rigorousenvironmental regulations (Bizer, 1999; Bizerand Julich, 1999). The environmentalists areconcerned that environmental voluntaryapproaches lead to a watering down of envi-ronmental protection standards. Nevertheless,there has been an increase in the growth of environmental voluntary approaches in the EUand this varies from one institutional context to another (Baeke et al., 1999).

Regarding the legal status of voluntaryapproaches, they typically have some quasi-legal status, whereby a breach of the agreementcan be considered as evidence for prosecutionpurposes (Baggott, 1986). Some approachesmay have an indirect statutory basis, where the obligation to draw up an agreement isenshrined in law. In the case of environmentalvoluntary approaches the essential characteris-tic is the ‘course of voluntarism’ (Baeke et al.,1999; Clinch, 2000). This can lead to a free-riderproblem, an issue of equity, where some firmsrefuse to ‘volunteer’ to do anything unless prescribed in law. Consequently, the threat oncompliers and free riders comes into playregarding the equity of rewards (Muldoon andNadarajah, 1999, p. 61).

CHARACTERISTICS, CONTEXT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTARY APPROACHES

Characteristics

Gibson (1999, p. 3) draws a comparisonbetween environmental voluntary approachesand the fall of Troy and notes ‘gift horses have

Table 1. Categorization of voluntary approaches

European perspective Canadian perspective (Lynes and Gibson, 1996) Other (Storey et al., 1999)(OECD, 1999; Carraro andLévêque, 1999; Higley et al., 2001; Lévêque, 1998)

Unilateral commitments Voluntary pollution control measures by individual Target-based VAs.firms

Negotiated agreements Government to industry pollution reduction Performance-based VAschallenges

Public voluntary schemes Performance agreements between industry and Co-operative R&D VAsgovernments

Private agreements Voluntary adherence to industry sector codes of Monitoring and reporting VAspractice

Business to business challenges, incentives andagreements

Agreements between industry and non-governmentthird parties

J. A. CUNNINGHAM AND J. P. CLINCH

been treated with some suspicion. Etiquettemay rule against looking them in the mouth,but other parts are worth checking out’. Thekey characteristics of any environmental vol-untary approach includes the manner of targetor goal setting, the nature of the participantcommitment, the degree of regulatory or fiscalthreat and the types of incentive to participate(Storey et al., 1999, p. 189). Moreover, the core design features of voluntary approachesshould include clearly defined measurableobjectives and targets, incentives for partici-pation and compliance, mechanisms for monitoring and measuring effectiveness andan accountability and public involvementframework. In some cases, in designing a vol-untary approach, there is a trade-off betweenthe environmental standard embodied in theagreement and the number of participants(Moffet and Bregha, 1999, p. 24). In designingan environmental voluntary approach thestructure and detail needs to be outlined, as dothe level of obligations (ten Brink and Morère,1998, 2000). The former includes the responsi-bilities (at sector level or company level),measure (penalties, sanction, complementarymeasures) and quantifiable targets and timeta-bles. Moreover, the necessary characteristicsfor successful environmental voluntary agree-ments include the following: targets need to beclear and transparent and in a quantitativeform; the targets must be the object of the vol-untary agreement (ambitious targets); compli-ance with the agreement should coincide witha backdrop of regulatory threats; external andinternal free riding needs to be deterred; theagreement needs to be monitored and verifiedand the evaluation made public (Bizer andJulich, 1999; Neumayer, 2000; Neale, 1997).

Context

Environmental voluntary approaches are suit-able for use as a complementary instrument(Croci and Pesaro, 1998). This in turn demon-strates that environmental protection is notonly compatible with effective management of

productive processes, but actually contributesto overall economic development. In address-ing the when and where there are many factorsthat have to be considered. In dealing with thewhen, there needs to be sufficient politicalcommitment, existing trust or potential trust,support for technology transfer, clear techno-logical options available and a monitoringsystem (ten Brink and Morère, 1998, 2000;Croci and Pesaro, 1998). The cultural context of an environmental voluntary approach ishighly relevant as well as group homogeneity,as has been shown in the Netherlands (Geberet al., 1998; Bizer and Julich, 1999; Ingram,1998). Moreover, an argument is made thatenvironmental voluntary approaches shouldbe used where sectors have a small number ofcompanies, are homogenous in nature and astrong association exists within the industry(ten Brink and Morère, 1998, 2000). Additionalsupports include pro-active industry organiza-tion, good public interest groups (NGOs etc),easily rallied consumer pressure and pre-existing champions for the cause (EEA,1997, p. 86).

Finally, other factors that need to be takeninto account in dealing with the context of an environmental voluntary approach includethe political culture of the country of imple-mentation, levels of public environmentalawareness, the existence of effective oversightmechanisms, such as regulatory agencies, themedia and NGOs. The media and NGOs canassist in creating conditions conducive to participation (Baeke et al., 1999; Moffet andBregha, 1999). A tradition of joint policymaking between governments and industrysectors is a condition for the success of a voluntary approach (Seyad et al., 1998).

Content

The political policy style of the national gov-ernment also has a role to play (Baeke et al.,1999). The content and context of any volun-tary approach is just as important as the cul-tural, political and institutional context in


32


which such a policy tool is used (Ingram, 1998,1999). The content focuses on the design andcontext with regard to the policy/institutionalsetting. Other factors to consider include thehistorical context, the sector culture, structureand organization. The former is concernedwith how the voluntary approach evolved as apolicy instrument in a national context. Thelatter focuses on a number of issues includingthe homogeneity of the sectors (Nilsson, 1998),ownership structures, market barriers, inter-national trade, bargaining power, the distanceto the consumer and the number of playersinvolved in the negotiation process.

IMPLEMENTATION

There is commonality between the EEA (1997)and OCA (1998) recommendations regardingbasic characteristics for the implementation ofvoluntary approaches. The recommendationsinclude an explicit commitment from industryleaders, clear statement of objectives, expecta-tions, obligations and ground rules; open,transparent development and implementation;regular flow of information; an effective trans-parent dispute-resolution system; meaningfulinducement to participate and negative reper-cussions for failure to join or comply (OCA,1998, pp. 7–9) (Table 2).

Convery and Lévêque (2001, pp. 92–94)suggest that policy makers should consider anumber of issues when dealing with the imple-mentation of environmental voluntary agree-ments. These include target setting, the type ofagreement (bilateral versus collective or sectoral agreements), achieving incentive compatibility, monitoring and transparency, competitiveness and efficiency, assessing likelyenvironmental effectiveness and combiningvoluntary approaches with other instruments.The EEA (1997, p. 87) concludes that environ-mental agreements (EAs) should take intoaccount key requirements for the improvementof their effectiveness. Central to these improve-ments is the setting of clear targets and the


33

establishment of reliable and verifiable moni-toring and reporting mechanisms. Suggeststhat implementation of voluntary approachesis more likely to be effective where compliancecosts are limited and relatively similar for allparticipants.

To ensure environmental voluntaryapproaches actually deliver, Carraro andLévêque (1999, pp. 5–6) argue that a firm’sopportunistic behaviour can be limited byusing corrective mechanisms. This includesaccess to third parties in the discussion dealingwith the setting of environmental targets; amonitoring and reporting system ensured byan independent party; a credible mechanism ofsanction for non-compliance and a system tolimit free riding in collective agreements.Moreover, the EU Commission outlined guide-lines for the implementation of environmentalagreements in member states. These guidelinesfocus on the main reasons for the choice of theinstrument, content of the agreement such asparties, targets and monitoring, the compli-ance of the EA with EU treaties i.e. free tradeand competition and publication. Mazurek(1998), drawing on the US experience of vol-untary approaches, observes that implementa-tion is hampered by the lack of clearly definedadministrative, monitoring and participatoryprocedures. In addition, the persistence of

Table 2. Implementation context of environmental agreements

Implementation of EAs is more effective when

• clear targets are set prior to the agreement;• the agreement specifies the baseline against which

improvements will be measured;• the agreement specifies reliable and clear monitoring

and reporting mechanisms;• technical solutions are available in order to reach the

agreed target;• the costs of complying with the EA are limited and

are relatively similar for all members of the targetgroup;

• third parties are involved in the design andapplication of EAs.

Source: adapted from EEA (1997), p. 87.


pollution control laws impedes implementa-tion of environmental voluntary approaches,particularly of industry-led efforts and publicprojects that employ negotiations (Davis andBlomstrom, 1996; Kappa, 1997; Boyd et al.,1998).

Moreover, developing environmental volun-tary approaches may require governments todevelop new institutional arrangements andacquire new skills beyond those associatedwith its traditional roles of policy develop-ment, regulatory implementation and enforce-ment. In doing this, governments will beconfronted with difficult questions regardingthe appropriate relationships between variousstakeholders, the enforcement mechanismsand the impact on future policy making. Inaddition, policy makers must assess thecontext in which the voluntary approach isbeing implemented as well as its applicabilityto a particular context (Moffet and Bregha,1999, p. 25). Overall, Moffet and Bregha (1999,p. 20) argue that there are a number of criticalsuccess factors that environmental voluntaryapproaches must contain in order to succeed.These factors include ensuring efficient andeffective results, generating public trust andsupport for voluntary approaches through lawand policy. ten Brink and Morère (1998, 2000)expand on these factors and state that theyshould include the following: stakeholder par-ticipation; process and flexibility; monitoring,visibility, transparency and accountability;targets, monitoring and verification; need forincentives, threats and sanction; disseminationand communication; and the use of comple-mentarity of instruments.

AN ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTARY APPROACHES

From the developing literature on environ-mental voluntary agreements and a study of an Irish environmental voluntary packaging


34

agreement from 1997 to 2001 (Cunningham et al., 1998; Cunningham, 2001, 2002) an orga-nizing framework was developed, which cap-tures the key features and issues that areessential for the successful implementation ofa voluntary approach in an environmental reg-ulation context. The key features of this orga-nizing framework include BPS (baseline,policy, power and social) context analysis;rationale for choosing a voluntary approach;negotiations process; DIM (definitions, infor-mation and monitoring) content; implementa-tion; and post-implementation, enforcementand monitoring (see Table 3).

BPS CONTEXT ANALYSIS

BPS context analysis covers key areas whenexamining the context of an environmentalvoluntary approach and these include baselineand infrastructure factors, policy analysis,power and trust analysis and social and cultural analysis (see Table 4) (Johnson andScholes, 2002, pp. 208–215). The context assess-ment allows policy makers and other parties toassess the context into which an environmen-tal voluntary agreement might be introducedand operationalized. Such issues as the exist-ing environmental regulatory environment,the culture of the country and the level of trustamong potential parties to the agreement needto be assessed. This context analysis may becomplimented by carrying out a PEST (politi-cal, economic, social and technical) analysis(Johnson and Scholes, 2002, pp. 99–103) andstakeholder analysis (Johnson and Scholes,

Table 3. An organizing framework for the implementa-tion of environmental voluntary approaches

• BPS context analysis• Rationale of choosing a voluntary approach• Negotiation process• DIM content• Implementation• Post-implementation, enforcement and monitoring


context analysis and of the relative advantagescompared with other regulatory regimes. Economic measures in addition to environ-mental effectiveness, cost and economic effec-tiveness, viability, competition and innovation(dynamic and soft effects) need to form part ofthe rationale for choosing voluntaryapproaches at this stage. The BPS contextanalysis provides a solid assessment frame-work. In addition, BPS context analysis pro-vides a holistic assessment of the context, an assessment of the willingness of otherparties to become involved in the formulation, implementation and enforcement of an environmental voluntary agreement. Conse-quently, some of the questions and issuesraised in the BPS context analysis should at this stage help clarify the willingness of partiesto co-operate and work in a partnershipapproach. More importantly, the analysis willclarify the real strengths of all parties thatcould potentially be involved in the formula-tion of a voluntary approach. If the decision istaken to pursue a voluntary approach a furtherdecision has to be taken regarding how thetarget of goal setting is to be achieved (i.e. anegotiated target, an overall programme goalor a self-selected performance goal) and theperformance criteria for the various stake-holders (i.e. industry, government, NGOs andconsumers).

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS

Once the rationale for pursuing a voluntaryapproach has been established, the negotia-tions process means decisions have to be takenin relation to the representation of the variousparties to the agreement, the format of thenegotiations and the timeframe within whichthe negotiations must be concluded. Agreeingto these issues can be dependent on the levelof trust and co-operation that already existsbetween the parties involved. Also, the inclu-sion of the government officials in this processis dependent on stated government policy in


35

2002, pp. 208–215) in addition to BPS contextanalysis.

RATIONALE FOR CHOOSING ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTARY APPROACHES

The process of choosing an environmental voluntary approach should be based on BPS

Table 4. BPS context analysis: this is generic for VAs

Baseline and infrastructure factors• Environment cost assessment for firms• Cost analysis for all stakeholders• Environmental baseline statistics• National waste management infrastructure analysis• Allocation and expenditure by government on

environmental issues• Economic analysis

Policy analysis• Environmental legislative framework – national and

international• Current compliance levels with existing regulations• National prosecution for non-compliance of

environmental regulations• Stated government and EU environmental policy• Competencies of state institutions regarding different

policy instruments

Power and trust assessment• Actual involvement of NGOs in formulation of

government policy• NGO involvement in national environment debates• Trust level among stakeholders• Strength of representative bodies• Leadership style of representative bodies

Social and cultural assessment• Awareness of the public regarding environmental

issues• Levels of education and awareness of environmental

issues• Level of consumer pressure in relation to

environmentally friendly products• An assessment of compliance levels among industry

and individual citizens



36

this area. Their inclusion in the negotiationsmay give rise to issues such as bias and regu-latory capture. The level of commitment to theprocess by the government and whether futuregovernments will honour the agreement needto be addressed, as well as the targets set. Con-sequently, four main issues emerge at the nego-tiations stage, which are the terms of reference,selection and appointments, dispute resolutionand the negotiations’ legal status (see Table 5).

CONTENT

The substance of the negotiation process willbe the content, which is critically important forthe successful implementation of a voluntaryapproach. The DIM content of an environmen-tal voluntary approach should focus on threemain areas: definitions and performancetargets, information requirements and publicdissemination, and monitoring, enforcementand funding (See Table 6).

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTARY APPROACH

The implementation of an environmental vol-untary approach is vital to the success of theoverall agreement. Through the negotiationsperiod several of the issues below should be clarified and an implementation scheduleagreed. These key issues include the following.

• Enactment of legislation.• Compatibility and consistency with national

environmental legislation and EU directives.• Information campaign informing govern-

ment agencies, industry and other stake-holders of their responsibilities.

• Setting up of an approved body, e.g. Repakin an Irish context.

Table 5. The negotiation process

Terms of reference• Specific and properly defined

Selection and appointmentsSelection and appointment of– chairperson– parties to the negotiations process – government,

industry, SMEs, consumers, NGOs and other– special interest groups etc– arbitrator

Dispute resolution• Development of a dispute handing system• Arrangements for late entry of new participants• Arrangement for early leavers of existing participants

Legal and information status• Open oral hearing• Freedom of Information Act• Legal nature of the agreement• Dissolution of agreement

Table 6. DIM content

Definitions and performance targets• Environmental objective and target• Definition of key terms• Specific area(s)• Quantitative targets• Qualitative targets• Baseline measurement criteria• Explicit remit of performance measurements for all

parties• Use of positive incentives• Arrangements for review, revision and/or

termination

Information requirements and public dissemination• Information requirements of participants• Frequency and format of information requirements• Role of company or external independent body in the

collation, evaluation and verification of information• Type of public access to the information• Format of presentation of information to the public• Provisions for industry confidentiality

Monitoring, enforcement and funding• Obligations of all participants• Sanctions, liabilities and penalties• Enforcement body• Funding mechanisms – membership, per unit• Funding for enforcement and monitoring• Arrangement for disbursement of funding


• Appointment of national or industry-ledsteering committee board of directors andCEO.

• Setting up of organizational structure andrecruitment of additional staff.

• Recruitment of industry members into theapproved body.

• Use of financial resources to get theapproved body up and running, in additionto providing some services to industrymembers.

• Setting up of monitoring mechanisms.

One of the important elements of the im-plementation phase is the enactment of the legislation into national law and ensuring itscompatibility with national environmentalpolicy and EU directives. Also, governmentshave to ensure that the legislation supportinga voluntary agreement is constitutional andlegal. In some cases, the implementation of avoluntary approach may mean the setting upof an approved body – an organization thatallows its members some exemptions underthe legislation. The approved body maydevelop organizational structures that encour-age information sharing among members. Forexample, under the Irish Waste Management(Packaging) Act 1997, the approved body isRepak (www.repak.ie), and its members areexempted from rigorous elements of the legis-lation. Furthermore, the implementation phasemay lead to the appointment of national orindustry-led steering committees. The trackrecord and experience of people appointed tolead or actively participate in these committeescan have a bearing on the successful imple-mentation of voluntary approaches. In essence,they become the champions of the voluntaryapproach and have the ability to induce industry into participation.

DEVELOPMENT, ENFORCEMENTAND MONITORING

This stage involves three main activitiesincluding monitoring and enforcement of the

agreement, the distribution of information and results to stakeholders and the ongoingdevelopment of the approved body.

Monitoring and enforcement should beactively managed once the agreement is upand running and has a degree of stability andsustainability. The monitoring is crucial to theproper functioning of an agreement andshould take place through an official recom-mendation on the procedural rules of the vol-untary approach or be regulated by law orthrough the provisions of the approach itself(ten Brink and Morère, 2002). Furthermore,there should be sufficient resources and appro-priate mechanisms such as fines, penalties andother legal remedies available to the bodyresponsible for the enforcement of the volun-tary approach. In addition, at a broader level acompetence must exist at institutional level todeal with existing and new environment policyinstruments. Also, any successful prosecutions(fines and penalties) should be reported widelyto industry and to other stakeholders.

The second element of this stage is that infor-mation regarding the scheme and the progressof the scheme should be made available onrequest to all members of the public and industry. Furthermore, the operations of theapproved body should be disclosed. This hasto be done in a proactive and consistentmanner once the agreement is up and in forceto ensure transparency. The transparency ofthe voluntary approach is important to the VAcreditability. However, transparency in relationto the voluntary agreement has to be balancedagainst commercial sensitives of participa-ting firms. Therefore, the information and statistics required from companies who areparticipating in a VA have to be obtained insuch a way that participating firms contributeaccurate statistics and that the information isreported in a format that would meet thepublic interest. For example, this may meanthat the VA produces annual reports, with statistical information verified by an indepen-dent third party, thereby enhancing the creditability of the VA.


37


The last element of this stage should be theongoing development of the approved bodyand scheme, through development of memberservices, ongoing marketing of its activitiesand achievements to outside stakeholders andensuring the organization runs as efficiently aspossible. In addition, there should be proce-dural mechanisms built into the agreement toallow for adjustment to certain aspectsdepending on its actual performance. Forexample, changes may be made regarding thetype of information required to be submittedby companies or changes in the levels of finesand prison sentences. The review mechanismshould also include the voluntary agreementitself. The review should be a formal approachconsisting of both oral and written submis-sions from all stakeholders. This review systemcould be an independent panel set up throughthe mechanisms of the agreement itself orthrough the existing parliamentary system,preferably via a parliamentary committee.Both options would allow presentations from all stakeholders and with the latteradding credibility and weight to the wholeprocess.

CONCLUSIONS

The Organizing Framework for the Imple-mentation of Environmental Voluntary App-roaches captures the essential aspects of creat-ing and implementing any form of voluntaryapproach. The organizing framework shouldbe of use to policy markers, regulators, partic-ipants and other stakeholders. Signs of a weakVA can include significant free-rider problems,funding deficits in order to enforce the rulesand regulation of the VA and lack of publicawareness regarding the progress and devel-opment of the VA. However, the failure toexamine these issues can considerably weakenthe VA and brings into question the credibilityof VAs. Ultimately it may mean calling intoquestion the viability of VAs as method ofenvironmental regulation.

REFERENCES

Baeke S, De Clercq M, Matthijs M. 1999. The Nature of Voluntary Approaches: Empirical Evidence and Patterns,CAVA Working Paper 99/08/3.

Baggott R. 1986. By voluntary agreement: politics ofinstrument selection. Public Administration 64(Spring):51–67.

Bizer K. 1999. Voluntary agreements: cost effective or asmokescreen for failure. Environmental Economics andPolicy Studies 2(2): 147–165.

Bizer K, Julich R. 1999. Voluntary agreements – trick ortreat. European Environment 9(2): 59–66.

Boyd G, Krupnick A, Mazurek J. 1998. Intel’s XL Permit: a Framework for Evaluation, Discussion Paper 98–11.Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.

Carraro C, Leveque F. 1999. Voluntary Approaches in Envi-ronmental Policy. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Clinch JP. 2000. Environmental policy reform in the EU.In Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness in Europe, Perlkmans J, Galli G (eds). Elgar: Cheltenham; 203–237.

Convery F, Leveque F. 2001. Applying voluntaryapproaches – some insights from research. InternationalPolicy Workshop on the Use of Voluntary Approaches, Brussels.

Croci E, Pesaro G. 1998. Voluntary agreements in theenvironmental sector – the Italian experience. CAVAWorkshop on Voluntary Agreements, Ghent.

Cunningham JA. 2001. Packaging voluntary agreements:a case study of Repak, an industry led initiative. Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, Leeds,57–66.

Cunningham JA. 2002. Environmental VoluntaryApproaches: Some Insights from the Irish Packaging Voluntary Agreement. British Academy of Management:London.

Cunningham JA, Convery FJ, Joyce J. 1998. Voluntaryagreements in Ireland – preliminary insights for the theory of collective goods, free riding and innovation. CAVA Workshop on Voluntary Approaches,Ghent.

Davis K, Blomstrom R. 1966. Business and Its Environment.McGraw-Hill: New York.

EEA. 1997. Environmental Agreements – EnvironmentalEffectiveness, Environmental Issues Series No. 3, Vols 1, 2. Copenhagen.

Geber B, Biekart J, Bizer K, Julich R, Ingram V, MisonneD, Khalatachi R. 1998. New Instruments for Sustainabil-ity – the New Contribution of VAs to Environmental Policy.Cameron and May: London.

Gibson R. 1999. Voluntary Initiatives: the New Politics ofCorporate Greening. Broadview: Toronto.

Higley C, Convery F, Lévêque F. 2001. Voluntaryapproaches: an introduction. International Policy


38


Nilsson B. 1998. Improving Environmental Performancethrough Voluntary Agreements, Lunds University,working paper.

OCA. 1998. Voluntary Codes – a Guide for Their Developmentand Use. Government of Canada: Ottawa.

OECD. 1999. Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy in OECD Countries: an Assessment, Working Partyon Economic and Environmental Policy Integration,Environmental Policy Committee ENV/EPOC/GEEI[98]30/rev.1. OECD: Paris.

OECD. 2003. Voluntary Approaches for EnvironmentalPolicy: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in Policy Mixes.OECD Press: Paris.

Segerson K, Miceli T. 1998. Voluntary environmentalagreements: good or bad news for environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Economic and Management 36(2): 109–130.

Seyad A, Baeke S, De Clercq M. 1998. Success determin-ing factors for negotiated agreements. In Co-OperativeEnvironmental Governance: Public Private Agreements as aPolicy Strategy, Glasbergen P (ed.). Kluwer: Dordrecht;111–132.

Storey M. 1996. Voluntary Agreements with Industry.OECD: Paris; 24.

Storey M, Boyd G, Dowd J. 1999. Voluntary agreementswith industry. In Voluntary Approaches in EnvironmentalPolicy, Carraro C, Lévêque F (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht;187–207.

ten Brink P (ed.). 2002. Voluntary Environmental Agree-ments: Process and Practice, and Future Trends. Greenleaf:Sheffield.

ten Brink P, Morère M. 1998. Voluntary initiatives toaddress climate control. CAVA Workshop on VoluntaryApproaches, Ghent.

ten Brink PT, Morère M. 2000. Voluntary initiatives toaddress climate change in the EU. European Environ-ment 10(4): 178–192.

ten Brink P, Morère M. 2002. Monitoring mechanisms for efficient environmental agreements. In VoluntaryEnvironmental Agreements: Process and Practice, andFuture Trends, ten Brink P (ed.). Greenleaf: Sheffield;Chapter 28.


39

Workshop on the Use of Voluntary Approaches, Brussels.

Ingram V. 1998. An environment for consensus? CAVAWorkshop on Voluntary Approaches, Gent.

Ingram V. 1999. From sparring partners to bedfellows:joint approaches to environmental policy-making.European Environment 9 (2): 41–48.

Jenkins T. 1995. A Superficial Attraction – the VoluntaryApproach and Sustainable Development. Friends of theEarth: London.

Johnson G, Scholes K. 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy,6th edn. Prentice-Hall: Essex.

Kappa PD. 1997. The politics, practice and performanceof chemical self regulation. Political Science. Universityof California: Los Angeles.

Lévêque F. 1998. Voluntary Approaches – for the Improve-ment of Environmental Performance. University CollegeDublin: Dublin; 13.

Lynes J, Gibson R. 1996. The alternatives pocket guide tovoluntary initatives for environmental improvements.In Voluntary Initatives and the New Politics of CorporateGreening, Gibson RB (ed.). Broadview Press: Toronto;258–263.

Mazurek J. 1998. The Use of Voluntary Agreements in theUnited States: an Initial Survey. OECD EnvironmentDirectorate: Paris.

Moffet J, Bregha F. 1999. Correct non-regulatory environ-mental measures. In Voluntary Initiatives: the New Politics of Corporate Greening, Gibson R (ed.). Broadview: Toronto.

Muldoon P, Nadarajah R. 1999. A sober second look. InVoluntary Initiatives: the New Politics of Corporate Greening, Gibson R (ed.). Broadview: Toronto; 51–66.

Neale A. 1997. Organising environmental self-regulation:liberal governmentality and the pursuit of ecologicalmodernisation in Europe. Environmental Politics 6(4):1–24.

Neumayer E. 2000. German packaging waste man-agement: a successful voluntary agreement with lesssuccessful environmental effects. European Environment10(3): 152–163.

Documents

An organizing framework for the implementation of environmental voluntary approaches