Managers' profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Managers’ Profile in EnvironmentalStrategy: A Review of the Literature

Esteban Fernández, Beatriz Junquera* and Mónica OrdizUniversidad de Oviedo, Spain

ABSTRACTEnvironmental legislation and stakeholders are putting pressure on organizations to change. The role of management is a key factor. The aim of the present work is todetermine the key characteristics required of a manager with environmental respon-sibilities and determine which are the critical aptitudes and attitudes for environ-mental success through a deep review of the literature. We include three kinds ofcharacteristic: (a) managerial attitude and social influence, (b) individual character-istics (demographic characteristics, capability to perceive strategic opportunities,leadership, individual entrepreneurial ability and international awareness) and (c)organizational characteristics (organizational culture, capability to influence strategy,long-term orientation, organizational structure and demographic characteristics).With this purpose, we have collected and integrated the most relevant contributionsof the literature. We have also suggested future research streams: for example, analysis of the interdependences among the diverse dimensions of a manager withenvironmental responsibilities, analysis of the characteristics typical of external stakeholders that condition the managerial behaviour and other aspects of environ-mental strategy on which management attitude has an influence. Copyright © 2006John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 27 April 2004; revised 14 October 2005; accepted 14 November 2005

Keywords: environmental management; environmental performance; environmental managers; environmental legislation

Introduction

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND STAKEHOLDERS ARE PUTTING PRESSURE ON ORGANIZATIONS

to change. The role of management is a key factor. Recent empirical studies show the importancefor firms of the most advanced environmental strategies. Nevertheless, environmental strategyimplementation demands a substantial organizational change in the management’s awareness.

In consequence, managers must understand that environmental protection drives companies to achievea competitive advantage (Azzone et al., 1997). However, companies experience difficulties in findingpeople who are capable of facing such responsibilities, as well as of orientating their actions.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementCorp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 13, 261–274 (2006)Published online 6 June 2006 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.109

* Correspondence to: Beatriz Junquera, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Avenida del Cristo, s/n 33071 Oviedo (Asturias), Spain.E-mail: [email protected]

262 E. Fernández et al.

From the point of view of academic literature, there is already a relatively developed line of researchon environmental sciences. Nevertheless, despite their relevance, since organizational topics are less tan-gible and measurable, they have not been explored thoroughly by researchers.

This has caused research on environmental management from an environmental point of view to bein an embryonic state. Nevertheless, such a circumstance does not make it less important (Peattie andRingler, 1994). In any case, there exist studies where managers relate their companies’ experiences.Besides, gradually, there have appeared increasingly rigorous studies in this field, especially from anempirical perspective. In consequence, a question has not been answered yet: which are the manage-ment characteristics that drive a firm to environmental success? This is so because the literature doesnot have a generally accepted model of an environmental leader, perhaps partly due to the disparity ofapproaches.

In accordance with these considerations, this work aims (a) to collect and to analyze the contributionsof the literature about managers’ characteristics in relation to environmental issues and (b) to draw con-clusions on their effects.

Defining a Successful Manager with Environmental Responsibilities

We realize a review of the literature based on the contributions that we consider to be more relevant.We have gathered two blocks of works. The first one follows into the analysis of the most suitable char-acteristics of the executives in charge of the environmental issues. Equally we have compiled works thatbring over the features that characterize, in general, the executives of success. Table 1 shows both blocksof works. We have resorted specially to the journals specializing in management of major prestige. Wehave also gathered another group of works that have supposed a relevant contribution, although theyhave been published in books or in another type of publications.

Some writers have shown how the attempts to incorporate the biophysical environment into organi-zation theory come basically from two areas of research (Banerjee, 2001; Sarkis, 2001). Some paperssupported their arguments on ecocentrism (Jacobs, 1994; Gladwin et al., 1995; Purser et al., 1995; Starikand Rands, 1995; Egri and Pinfield, 1996). However, Newton and Harte (1997) brand this type ofapproach as ‘evangelic rhetoric’, since they consider that such management attitudes do not mean inpractice real transformations of companies’ environmental strategies. Later, another course of researchbecomes the dominant paradigm that examines the strategic implications of the environmental issuesfor the organizations. This second trend is orientated towards the study of the competitive advantagethat can be derived from integrating the environmental questions into the business strategy. In thisgroup theoretical and empirical studies are included, such as those by Hart (1995), Porter and van derLinde (1995), Russo and Fouts (1997), Judge and Douglas (1998) or Sharma and Vredenburg (1998).In accordance with this approach, Andersson and Bateman (2000) obtain a profile characteristic of the successful environmental ‘champions’. These champions adapt the environmental issues to the language and approaches of the strategic management.

Other studies introduce additional characteristics in the analysis, such as demographic factors, thecharacteristics of personality and leadership (Egri and Herman, 2000). There are even studies that tosome extent try to integrate proposals from different fields of research (Hostager et al., 1998; Keogh andPolonsky, 1998; Bansal and Roth, 2000; Flannery and May, 2000; Sharma, 2000).

This variety of approaches has led to some terminological confusion, which has not been able to solvethe key problem: which characteristics of managers determine environmental success? At this point itis necessary to define what we mean by environmental success. The usual categorization that researchersuse is that developed by Ilinitch et al. (1998), which divides environmental performance measurements

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 13, 261–274 (2006)DOI: 10.1002/csr

Managers’ Profile in Environmental Strategy 263

into four interrelated but conceptually distinct categories: (a) internal systems, (b) external stakeholderssystems, (c) external impacts and (d) internal compliance. Internal system measurement refers to organizational processes designed to improve organizational performance, including programmes forenvironmental audits, establishing environmental missions, naming influential environment managers,offering environmental incentives for workforce and management and having a dedicated group forenvironmental activities. Although Wells et al. (1994) point out that effective management systems leadto environmental performance, they are not necessarily a guarantee of this (Wood, 1991), as companiesmay imitate the practices of leading companies without developing the corresponding commitment andthe administrative structure to implement them. In contrast, some companies who operate without envi-ronmental management systems may not need them because their environmental impact is relativelybenign. Relations with external stakeholders refer to the interaction between companies and variousexternal groups, including shareholders, the local community, government bodies, clients, suppliers andindustry. However, their effect on environmental performance depends on the reasons that lie behindeach action. External impacts are negative externalities brought about by business conduct (for example,toxic spills). Internal compliance refers to the extent to which companies reach the minimum standardsdemanded by the regulations. However, this measurement is sometimes questioned, as compliance indi-cators can sometimes be difficult to interpret.

Thus, the aim of this work is to collect the contributions we consider most relevant and place themwithin a global scheme. They can be gathered round three groups: (a) managerial attitude and socialinfluence, (b) individual characteristics and (c) organizational characteristics.


Environmental management Management

Academy of Management Journal 8 Academy of Management Journal 2Academy of Management Review 4 Academy of Management Review 5British Journal of Management 1 Administrative Science Quarterly 1European Management Journal 1 Human Resource Management 1Harvard Business Review 1 Industrial and Labor Relations Review 1IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2 Journal of Applied Psychology 2International Journal of Operations & Production 6 Journal of Management 3

ManagementInternational Journal of Production Economics 1 Journal of Management Studies 2International Journal of Production Research 2 Journal of Organizational Change Management 1International Journal of Technology Management 1 Leadership Quarterly 1Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1 Management Science 1Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1 Strategic Management Journal 4Journal of Management Studies 4 Others 6Journal of Operations Management 1Journal of Organizational Change Management 1Long Range Planning 1Production and Inventory Management Journal 1Strategic Management Journal 1Others 20

Total 58 Total 30

Table 1. A summary of the review of the literature


Managerial Attitude and Social Influence

In a company, environmental risk depends not only on its own activities, but also on the social conse-quences of them, caused by the world external to the company – location, ecological characteristics ofthe physical environment, demography, infrastructures, education level and attitude towards environ-mental risks, among others (Vastag et al., 1996). In numerous countries, the most obvious pressure isenvironmental regulation, starting from the fact that managers’ environmental attitudes are, in general,negative. Ashford (1993) and Dieleman and de Hoo (1993) suggest that they would therefore createnorms that would limit the objectives of the environmental management to compliance with the legis-lation, failing, in this way, to take advantage of the opportunities the most preventive environmentalapproaches offer to companies.

Together with regulation, responding to the other external stakeholders’ requirements is a very impor-tant issue for managers. However, they sometimes face a great amount of ambiguity in the knowledgeof problems, in the implications of these for the companies and in the forms of response (Jennings andZandbergen, 1995; Fineman and Clarke, 1996; Banerjee, 2001). Nevertheless, responding to the stake-holders’ requirements would be very interesting because it means a source of competitive advantage:the concept of sustainable development provides opportunities for the improvement of the products andproduction processes’ compatibility with social demands.

The management adopts a certain position faced with external pressures, depending on to what extentenvironmental initiatives are forced by the regulation and to what extent other stakeholders encouragethe management towards the ideal of sustainable development (Arnfalk and Thidell, 1992). The effects of the social influence were considered by Bansal and Roth (2000), Cordano and Frieze (2000),Flannery and May (2000) and Sharma (2000). Social influence is fostered largely by the sense of dutygenerated in the environment of the person with management responsibilities to continue to supportenvironmental actions, in the sense of what Keogh and Polonsky (1998) call ‘normative compromise’of the management in the environmental field.

This sense of duty brings about actions which, in turn, show their effects in the managers’ ‘entre-preneurial motivation’, which is that which produces non-economic advantages – clean environment,lower level of waste and sustainability – and economic advantages – profit, market share and growth.These are results that can be obtained at an organizational level. However, the effects of the sense ofduty are also shown individually, distinguishing, in this case, between extrinsic motivation1 – salary, pro-motion and status – and intrinsic motivation – pride, challenge and achievement (Hostager et al., 1998).

To quote Porter and van der Linde (1995), external environmental pressures can trigger innovationsthat lower the total cost of a product or improve its value. Such innovations allow companies to use arange of inputs more productively – from raw materials to energy to labor, thus offsetting the costs ofimproving environmental impact and ending the stalemate. Ultimately, this enhanced resource pro-ductivity makes companies more competitive, not less.

Individual Characteristics

Hostager et al. (1998) have analysed individual factors that may influence the environmental approachin companies. For example, they studied managers’ ‘entrepreneurial ability’ from an individual point ofview – knowledge, skills, creativity and experience – and, in addition, their ‘individual efficiency’ – beliefin what each one can do, depending on his or her aptitudes. Besides, the literature has addressed otherfactors, such as demographic characteristics. We will analyse in detail those factors the literature


1 Some companies already impose individual environmental objectives on their employees with direct effects on their compensation (for exampleAlcoa).


acknowledges as constituting managers’ individual action ability regarding the environment: specifically,demographic and personality characteristics, leadership capability, individual entrepreneurial ability andinternational awareness.

Demographic CharacteristicsThe demographic characteristics of the managers are recognized by several works as influential overdiverse business actions (Tihanyi et al., 2000). However, this type of analysis is still very limited asregards environmental issues. The study by Egri and Herman (2000), who judge some demographiccharacteristics of the managers with environmental responsibilities, such as age, sex and education,deserves special attention. They identify managers’ average profile as that of a mature man (average age45 years), married and with a high level of education.

Personality CharacteristicsThe literature has traditionally considered that managers’ personality influences their management styleand, as a consequence, their actions’ effects. We will distinguish between two types of issue: first, man-agers’ capacity for perceiving strategic opportunities, and second, issues relating to the importanceattached to and the capacity to promote collaboration among team members.

Capability for perceiving strategic opportunities. Schwartz (1994) shows that managers’ personality characteristics are associated with certain attitudes: specifically, openness to change (the extent to whicha person is motivated to carry out innovative actions according to the values of self-management andstimulation) versus conservatism (the extent to which a person is motivated to preserve his or her statusquo according to the values of conformity, security and tradition) and self-enhancement (the extent towhich a person is motivated by self-interest according to the values of achievement and power) versusself-transcendence (the motivation to promote others’ welfare and nature’s protection according to thevalues of benevolence and universalism).

In relation to openness to change versus conservatism, specifically individual ‘intrinsic environmen-tal motivation’ – a dimension of ‘environmental ambition’ by Arnfalk and Thidell (1992) – is also relatedto what extent the management intends to develop and expand their environmental management effort.

Thus, this type of motivation in managers usually reflects accurately the environmental optimism orpessimism of those responsible for this area with respect to the environmental protection/business competitiveness binomial (Hostager et al., 1998; Bansal and Roth, 2000; Cordano and Frieze, 2000;Flannery and May, 2000; Sharma, 2000). It is shown by the individual desirability or belief that extrin-sic and intrinsic economic rewards will be received as a consequence of their environmental behaviour(Hostager et al., 1998).

In relation to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, the personal commitment is the set of per-sonal beliefs of moral obligation or responsibility to adopt, or refuse to adopt, a certain pattern of behaviour (Flannery and May, 2000). Vining and Ebreo (1992) had already used a similar variable forenvironmental problems related to consumption. Thus, Fineman (1997) had argued that a substantialchange in the system of values and beliefs of the key organizational actors was necessary.

A manager in a strong position with respect to this dimension is characterized by his or her cooper-ative attitude. In the individual emotional involvement, the identification and his or her contribution tosupport environmental issues are included (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998). Besides, this attitude allowshim or her to identify global factors and their interrelations, defining the environmental opportunity ininternal and external terms.

As a result of the application of these values, environmental managers are involved with stakehold-ers, so that, with it, they can challenge the traditional competitive assumptions. On the other hand, the



organizations promote communal and egalitarian values of the ecocentric system of beliefs, so avoidinghierarchical relations.

Some empirical studies confirm that environmental leaders present more ecocentric behaviour thantraditional managers (Egri and Herman, 2000). According to managers’ characteristics in relation tothis dimension, Regier and Bronson (1992) even establish a classification of managers according to fourdifferent types of attitude, but taking as a basis the ecocentrism of their environmental attitude.

Even certain personal attitudes, such as hedonism, are considered associated simultaneously withopenness to change and self-transcendence. Following this model, Egri and Herman (2000) showempirically that a successful leader in the environmental field is characterized by higher levels of self-transcendence and is more open to change. These characteristics will facilitate the introduction of envi-ronmental innovations of all types and, therefore, will encourage the strategic decision-making in thisfield faster and with less hesitation (Sharma, 2000). This will redound to a favourable position, since itis easier for companies whose managers make strategic decisions quickly to achieve advantages derivedfrom initiating innovative approaches before many of the companies of their sector (Lieberman andMontgomery, 1988), also from an environmental point of view (Nehrt, 1993). This offers importantopportunities for improvement of environmental performance (Russo and Fouts, 1997).

Capability to promote collaboration among team members. The need of affiliation or the ability to establishpositive relationships with others seems to influence environmental performance. Thus, although Yukl(1989) had not introduced this variable in his model, Egri and Herman (2000) find that its influenceis statistically significant (although they doubt whether its importance is based on the environmentalissue, but rather on the features of the sample, made up of small-size hardly hierarchical companies).

However, the need for affiliation does not automatically entail an improvement in the environmen-tal performance. Moreover, a manager who channels adequately his or her need for affiliation must haveinterpersonal skills (Egri and Herman, 2000) or communication skills (Azzone et al., 1997). These skillsare those that generate positive relationships with the stakeholders, either external or internal to thecompany. Egri and Herman (2000) have demonstrated the importance of the need of affiliation for asuccessful environmental leader. Thus, the conjunction of the need for affiliation on the part of amanager and the staff’s capacity to generate relationships will affect his or her attitude of promotingcollaboration among workers. The literature has shown that this in its turn influences the environmentalperformance (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000). Along with this, and considering that environmental actionsusually show their effects in the long term (Russo and Fouts, 1997), the manager must act with deter-mination, which demands a good proportion of self-discipline. Thus, the consideration and capacity formotivating the collaboration among team members, along with the determination to overcome the obsta-cles any action of this type encounters, could produce improvements in the environmental performancethrough the use of all the organization members’ individual potentialities, and not only those of themanagement. This is a fundamental approach for the conversions of what, a priori, are restrictionsderived from the environmental demand into opportunities (Sharma, 2000).

Leadership capability. The most advanced environmental management practices demand top manage-ment support (Azzone and Noci, 1998), apart from a leadership capability. However, it has been dis-cussed in the literature in the last few years what type of leadership environmental managementdemands. Portugal and Yukl (1994) detected certain transformational leadership patterns of behaviour– the articulation of a view resorting to environmental questions, the change in perception about environmental issues and the assumption of symbolic actions to demonstrate the staff’s involvement inthe matter – as essential aspects of the managers of the best companies from an environmental perspective.



Transformational leadership reflects open system model roles of the innovators (creative problemsolving, change and adaptation) and brokers (they exercise power and influence and acquire resources).Moreover, the human relation model roles of mediator (conflict management and participatory decision-making) and mentor (human resource development) are also taken into account. More specifically, environmental leaders are, in fact, transformational leaders (Gladwin, 1993). Egri and Herman (2000)demonstrate empirically that environmental leaders show more markedly transformational patterns ofbehaviour than traditional leaders (values of collaboration, granting of responsibility to subordinates,two-way communication, orientation towards change, charisma, creation of trust and individualized con-sideration). In short, multiple communication and motivation to the employees constitute the most out-standing aspects of transformational leadership. All of them have also been considered key factors forthe development of environmental issues.

In the first place, the setting up of internal channels for the communication of the strategic view toworkers has been considered a fundamental success factor in the staff’s involvement (Argenti, 1998),especially in environmental activity (Gupta and Sharma, 1996; Handfield et al., 2001). For this reason,managers must focus on updating the employees on the achievements and the new demands, whichallows, among other issues, common goals and views to be shared and integrated into a unique objec-tive (Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000).

For their part, Shrivastava (1995) and Getzner (1999) point out that the employees’ motivation is oneof the main incentives companies have to introduce advanced environmental approaches. As occurs withquality management (Juran, 1988), workers’ motivation, as well as the carrying out of their tasks in theenvironmental field, demands design on the part of the managers of involvement mechanisms (Hart,1995; Ramus, 1997; Chase et al., 1998; Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000), since the development of tacit skillsdepends on it (Lawler, 1986; Cole, 1991). In environmental management the staff’s direct involvementallows support of problem prevention and identification of opportunities and processes for improve-ment (Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993).

However, Egri and Herman (2000), following Quinn’s (1988) model, show that, apart from thesetransformational leader’s features, the manager of an environmentally responsible company mustpossess some characteristics of the transactional leader in the handling of environmental issues. Trans-actional leaders are characterized by directing the results of the subordinates’ tasks towards the achieve-ment of organizational objectives. This is reflected in the internal process model roles of coordinator(task analysis and coordination and financial control) and monitor (information management and crit-ical thinking) and the rational objective model roles of producer (productivity and efficiency) and direc-tor (planning and goal setting). Thus, a transactional leader influences especially the models of financialcontrol and the objectives of production and efficiency. In consequence, this approach supports the argument that environmental leaders are master managers (situation of balance between the two typesof leadership – transformational and transactional, sometimes in conflict) rather than exclusively transformational. Besides, they are also influenced to a large extent by transactional practices (instru-mentality, contingent reward and one-way communication). From this perspective, apart from the char-acteristic features of the transformational leadership, their conjunction with the transactional leadershipwould be the factor that would allow converting the environmental restrictions into opportunities forthe company. As a result, ‘master’ leadership would be the factor that would allow the company toimprove its performance.

Individual entrepreneurial ability. A manager’s capacity to achieve a reasonable level of success in the implementation of environmental plans, derives, among other issues, from the importance of his or her ‘individual entrepreneurial ability’ – knowledge, skills and experience (Hostager et al.,1998).



For some authors, managers’ entrepreneurial ability for the environmental field depends on theirknowledge, generally called technical skills. Technical skills are those related to the company’s productsand processes (Azzone et al., 1997; Egri and Herman, 2000), which have been empirically proved to becharacteristic of the environmentally leading companies’ managers (Egri and Herman, 2000). Thus, theimprovement in technical skills is what helps individuals to achieve objectives. They are skills such asthose that allow the systematic solving of problems and an environmentally aware approach. Withoutthem, the efforts of the teams and the delegation of functions (fundamental elements if a good resultof the adoption of preventive environmental approaches is to be achieved) become less effective(Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000).

The role of previous experience is controversial. Thus, Hambrick and Mason (1984) suggest that man-agers’ experience in other companies has a significant effect on the types of actions carried out by themanagement, by means of the development of their conceptual or management skills. On the otherhand, Reed and Reed (1989) consider that a manager’s previous experience does not constitute a deter-mining factor in the selection of a strategy. However, Reed and Reed (1989) recognize that the fitbetween previous experience and environmental action generates a greater effectiveness, which is shownby a better performance. In the environmental field itself managers’ individual entrepreneurial abilityhas also been defined as the result of management’s experience in management, that is, of their con-ceptual skills (Egri and Herman, 2000) or management skills (Azzone et al., 1997). They ensure thecontrol of the different activities and processes to improve the environmental performance. Egri andHerman (2000) found them to be statistically representative of environmentally leading companies’managers. In this respect, we must consider especially the experiences in other companies that, withthe openness of horizons they should offer managers, could have a positive effect on the environmen-tal performance. So, they allow them to recognize with complete safety the opportunities environmen-tal protection offers to companies.

International awareness. Firms that operate in international markets are more likely to adopt more inno-vative policies. Specifically, managers with an international awareness may affect positively companies’environmental performance, since, as the literature has revealed, companies with activities in foreignmarkets or that are planning to widen them develop more advanced environmental approaches and,consequently, obtain better performance (Cascio et al., 1996; Clements, 1996).

Organizational Characteristics

Organizational aspects also revealed the manager’s perception about the easiness or difficulty of obtain-ing a right performance when starting an environmental plan (for example, by the need for the others’cooperation to arrive at a given objective and by the availability of resources and authority to support theenvironmental plan) (Dieleman and de Hoo, 1993).

Among the factors addressed by the economic literature, the organizational culture, the capability toinfluence the strategy, the long-term orientation, the organizational structure and the formation of envi-ronmental teams, as well as demographic characteristics that define the company, stand out (Russo andFouts, 1997; Egri and Herman, 2000; Sharma, 2000). We will briefly analyse each one of them.

Organizational CultureThe organizational culture or legitimation of the problem is an integral part of the corporate identity(Russo and Fouts, 1997; Egri and Herman, 2000; Sharma, 2000). It has been demonstrated that man-agers’ perception concerning their company’s identity has an influence on their interpretations of strate-gic questions, since they see them as threats or opportunities (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Gioia andThomas, 1996).



Environmental issues may be legitimized as an integral part of the corporate identity on the groundsof an internal economic approach or a wider corporate social responsibility approach (Wood, 1991;Greening and Gray, 1994; Sharma et al., 1999). In the first case, the management concern about envi-ronmental problems is restricted due to a corporate identity, which prioritizes the maximization of short-term financial performance objectives. In the other case, economic considerations may be balancedthrough the need for higher social responsibility and corporate ethical behaviour. According to this argu-ment, when the environmental consciousness becomes an integral component of the corporate identity,environmental problems are more difficult to deny (Weick, 1988). Only this type of manager can createpositive emotional associations in environmental issues, also in the management interpretations, andstimulate a behaviour towards searching for opportunities rather than threat-aversion (Sharma, 2000),which would encourage the adoption of innovative environmental approaches and, as a result for thecompany, first-mover advantages (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988; Nehrt, 1993).

Capability to Influence the StrategyThe most advanced environmental approaches demand a higher level of integration into the businessstrategy (Cordano and Frieze, 2000): issues relative to the development of markets and ‘green’ prod-ucts, cleaner technologies and integration of the ecological business portfolio – integration of environ-mental issues at the level of corporate strategy – and those relating to the finding of additionalorganizational resources to achieve the competitive strategy and integrate the different business func-tions (such as the cost advantages derived from the environmental improvements and the use of recy-cled material), which could be a viable environmental business strategy – integration of theenvironmental issues at the level of business strategy (Banerjee, 2001). At these levels of integration,managers have the capacity to influence the company’s general decisions that affect the performance ofits environmental approach (Sanderlands, 1994). When environmental approaches are integrated onlyat a functional level, companies are not capable of obtaining competitive advantages from them, sincethey allow exclusively operative actions, which at most comply with the legislation in force (Banerjee,2001). Nevertheless, as the level of integration of environmental issues into the business strategyincreases, and managers have decision capacity on this, companies’ capacity to take advantage of oppor-tunities becomes greater. In this respect, some studies have shown that an indispensable previousrequirement to achieve certain stages of environmental development is the previous integration of theseissues into the different levels of business strategy (Newman and Hanna, 1996; Banerjee, 2001). There-fore, it is likely that only the managers who see themselves as capable of influencing the business strat-egy, deciding about it and about environmental protection simultaneously, dare to advance towardsapproaches that produce better environmental performance.

The availability of critical resources is a factor that influences the capability of making strategic deci-sions. In order to direct the risk and uncertainty inherent to the search for and adoption of innovativeenvironmental approaches (Russo and Fouts, 1997), managers need to have critical resources at their dis-posal, since critical resources are the ones that allow an organization to adapt to important changes in theexternal environment with minimal trauma. Critical resources also allow experimentation with new positions in relation to the natural environment, or by means of the introduction of new products orthrough innovations in the management style (Bourgeois, 1981). In fact, a high level of critical resources’availability helps managers to increase the perception of their own capacity to increase the control overthe associated threats and to seek and adopt innovative environmental approaches (Sharfman et al., 1988).

Long-Term OrientationThe management search for environmental solutions and new technologies are usually associated with threats like the low likelihood of programming tasks and the high uncertainty of performance



(Eisenhardt, 1985; Rajagopalan and Finkelstein, 1992; Rajagopalan, 1996; Russo and Fouts, 1997). It ismore likely that innovative environmental approaches could produce positive economic return only inthe long term, and bring with them a failure risk for managers (Galbraith and Merrill, 1991; Rajagopalan,1996). Critical resources force managers to channel them to achieve the desired objectives of environ-mental conservation by means of the long-term thought forecast and a search for opportunities pattern of behaviour (Rajagopalan, 1996).

Organizational StructureThe literature has emphasized the dominant role of managers in the company considering, as a dis-tinctive element, their capacity to modify obsolete structures and prepare the company for change(Purcell and Ahlstrand, 1994). In this respect, it has been empirically demonstrated that the organiza-tions more inclined to an adequate environmental behaviour have flatter, decentralized and more par-ticipatory decision-making organizational structures (Russo and Fouts, 1997). Other contextual aspectsalso support the creative behaviour of the employees in environmental issues: for example, a democra-tic management style. This was shown by Ramus and Steger (2000), by means of a logistic regression,following the works of Kimberly and Evanisko (1981). The same happens with the empowerment thatpushes creativity promoters (Cramer and Roes, 1993; Hanna et al., 2000; Kitazawa and Sarkis, 2000).

Environmental critical resources are sometimes run from a specific unit. The creation of a manage-ment post/department with environmental responsibilities (either shared or not shared with others) isan idea increasingly implemented by companies (King, 1995).

Companies should implement the appropriate mechanisms, so that all the personnel can have sometype of environmental responsibility (King, 1995). However, an assessment of the different approachesallows us to conclude that the literature has for the most part shown preference for the assumption thatthe company that dedicates a specific manager/department to these issues grants more importance tothe environment, especially if it is part of or depends on the senior management. There exists empiri-cal evidence of these issues (Sharma, 2000).

Formation of Environmental TeamsThe granting of responsibilities to workers, characteristic of companies with more advanced environ-mental approaches, is based on a team of workers since only the group, as a whole, can have specificknowledge about the causes of waste and the possible solutions to reduce it (Gupta and Sharma, 1996).In this respect, we will mention two cases that reveal the team role. On the one hand, the Chrysler teamin the Jeep plant in Toledo (United States) was formed to respond to the state legislation that bannedthe disposal of certain biodegradable and recyclable materials. In this way, establishing collection pointsand a network of recyclers for such materials, along with returnable packaging systems with suppliers,the team saved the company millions of dollars annually. AT&T had been mentioned previously as anexample of the worst polluters. However, AT&T eliminated completely the primary sources of toxic emis-sions with operative changes that improved the unit cost and the installations’ operative efficiency (OhioManufacturer’s Association Case Studies in Team Excellence, 1991). With these examples, we have shownthe team effects on the environmental performance (Gupta and Sharma, 1996).

Demographic CharacteristicsThere are rigidity problems associated with companies’ traditional method of operation. The likelihoodof introducing new forms of organizing the work is higher, for example, in young companies than inestablished companies in their sector (Ichniowsky and Shaw, 1995). In accordance with the earliergeneric approach, some characteristics, like a company age and size, also influence its capacity to assim-



ilate ecological changes, and so they empirically demonstrate that in the smaller and younger organi-zations the managers have a deeper perception to face these challenges (Egri and Herman, 2000). Actu-ally, the literature has suggested alternative explanations for this phenomenon: on the one hand smallerand younger organizations usually have a higher level of adaptive capacity in relation to the changes pro-duced in the environment (Alberti et al., 2000; Sroufe et al., 2000), and on the other hand the higherflexibility of the manufacturing processes in the younger and smaller companies allow an easier adap-tation of the manufacturing and environmental technologies (Dean and Brown, 1995).

What Are the Distinctive Characteristics of an Environmental Manager?

The review of the realized literature has allowed us to extract certain conclusions bringing over the char-acteristics of the environmental executives who allow improvement of the environmental performance.The environmental management demands specific characteristics from the executives (Shrivastava,1995) that are not very common (Roome, 1994).

The literature review does not allow us to obtain conclusive results for any variables. Nevertheless,there are characteristics of the profile of the manager that, indisputably, influence the environmentalperformance of the company. On one hand, when the managers combine high levels of overcomingwith an important opening to change better performance is obtained (Egri and Herman, 2000). Like-wise, it is necessary that the environmental managers possess technical, interpersonal and communi-cation skills – especially with external stakeholders (Egri and Herman, 2000; Flannery and May, 2000).

Likewise, environmental managers must be transformational leaders (Gladwin, 1993); although Egriand Herman (2000) support the view that is necessary to complement this with some characteristics oftransactional leaders. Definitively, an environmental executive must be a ‘main leader’.

Finally, another important characteristic is the aptitude to form teams (Egri and Herman, 2000),although this characteristic is only effective when it is accompanied by communicative skills (Azzone etal., 1997). In the same way, the most successful managers possess previous managerial skills (Egri andHerman, 2000), especially those derived from previous experience (Reed and Reed, 1989), like theknowledge and capabilities developed by operating in international markets (Cascio et al., 1996). Finally,some characteristics of environmental managers are related to the culture and the resources of firmsand come from signals that the organization made to the environmental manager (Sharma, 2000).

Conclusions

Although it has been a field much neglected by the economic literature, some studies have recentlystarted to consider the influence of leadership characteristics on environmental management (Egri andHerman, 2000; Sharma, 2000). The present work integrates this literature in order to answer, essen-tially, one question: what are the dimensions that characterize a manager’s successful profile from anenvironmental point of view?

From this review of the literature several research directions can be followed. A key line of researchwould be the analysis of the interdependences among the diverse dimensions of an environmentalmanager’s profile. On the other hand, we could continue the analysis of the characteristics typical of theexternal pressure groups that condition managerial behaviour the most and of the activities internal tothe company that could facilitate the use of mechanisms for the company’s environmental improve-ment. We could also analyse other aspects of environmental strategy on which management attitudehas an influence: among others, environmental technology orientation, integration in the production



strategy and human resources involvement, and so go deep into the study of the mechanisms that couldfavour the achievement of a competitive advantage through environmental action in such areas.

Finally, the analysis of these questions is especially interesting, specifically for the small and medium-sized enterprises, since, although they have traditionally been privileged with respect to environmentaldemands, the public administrations (especially the European Union’s institutions) are starting tobecome aware of the effects of managers’ behaviour on the natural environment and have planned toestablish mechanisms that increase the demands on managers. However, their strategies lag behind,and so they need to know the influencing factors to work on them.

References

Alberti M, Caini M, Calabrese A, Rossi D. 2000. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of an environmental management system.International Journal of Production Research 38: 4455–4466.

Andersson LM, Bateman TS. 2000. Individual environmental initiative: championing natural environmental issues in U. S.business organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43: 548–570.

Argenti PA. 1998. Strategic employee communications. Human Resource Management 37: 199–206.Arnfalk P, Thidell A. 1992. Environmental Management in the Swedish Manufacturing Industry Fact or Fiction? Sweden Lund

University: Lund.Ashford NA. 1993. Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: implications for gov-

ernment policy. In Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications,Fischer K, Schot J (eds). Island: Washington, DC; 277–307.

Azzone G, Bertelè U, Noci G. 1997. At last we are creating environmental strategies which work. Long Range Planning 30:562–571.

Azzone G, Noci G. 1998. Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of ‘green’ manufacturing strategies. InternationalJournal of Operations and Production Management 18: 308–335.

Banerjee SB. 2001. Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: interpretations from industry and strategic impli-cations for organizations. Journal of Management Studies 38: 489–513.

Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43:717–736.

Bourgeois LJ III. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review 6: 29–39.Cascio J, Woodside G, Mitchell P. 1996. ISO 14000 Guide. The New International Management Standards. McGraw-Hill: New

York.Chase RB, Aquilano NJ, Jacobs FR. 1998. Production and Operations Management, 8th edn. Irwin: Homewood.Clements R. 1996. Complete Guide to ISO 14001. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Cole R. 1991. Strategies for Learning. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.Cordano M, Frieze IH. 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of

planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal 43: 627–641.Cramer JM, Roes B. 1993. Total employee involvement: measures for success. Total Quality Environmental Management

Autumn: 39–52.Dean TJ, Brown RL. 1995. Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: initial evidence and implications for future

research. Academy of Management Journal 38: 288–303.Dieleman H, de Hoo S. 1993. Toward a tailor-made process of pollution prevention and cleaner production: results and impli-

cations of the PRISMA project. In Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs andPolicy Implications, Fischer K, Schot J (eds). Island: Washington, DC; 245–275.

Dutton JE, Dukerich JM. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Man-agement Review 34: 517–554.

Egri CP, Herman S. 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts ofenvironmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43: 571–604.

Egri CP, Pinfield LT. 1996. Organizations and the biosphere: ecologies and environments. In Handbook of Organization Studies,Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR (eds). Sage: London; 459–483.

Eisenhardt KM. 1985. Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science 31: 134–149.Fineman S. 1997. Constructing the green manager. British Journal of Management 8: 31–38.



Fineman S, Clarke K. 1996. Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies 33:715–730.

Flannery BL, May DR. 2000. Environmental ethical decision making in the U. S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Man-agement Journal 43: 642–662.

Galbraith CS, Merrill GB. 1991. The effect of compensation program and structure on SBU competitive strategy: a study oftechnology intensive firms. Strategic Management Journal 12: 353–370.

Getzner M. 1999. Cleaner production, employment effects and socio-economic development. International Journal of Technol-ogy Management 17: 522–543.

Gioia DA, Thomas JB. 1996. Identity, image and issue interpretation: sensemaking during strategic change in academia.Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 370–403.

Gladwin TN. 1993. The meaning of greening: a plea for organizational theory. In Environmental Strategies for Industry: Inter-national Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications, Fischer K, Schot J (eds). Island: Washington, DC; 37–61.

Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theoryand research. Academy of Management Review 20: 874–907.

Greening DW, Gray B. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of ManagementJournal 37: 467–498.

Gupta MC, Sharma K. 1996. Environmental operations management: an opportunity for improvement. Production and Inven-tory Management Journal 37: 40–46.

Hambrick D, Mason M. 1984. Upper echelons: the organizational as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of ManagementReview 9: 195–206.

Handfield RB, Melnyk SA, Calantone RG, Curkovic S. 2001. Integrating environmental concerns into the design process: thegap between theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 18: 189–208.

Hanna MD, Newman WR, Johnson P. 2000. Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involve-ment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20: 148–165.

Hart SL. 1995. A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 20: 986–1014.Hostager TJ, Neil TC, Decker RL, Lorentz RD. 1998. Seeing opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motiva-

tion and desirability. Journal of Organizational Change Management 11: 11–25.Ichniowsky C, Shaw K. 1995. Old Dogs and New Tricks: Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work Practices,

Brooking Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. Brookings Institute: Washington, DC.Ilinitch AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE. 1998. Measuring corporate environmental performance. Journal of Accounting and

Public Policy 17: 383–408.Jacobs M. 1994. The limits to neoclassicism: towards an institutional environmental economics. In Social Theory and the Global

Environment, Redclift M, Benton T (eds). Routledge: New York; 67–91.Jennings P, Zandbergen P. 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach. Academy of Management

Review 20: 1015–1052.Judge WQ, Douglas TJ. 1998. Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic plan-

ning process: an empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies 35: 241–262.Juran JM. 1988. Juran on Planning for Quality. Free Press: New York.Keogh P, Polonsky MJ. 1998. Environmental commitment: a basis for environmental entrepreneurship? Journal of Organiza-

tional Change Management 11: 38–49.Kimberley JR, Evanisko MJ. 1981. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors

on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal 24: 689–713.King A. 1995. Innovation from differentiation: pollution control departments and innovation in the printed circuit industry.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 42: 270–277.Kitazawa S, Sarkis J. 2000. The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source reduction programs. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management 20: 225–248.Klassen RD, McLaughlin CP. 1993. TQM and environmental excellence in manufacturing. Industrial Management and Data

Systems 93: 14–22.Lawler E. 1986. High-Involvement Management. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9: 41–58.Nehrt C. 1993. Pollution Control Investment and Competitiveness: a Multi-Country Study of the Paper Industry, Mimeo, Doctoral

Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Newman WR, Hanna MD. 1996. An empirical exploration of the relationship between manufacturing strategy and environ-

mental management: two complementary models. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16:69–87.



Newton T, Harte G. 1997. Green business: technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies 34: 75–98.Ohio Manufacturer’s Association. 1991. Case Studies in Team Excellence in Manufacturing. Ohio Manufacturer’s Association:

Columbus, OH.Peattie K, Ringler A. 1994. Management and the environment in the UK and Germany: a comparison. European Management

Journal 12: 216–225.Porter ME, van der Linde C. 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73: 120–137.Portugal E, Yukl G. 1994. Perspectives on environmental leadership. Leadership Quarterly 5: 271–276.Purcell J, Ahlstrand B. 1994. Human Resource Management in the Multidivisional Company. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Purser RE, Park C, Montuori A. 1995. Limits to anthropocentrism: toward an ecocentric organization paradigm. Academy of

Management Review 20: 1053–1089.Quinn RE. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes of Competing Demands of High Performance. Jossey-Bass:

San Francisco.Rajagopalan N. 1996. Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions and firm performance: evidence from electric utility firms.

Strategic Management Journal 18: 761–785.Rajagopalan N, Finkelstein S. 1992. Effects of strategic orientation and environmental change on senior management reward

systems. Strategic Management Journal 13: 127–142.Ramus CA. 1997. Employee empowerment at GE Plastics: an example of a successful environmental change process. Corpo-

rate Environmental Strategy 4: 38–47.Ramus CA, Steger U. 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’

at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal 43: 605–626.Reed R, Reed M. 1989. CEO experience and diversification strategy fit. Journal of Management Studies 26: 251–270.Regier HA, Bronson EA. 1992. New perspectives on sustainable development and barriers to relevant information. Environ-

mental Monitoring and Assessment 20: 111–120.Roome N. 1994. Business strategy, R&D management and environmental imperatives. R&D Management 24: 65–82.Russo MV, Fouts PA. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy

of Management Journal 40: 534–559.Sanderlands G. 1994. 3M find brass in muck. Management Decision 32: 63–64.Sarkis J. 2001. Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability. Concerns for the new millennium. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management 21: 666–686.Schwartz SH. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values. Journal of Social Issues 50:

19–45.Sharfman MP, Wolf G, Chase RB, Tansik DA. 1988. Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review 13:

601–614.Sharma S. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strat-

egy. Academy of Management Journal 43: 681–697.Sharma S, Pablo A, Vredenburg H. 1999. Corporate environmental responsiveness strategies: the importance of issue inter-

pretation and organizational context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 35: 87–108.Sharma S, Vredenburg H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable

organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 19: 729–753.Shrivastava P. 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 16: 183–200.Sroufe R, Curkovic S, Montabon F, Melnyk SA. 2000. The new product design process and design for environment. Crossing

the chasm. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20: 267–291.Starik M, Rands GP. 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable

organizations. In Environmental Strategies for Industry, Fischer K, Schot J (eds). Island: Washington, DC.Tihanyi L, Ellstrand AE, Daily CM, Dalton DR. 2000. Composition of the top management team and firm international diver-

sification. Journal of Management 26: 1157–1177.Vastag G, Kerekes S, Rondinelli DA. 1996. Evaluation of corporate environmental management approaches: a framework and

application. International Journal of Production Economics 43: 193–211.Vining J, Ebreo A. 1992. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recy-

cling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22: 1580–1607.Weick KE. 1988. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies 24: 305–317.Wells RP, Hochman MN, Hochman SD, O’Connell PA. 1994. Measuring Environmental Success. Understanding Total Quality

Environmental Management. Executive Enterprise: New York.Wood D. 1991. Corporate social performance revisted. Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718.Yukl G. 1989. Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of Management 15: 251–289.


Documents

Managers' profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature