ISO 14001 as an Environmental Capacity Building Tool — Variations

It presents findings from a study of the effects of ISO 14001 within Israeli industry conducted through questionnaires and in-depth interviews at all ...
5 downloads 7 Views 92KB Size
Download PDF
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 2773–2779

ISO 14001 as an Environmental Capacity Building Tool — Variations among Nations DORIT KERRET* The Department of Public Policy, & The Porter School of Environmental Studies, Tel-Aviv University, POB 39040, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978

Received August 27, 2007. Revised manuscript received January 23, 2008. Accepted February 1, 2008.

As a contribution to the long, ongoing debate regarding the effects of ISO 14001 on improving environmental performance of industrial facilities, this article focuses on ISO 14001 as an external environmental capacity (EC) building tool. It presents findings from a study of the effects of ISO 14001 within Israeli industry conducted through questionnaires and indepth interviews at all certified Israeli facilities. A comparative analysis of the Israeli findings with results reported from the US and Japan found that there were differences in implementation of ISO 14001 in regard to building external actors’ EC. Janicke’s “environmental capacity building,” Gunningham, Kagan, and Thornton’s “license to operate,” and Potosky and Prakash’s “club’s goods” were applied to explain these differences. The argument offered claims that differences in the motivations of facilities to influence their ISO 14001 club’s license to operate depends on society’s initial EC. This suggests operation of a vicious cycle: whenever the effect of ISO 14001 is most required, it is the smallest. Recommendations for improvement are offered in the domain of the standard’s specification.

Introduction Environmental policies that attempt to confront environmental challenges through a variety of methods on local, national, and international levels have been developed over the last 40 years (1). Increasing global environmental problems have forced us to acknowledge that a holistic approach to environmental problems that will include different nations and different actors in societies should be adopted. Defined as “a society’s ability to identify and solve environmental problems,” (2) building the “environmental capacity” (EC) of societies is arguably among the most important goals of this emerging environmental policy. The heuristic analytical tool for analyzing environmental policy outcomes suggested by Janicke calls for understanding “the objective limits to. . . successful solutions of a given type of problem, limitations beyond which failure sets in, even in cases of good luck, skill and highly motivated actors. Lack of ecological, technological or administrative knowledge, lack of material or legal resources, the weakness of environmental organizations or institutions in relation to vested interests are well-known examples of such limitations. . .” (2). Although Janicke and others admit to its operational limitations (2, 3), it is still a highly cited model for understanding environmental policy developments. Moreover, * Corresponding author phone 972-3-6409516; fax: 972-3-6407382; e-mail: [email protected]. 10.1021/es702123p CCC: $40.75

Published on Web 03/18/2008

 2008 American Chemical Society

Janicke has suggested indicators for evaluating each of the model’s elements, as will be presented in the Discussion section. The importance of environmental capacity building (ECB) [defined as the process of “developing abilities to solve environmental problems” (2)] is consistent with the understanding that we can no longer afford the luxury of settling for achievements of traditional deterrence-based environmental regulation. Two main arguments supporting this claim appear in the literature (1, 2, 4). First, “command and control” (C&C) regulation by itself may not lead to all of the desired environmental outcomes, especially those beyond compliance. Second, significant variations exist in most environmental aspects, even within OECD countries, meaning that particular attention to laggards is still required. Environmental Management Systems (EMS) is a complementary method to traditional C&C regulations. ISO 14001, the most widely adopted EMS, is an internationally certified EMS standard published by the International Organization for Standardization in 1996 (5). According to ISO 14001, EMS is the part of the overall management system that defines how the organization will achieve its environmental goals. The standard sets the general framework for establishing and implementing an EMS. Following Janicke’s model, the most important elements of ECB include the capacities of participation, integration, strategic action, as well as, provision of relevant knowledge (2). Thus, ISO 14001 has an obvious “small scale” ECB potential by developing the environmental capacities of certified facilities. It sets the procedures to induce the selfreferential effect by specifying the procedures for environmental management (6). Through these procedures, facilities improve their own knowledge and are expected to improve their ability both to identify and to solve environmental problems. They may also become ecological leaders or a part of the “green business sector” and thus join the “environmental proponents” actors. The outcomes of a facilities’ ECB should be found through improvements in a variety of environmental performance indicators. However, as Press (1) indicated in his comprehensive review, the jury is still out on the question of whether or not EMS improves environmental performance. This is due to the difficulty involved in linking management changes to verifiable, objective environmental outcomes. This debate stresses the importance of understanding additional and more comprehensive potential contributions of ISO 14001; in particular, its ability to build the EC of external actors such as the community (or civil society) and the environmental authority (the national regulatory and environmental enforcement agency) through sharing information, improving communication, building partnerships, and improving relationship. Indeed, community involvement, public participation, and the importance of knowledge and information have been recognized as essential elements for improving environmental outcomes (7, 8). Examples for successful ECB within low EC contexts that are not related to ISO 14001 have been reported in literature. For instance, the Indonesian PROPER program that publicized environmental performance grading of facilities was considered a major success as facilities, in particular laggards, improved their environmental performance (9). Following this success, similar successful programs were implemented in the Philippines, China, Vietnam, and India (7). “ECB voluntary agreements” are another example of the importance of ECB when environmental regulatory agencies are too weak to effectively regulate and implement environmental regulations VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

2773

(10). Successful implementation of this tool may be found in Costa Rica, Colombia, and Portugal. A valuable way to assess the full ramifications and need to improve implementation of ISO 14001 is to advance indepth analyses and comparisons of implementation of the same tool in different national contexts. Accordingly, the study reported here analyzed the potential of ISO 14001 to build external actors’ EC through communication and information strategies. The empirical basis for this discussion presented here is of the effects of ISO 14001 on certified Israeli facilities. The results of the Israeli investigation are compared with literature presenting empirical research data from Japan and the U.S. As a reflexive legal tool, the effects of ISO 14001 depend on societal and regulatory aspects of a country (11). In this regard, the situation in Israel provides a unique environment for analysis of the effects of ISO 14001. On the one hand, Israel is a developed country with a quite high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Indeed, Israel’s GDP per capita is very close to that of Spain and New Zealand and is above other western countries such as Portugal, Cyprus, and Greece. On the other hand, at least in some aspects, the EC in Israel is lower than in similarly developed countries (10). Overall, though the mechanisms of ISO 14001 to advance communication and information have been criticized (8, 12), there is some empirical evidence that it induced improvements in these aspects (13, 14). The main claim developed as a result of the study reported here is that, although ISO 14001 provides a general framework for the ECB of all three actors (regulator, groups within the civil society, and facilities), this potential is not necessarily realized. The first factor that influences realization of potential is the degree of specification of ISO 14001 requirements. That is, factors in the national context seem to play a major role in realization of the standard’s ECB potential when latitude is left in interpretation of the standard. This article proposes a theoretical explanation for such variation. An additional factor identified is the correlation between a nation’s initial EC and realization of ISO 14001 potential as an ECB tool. These observations should be taken into account, especially because its effect is lowest when ECB is most required. Thus, there are three main aspects of the study’s contribution: Theoretically, it analyzes ISO 14001 as an ECB tool with a specific focus on the differences in the application of an international standard in different national realities. Second, as an empirical study, this article provides new data from the Israeli context. And, third, in the applicative sense, it recommends ways to improve the standard as an ECB tool. The article proceeds with presentation of the Israeli case study, followed by comparative results regarding the potential to contribute to external EC. The final section proposes theoretical explanations for the variations in results and recommendations for improving the potential of ISO 14001.

ISO 14001: The Israeli Case Study The Israeli ISO 14001 survey reported here was a part of a more extensive study that investigated the effects of voluntary environmental initiatives in Israel. The Israeli environmental enforcement system is largely based on the deterrence, or the C&C approach (15). The two complementary methods implemented in Israel at the time of the research were voluntary agreements and ISO 14001 (10). The survey included all participating facilities due to their low number (ultimately, 175 facilities participated in the full research project). The major ISO 14001 certification authority in Israel is the Standards Institution of Israel (SII). As of 2001, only 67 facilities were listed as ISO 14001 certified (www.sii.org.il). Following completion of a structured questionnaire, in-depth 2774

9

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008

interviews were conducted with a representative of certified facilities. This methodology was chosen in order to achieve the largest possible response rate and to increase the validity of the responses. Ultimately, 49 ISO certified facilities participated in the study, producing a 91% response rate (Supporting Information Table S1). Representatives were asked general questions about themselves, the general characteristics of the facility, reasons for certification, benefits, hardships, and satisfaction. The main part of data gathering addressed multiple aspects of the effects of ISO 14001 on the environmental management and performance of facilities. To isolate the effects of ISO 14001, interviewees were asked whether there was a change in particular aspects and whether changes were solely a result of ISO 14001, a result of ISO 14001 and other factors, or lacked any connection to the standard. General aspects addressed were changes in planning of environmental aspects, employee awareness, actions taken for reduction of environmental pollution, pollution monitoring and control, and relationship with regulators with the community. Some of these aspects were included in a survey completed by a sample control group of 33 noncertified facilities. To produce appropriate data, facilities selected for the sample were determined to be as similar as possible to the certified group (15).

Findings Most of the results of the Israeli survey are compatible with previous research regarding self-reported improvements of ISO 14001 certified facilities (1, 16, 17). Indeed, improvements were reported in most aspects in about half of the facilities. This was significantly higher than in noncertified facilities (15). However, the most interesting outcomes were related to the potential of ISO 14001 to build external EC. Generally, the Israeli results suggest that ISO 14001 had minor, if any, influence on Israeli facilities regarding information and communication with civil society and the regulators. Interviewed representatives indicated that ISO 14001 had negligible, if any, effect upon their relationship with the surrounding community or the public at large. Facilities were asked if they had initiated any form of community involvement, sharing environmental information with the public, or any other form of communication with the public. With the exception of two facilities, none of the interviewed facilities reported any proactive interaction with the public as a result of certification. Therefore, the reported results of the survey question focus on reduction in complaints from the surrounding community regarding the facilities’ environmental aspects. 81.3% of the facilities reported that ISO 14001 had no influence on even this defensive aspect (as well as in any other aspect of communication with the public, involvement of the community, sharing information with the public, or any other form of communication with the public) (Supporting Information Table S10). The question regarding environmental information was simplified to include any form of environmental information, due to low reporting requirements and practices in Israel. ISO certified manufacturing facilities (36 facilities) were asked who had access to their environmental monitoring of air or sewage emissions: The facility, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, or the public. Facilities were asked to mark any relevant answer. Most of the facilities surveyed (74.2%) reported their emissions to the Ministry of Environmental Protection. However, only two facilities (6.4%) reported having published the results of their environmental monitoring for general public consumption (Supporting Information Table S11). The Israeli results contradict empirical results from studies conducted in the United States and Japan, where a significant

influence of ISO 14001 on the relationship between the certified facilities and the community was found (13, 14). For instance, Florida and Davison found that U.S. facilities with EMS were more likely to share information with the community and environmental agencies and to obtain input from community groups, neighbors, and environmental groups when making environmental decisions and setting environmental priorities. Most facilities (72.4%) reported having an improved relationship with the surrounding community (13). Similarly, Mohammed concluded from a survey conducted in Japan that, as a result of ISO 14001, firms more effectively involved local people in their daily environmental activities and helped enhance the environmental awareness among the local people. Facilities initiated activities aimed to improve information sharing, raising awareness, and involvement of local communities or the public (14). In addition, from the data presented by Arimura and others, it may be concluded that ISO certified facilities in Japan produce more environmental reports than other facilities (18). Whereas 35% of the Japanese ISO certified facilities surveyed (123 of 374) published environmental reports, only 9% of noncertified facilities (41 of 445) produced environmental reports. Although Arimura and others have not studied the influence of ISO standard on producing environmental reports, the data suggest there may be a connection. Some differences in the motivations of facilities to join the standard support the findings. Research has found that one of the main reasons for U.S. facilities joining the ISO 14001 standard was their willingness to improve community relations. Florida and Davison found that this was the main reason facilities joined ISO 14001 (this factor scored 4.38 out of 6, and 85% of facilities indicated it as a reason for their certification) (13). Similarly, Edwards found that 94% of U.S. facilities indicated improved community relations as a reason for ISO 14001 certification (16). The Japanese findings are consistent with the U.S. findings as Mohammed found that “building a better partnership with the local people is one of the main reasons why the ISO 14000 series has been adopted” (14). However, according to the findings reported here, Israeli facilities have not regarded improving community relations as a main reason for certification (almost 60% of the Israeli facilities have not regarded improving community relations as a reason for certification, and the mean score for this reason was 2.08 out of 5). Despite the relatively low rate of ISO 14001 certification in the United States (4), Potosky and Prakash (4, 19) provided evidence of the high regard with which U.S. businesses and government officials viewed the ISO 14001 standard. In contrast, the finding from interviews with representatives of Israeli certified facilities is that they were disappointed that there were no programs that recognized their certification. They also felt that the public was not aware of this standard. In summary, the effects of ISO 14001 on external ECB in Israel are different than its effect on facilities within the United States and Japan, as reported in the literature.

Discussion The findings presented in the previous section suggest that although facilities in the United States and Japan improved communication with regulators and civil society groups, along with information provision and participation of civil society groups following certification, the same was not true in Israel. Therefore, the results suggest that, although ISO 14001 served as an effective ECB tool in the United States and Japan, it did not have the same effect in Israel. The following is a possible explanation for such variation. One possible explanation for these findings lies in the wide variance in the degree of specification in presenting

the requirements of ISO 14001. For instance, all facilities have to train their employees and engage in raising their awareness regarding environmental impacts and the EMS (Section 4.4.2). In contrast, the lack of a specific requirement for a genuine dialogue with the community and for information sharing with external parties has been recognized as a major flaw of the ISO 14001 standard (12), particularly the reactive approach taken to external parties (e.g., responding to relevant communications). In addition, the organization is supposed to decide “whether to communicate externally about its significant environmental aspects.” The only requirement regarding provision of specific information is publication of the organization’s environmental policy. Indeed, the findings of the present study suggest that differences in implementation do relate to the degree of specificity of the standard’s requirements. Differences in implementation occurred when statements of requirement were ambiguous. In contrast, requirements were implemented when stated in a clear, unequivocal manner. For instance, all ISO 14001 surveyed facilities initiated some type of employee environmental awareness program (Supporting Information Table S10). As an international standard, ISO 14001 faces challenges similar to other international conventions. In regard to communication and information, the authors of ISO 14001 chose to provide a general framework that does not require any form of environmental reporting or communication (contrary to its European “brother”, Eco-Management and Auditing Scheme EMAS). Yet, we know that, when requirements in any policy tool are vague, they are more likely to be a subject to different interpretations and implementations (20, 21). This working guideline explains the inner tension in international law between flexibility (for consensus seeking) and specificity (for achieving the goals) (22). The level of implementation of the requirements of international environmental law when prescriptions are ambiguous is known to depend on domestic factors; thus, meaningful environmental outcomes cannot be assumed (22). Although the degree of specification is an important general observation, an explanation for variations in implementation of the ambiguous requirements is still needed. Such an explanation must take into account that all facilities investigated were ISO 14001 certified; differences were observed at the national level, and the differences primarily related to the motivation to engage in communication and information sharing with the community and regulators. The explanation offered in this article builds upon three concepts: Gunnigham’s “license to operate” [LO]; Potosky and Prakash’s view of ISO 14001 as “club goods”; and Janicke’s concept of ECB. The following discussion presents, briefly, the relevant elements taken from each approach and the reasons for their inclusion. Gunningham, et al. provided an explanation for general differences in corporate environmental performance, especially for activities that extend beyond compliance (20). They suggested that companies’ actions on environmental issues are shaped by the interactions among three different LOs: regulatory, economic, and social sublicenses (20). Influenced by concerns and actions of communities, environmental advocates, and the broader public, the “social LO” was found to be particularly powerful in influencing differences in environmental outcomes. In other words, corporations “are constrained to meet the expectations of society and avoid activities that societies (or influential elements within them) deem unacceptable” (20, 21). The means of developing trust with regulators and community may influence (“reshape”) some of the terms of these licenses. Such is achieved through communication and sharing information with the relevant actors (20, 21). Similar to the function of “complementary voluntary environmental VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

2775

agreements” in environmentally competent nations (10), influencing the LO does not mean reducing its environmental requirements. It generally means providing more flexibility to the corporation in achieving demanding environmental outcomes (21). The explanation of facilities’ efforts to influence their LO is particularly relevant to our discussion. Information sharing and improving communication were discussed above as mechanisms through which ISO 14001 may build EC. These same mechanisms are used for influencing the LO. Therefore, improving EC is a result of facilities’ attempts to influence their LO. Furthermore, the different influence of ISO 14001 in improving communication and information actually reflects differences in facilities’ motivations to influence their LO. However, this paper does not try to explain general differences between nations in facility motivation to influence LO, rather it is concerned with the influence of ISO 14001 certification on facilities’ communication and information efforts. Given that the current discussion specifically addresses the different ways of implementation of the ISO 14001 standard, Potosky and Prakash’s concept of “club goods” should be added in order to fine-tune this explanation (4, 19). Potosky and Prakash claimed that ISO 14001 constitutes a “club” that provides members with reputational benefits that “help induce facilities to take costly progressive environmental action they would not take unilaterally”. Such an effect of ISO 14001 can be demonstrated through improved compliance with the Clean Air Act. Potosky and Prakash demonstrated that an important incentive for U.S. facilities to join ISO 14001 was the positive reputation earned by compliance within the United States. Potosky and Prakash claimed that credible clubs provide an external audience with information regarding members’ progressive environmental activities. Certified facilities are therefore rewarded for their membership in the ISO 14001 club, if not for a specific environmental action. Reputational benefits may not necessarily be derived solely intranational, rather certification benefits could be derived from an audience outside the country. In fact, differences in the national benefits for ISO certifications have been demonstrated as an explanation for the “uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level” (23, 24). However, as noted, facilities in the United States and Japan improved internal information sharing and public communication as a result of certification regardless of the requirements’ ambiguity. Building on the concepts presented by Potosky and Prakash, it may be argued that facilities could gain extended reputational benefits, as did firms in the United States and Japan, if they tied certification to improved information flow, performance, and relationship with the public. In light of the LO theory, beyond direct reputational benefits of certification as well as communication and information efforts, such facilities may in fact be attempting to influence their ISO 14001 club’s LO. This not withstanding, the question remains — why are facilities in Israel less motivated to improve their communication and information as a result of ISO 14001 certification than facilities in the United States and Japan? By combining these two approaches, this question can be rephrased: Why were facilities in Israel less motivated than facilities in Japan and in the United States to improve, actively, their ISO 14001 club’s LO within Israel? The source of an initial answer lies in the audience from whom facilities seek reputational benefits. The empirical data presented here found that differences in improving communication and information were compatible with differences between Israel and the United States in facilities’ certification motivations. It seems that Israeli facilities were not motivated by the possibility of gaining such reputational benefits from im2776

9

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008

mediate, neighboring communities or the regulators. Apparently, they anticipated most of the club goods benefits from outside the country (Supporting Information Table S9,) (5, 23, 24). Yet, the reason for these observed differences between nations remains unexplained. Theoretically, the influence of societal, regulatory, and structural differences in EC could explain differences in the influence of ISO 14001. Indeed, it could be expected that, in low EC societies, facilities will be generally less motivated to influence their LO and thus will invest less resources in that cause (mainly because their LO will be lenient enough so that they would not need additional flexibility). The two prominent elements of Janicke’s model for analyzing national differences in motivations for influencing LO are (1) the relative capacities of governmental and societal environmental actors together with industry views of civil society groups as legitimate actors in policymaking and (2) the elements within the “structural framework conditions” of action, mainly a regulatory framework that calls for comparative information sharing as well as procedural empowerment (in particular, participation). Information and participation regulatory frameworks are particularly relevant as, apart from enhancing the capacity of the social actors, they also reduce the cost of communication and information efforts following the certification (as such obligations are pre-existent). Although such are generally applicable, it is all the more crucial in the specific case of reputational benefits of the ISO 14001 club, as they extend beyond the specific action. Although a comprehensive comparative analysis is required to confirm these hypotheses, analysis of data presented here provide initial qualitative evidence in support of this explanation: Based on Janicke’s ECB theory, the differences in the EC between Israel, on the one hand, and the United States and Japan, on the other hand, could explain the differences in the implementation of the ECB potential of ISO 14001. There are three main reasons why the explanation presented here focuses on ECB theory. First, macro-national level explanations are required in order to address the issue under discussion, as the explanation relates to the potential of ISO 14001 to develop the EC of a certain society. Second, EC seems to be an essential component in evaluating ISO 14001’s potential contribution to improvement of environmental conditions: Higher ECB value will be manifest in initial low EC (as in low EC more extensive environmental improvement is required). Third, this theory explains similarities between Japan and the United States, despite the differences in their certification rates and some elements in the regulatory context (e.g., flexibility or cooperation) (2, 25, 26). Implementing the Explanation — Israel’s Initial EC. By way of illustration, the following brief analysis of Israel’s EC is based on the aforementioned indicators from Janicke’s ECB theory. Considered to be an important indicator of a society’s EC (2), public environmental awareness signifies low EC in Israel. Indeed, based on survey evidence, several observers claim that environmental issues are presently not a top concern for Israeli society. These studies compared Israeli and developing countries’ public environmental attitudes (27–32). Differences are manifest in several key areas: First, Israelis manifest lower willingness to pay for environmental quality than other countries (28). Second, environmental issues do not appear on the public agenda at the national level. For instance, The Green Party was not elected to the current, 17th Knesset [the Israeli parliament], and only one member of an elected party identified himself as a “green candidate”. Furthermore, although the public is consistently excluded from environmental policy processes, there was

limited expressions of interest in taking an active part in such a process (32). Furthermore, citizens’ enforcement of environmental statutes is rare in Israel. One note-worthy exception is the work undertaken by the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, a public interest law organization whose mission is to litigate environmental issues (33). Strategic changes in actions of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) (34), as well as the new amendments to the Civil Suits Act (2006), may lead to a shift in this aspect in the future. Academic discussions have posited, generally, three primary reasons for the differential attitude of Israeli society to environmental issues. First, the “development ethos” of the Zionist ideology basically contradicts “sustainable development” (27, 29). Second, survival concerns related to security issues overshadow environmental considerations in Israeli national politics (27, 29, 31, 32, 34). Finally, the abrupt, steep improvement of economic conditions in Israel led to unrestrained consumption habits that disregard environmental considerations (27, 28, 30). Notwithstanding these general observations regarding environmental awareness in Israel, the role of Israeli environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) in protecting environmental interests is significant. According to Parag (32), apart from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, ENGOs are the most important actor in the environmental protection arena, as their growing numbers and capacity for growth make evident. Indeed, the achievements of Israeli ENGOs include placing environmental issues on the public agenda, enhancing public awareness of certain issues, as well as promoting regulatory changes along with enforcement activities (35). However, most Israeli ENGOs focus on the local level [usually not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) style action] (27, 28, 32, 33, 36); indeed, only a few ENGOs operate at the national level (prominent examples are: The Union of Environmental Defense (IUED), SPNI, and the Heschel Center) (32). Ben-Eliezer (37) claimed that the NGOs in Israel have not been able to promote the shift to civil society that is characteristic of wide, inclusive influence. Furthermore, in a report prepared by a number of prominent ENGOs in Israel, presented at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 2002, ENGOs protested their absence in the policy agenda setting and their being disregarded as a legitimate partner in policy making (38). Generally, the ENGO movement in Israel has been defined as weak (32, 35, 39). This is due to severe budget constraints (32) and to the general characteristics of Israeli society that relegate them to political weakness (28, 32, 37, 39). They are particularly weak (both politically and financially) in comparison to the industrial sector and other governmental ministries, none of which are considered to be environmental proponents (32). Indeed, contrary to consultative role in environmental policy decisions, most Israeli NGOs are local, suffer from severe budget constraints, and focus their activity at the judiciary level (32). Therefore, they can be located between the first and second stage of ECB of Janicke’s four EC stages that characterize a particular society. Further, the weak and isolated Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection can be located at the second EC stage. For example, the Ministry’s budget is the lowest among Israeli Ministries and its status at 0.06% (2006) is much lower than in other countries (10, 27, 31). Furthermore, many environmental issues are scattered among other “nonenvironmental” governmental Ministries (32, 39). This is indicative, as well, of the lack of commitment to the environment as an issue of special importance and, perhaps, of the Ministry’s low political status. Additionally, despite improvement, environmental penalties remain relatively low in Israel; hence, polluters benefit economically from noncompliance (15, 40).

Considering the low capacity of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, it is not surprising that noncompliance with environmental regulations is considered to be a grave problem in Israel (15). The structural framework of environmental action in Israel is characterized, in general, by a lack of regulatory framework tools that enable participation and information capacities. NGOs protest that environmental laws exclude or restrict their participation as partners in the policymaking process (32, 38). Recent amendments to the Representation in Public Bodies Act 2002 signify an important shift in the regulatory framework by acknowledging the role of NGOs in formulating environmental policy. Still, the implementation of the statute requires occasional legal battles (41). Additionally, a country’s environmental data is one of the most important EC indicators (2), as societal EC could be affected by the country’s transparency policy. Gunningham et al., as well as, Howard-Grenville found that laws that require publication of information help strengthen the social LO stringency that, in turn, affect firms’ behavior (20, 21). However, in general, such a regulatory information framework is absent in Israel. Despite the Freedom of Information Act, it is generally difficult to achieve environmental information from relevant authorities (42, 43) and may entail legal battles (44, 45). Authorities usually use the regulated long list of exemptions and deny information (45). Also, information retrieval fees can be very expensive (45). Moreover, the specific information required is not always available from relevant authorities (15). Reluctance to provide information could well be associated with the unique security conditions in Israel that generally requires a high level of secrecy with security considerations granted highest priority (e.g., the list of exceptions in the Freedom of Information Act) (32, 46). One indicator of data transparency could be the existence of a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR). PRTRs are regulated databases of emissions of industrial facilities (47) that publish information regarding raw emissions. Although PRTR systems exist in Japan and in the United States, and there is an international trend for nations to adopt PRTRs, Israel has yet to implement this practice (47). In countries where PRTRs exist, most industrial facilities are required by law to publish some “hard core” environmental information (emissions). Although it is true that environmental quality data are published in Israel in some areas (e.g., water and air quality), these data cannot be related to specific industrial facilities. Thus, there are much fewer informational requirements in the Israeli legal system in comparison to other legal systems (48). Indeed, at the time the survey was conducted, environmental reporting by Israeli facilities was very rare. Israel does not enjoy nor even approach Japan and the United States as leading EC nations (25, 26). More specifically, environmental awareness, the relative power of the civil society, the capacity of the Ministry/Agency of the Environmental Protection, and the regulatory regime seem to be much lower in Israel than in Japan or in the US. Although recent developments in regulatory tools as well as the competence of ENGOs may signify an important shift that is grounds for cautious optimizm, the low EC in Israel at the time of the survey could offer a potential explanation to the reluctance of ISO 14001 certified facilities to produce additional information and to improve their relationship with the community and regulators. In particular, the lack of substantive informational and participatory framework could explain the extra cost for facilities in producing such activities and the relative low potential benefits.

Implications and Recommendations The focus of this article is on the potential of ISO 14001 as an ECB tool. The results of the Israeli survey suggest that, as VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

2777

opposed to Japan and the United States, the ambiguous requirements of the standard regarding external ECB were not implemented in Israel. To address this difference, an explanation was proposed that combines three theoretical concepts: The LO, club’s goods, and ECB. Stated succinctly, the proposed explanation suggests that differences in the motivations of facilities to influence their ISO 14001 club’s LO depend on the initial EC of the society. Thus, the effect of ISO 14001 on ECB creates a vicious cycle: Its effect is smallest where it is most required, depending on the initial value it came to build. Justifiably, Potosky and Prakash claimed that the call for including information requirements within the ISO standard should be supported with cost benefit analysis of the value of information relative to its effect on the willingness of facilities to join the standard (49). However, two of its characteristics — voluntary nature and international standard — should be taken into account in analyzing the policy implications of the ISO 14001 standard. As such, it faces challenges typical of international law that include the same two characteristics. It, therefore, needs to balance its potential to reach its maximum capacity in improving environmental performance with the desire to include as many participants as possible (22). Consequently, further research is required to estimate the value of information generated by the ISO 14001 standard under different regulatory models. In particular, the impact of the national transparency policy should be explored. Different policy tools, such as the existence of PRTR should be taken into account along with their possible synergistic effects. The value of information should be higher within weak environmental regimes where ECB is most required (10). Nonetheless, it seems that, currently, under such circumstances, its potential to influence EC is the smallest. This article has discussed the comparative effects of the ISO 14001 standard under different societal contexts, with specific focus on the results from the Israeli national context. Although there are reasons to believe that the reality in Israel represents societies with relatively low environmental awareness and transparency, further research is required to extend the validity of these findings and to fine-tune the variability of the influence of reflexive law tools under multiple societal contexts. ISO 14001 is constantly revised and improved. The most updated version of the ISO 14001 standard — the 2004 version — changes certain aspects in the ISO standard. However, ISO requirements for communication and information have not been improved. Therefore, communication remains optional and only when an organization chooses to do so must procedures to achieve it be specified (ISO 14001, 2004 version). On a final note, one of the imminent challenges of the 21st century is to face the environmental threats to our vulnerable planet. A variety of technological breakthroughs are being advanced, most of which promise to have environmental impacts. Hence, there are reasons to be concerned that technology and industry appear to be racing ahead while legislative and regulatory underpinnings are not keeping pace. When most of the knowledge stays within the industrial sector, it is difficult to determine and to advance effective regulatory frameworks or even to engage in knowledge-based criticism. Herein lays the enormous potential for transferring relevant information and for establishing communication with civil society and regulators. As most imminent environmental threats are of global nature, policy tools should be evaluated by their general contribution to improving the EC of societies. The most significant value in improving EC is where its primary value is the lowest. Unfortunately, in its current form, the contribution of ISO 14001 to EC seems to be correlated with the initial EC. If ISO 14001 is to maximize 2778

9

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008

its potential as an external EC tool, its communication and information requirements should be carefully specified as a requirement of the standard.

Acknowledgments The author would like to express her gratitude to Prof. Alon Tal, Ben Gurion University, and Dr. Shmuel Brenner, TelAviv University, for their helpful guidance and remarks; to Arie Naiger, Legal Advisor, Israeli Industry Association; to all the participating facilities in the research, the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, and interviewees from Europe whose remarkable cooperation made the research possible; to Dr. Gila Menahem, Sharon Malki, and Adva Simantov, Tel-Aviv University, for their support and helpful comments; to the Jerusalem Institute for Israeli Studies, the Office of the Chief Scientist for the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Simulation Lab, Tel-Aviv University; and to the Dan David Prize Scholarship for funding the research. This paper is largely based upon a Ph.D dissertation completed at Tel-Aviv University.

Supporting Information Available Description statistics of participating facilities and descriptive statistics of selected results from the survey are provided. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Literature Cited (1) Press, D. Industry, environmental policy, and environmental outcomes. Ann. Rev. Environ. Res. 2007, 32, 317–344. (2) Weidner, H.; Janicke, M. Capacity Building in National Environmental Policy; Springer: Germany, 2002. (3) Lundqvist, L. J. Capacity-building or social construction? Explaining Sweden’s shift towards ecological modernisation. Geoforum 2000, 31, 21–32. (4) Prakash, A.; Potoski, M. The Voluntary Environmentalists; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2006. (5) Bellesi, F.; Lehrer, D.; Tal, A. Comparative advantage: The impact of ISO 14001 environmental certification on exports. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 39, 1943–1953. (6) Orts, E. W. Reflexive environmental law. Nw. U. L. Rev 1995, 1227. (7) Dasgupta, S.; Wang, H.; Wheeler, D. Disclosure strategies for pollution control. In The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2006/2007 — A Survey of Current Issues; Tietenberg, T., Folmer, H., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2006; pp 93–119. (8) Panayotou, T. Environmental management systems and the global economy. In Regulating from the Inside — Can Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals?; Coglianese, C., Nash, J., Eds.; Resources for the Future: Washington DC, 2001; pp 105–122. (9) Blackman, A.; Afsah, S.; Ratunanda, D. How do public disclosure pollution control programs work? Evidence from Indonesia. Res. Human Ecol. 2004, 11, 235. (10) Kerret, D.; Tal, A. Green wash or green gain? Predicting the success and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental voluntary agreements. Penn State Environ. Law J. 2005, 14, 31. (11) Fiorino, D. J. Rethinking environmental regulation: Perspectives on law and governance. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 1999, 23, 441. (12) Gunningham, N. Environmental management systems and community participation: Rethinking chemical industry regulation. UCLA J. Environ. Law Policy 1997, 16. (13) Florida, R.; Davison, D. Why do firms adopt advanced environmental practices (and do they make a difference)? In Regulating from the Inside — Can Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals; Resources for the Future: Washington DC, 2001; pp 82–104. (14) Mohammed, M. The ISO 14001 EMS implementation process and its implications: A case study of central Japan. Environ. Manage. 2000, 25, 177–188. (15) Kerret, D., Complementary Approaches to Environmental Enforcement — An Israeli Perspective: ISO 14001 & air emission standard covenant. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2004.

(16) Edwards, B.; Gravender, J.; Killmer, A.; Schenke, G.; Willis, A. M., The Effectiveness of ISO 14001 in the United States. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 1999. (17) Nordstrom, A., EMS — Does It Pay Off? M.A Thesis, Lund University, 1998. (18) Arimura, T. H.; Hibiki, A.; Katayama, H. Is a voluntary approach an effective environmental policy instrument? A case of environmental management systems, 2005. (19) Potoski, M.; Prakash, A. Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 and firms’ regulatory compliance. Am. J. Political Sci. Assoc. 2005, 49, 235–248. (20) Gunningham, N.; Kagan, R. A.; Thornton, D. Shades of Green: Business, Regulation, and Environment; Stanford University Press: Stanford, California, 2003. (21) Howard-Grenville, J. A. Explaining shades of green: Why do companies act differently on similar environmental issues. Law Social Inquiry 2005, 30, 551. (22) Talitman, D.; Tal, A.; Brenner, S. The devil is in the details: Increasing international law’s influence on domestic environmental performance - the case of Israel and the Mediterranean sea. NYU Environ. Law J. 2003, 11, 414. (23) Neumayer, E.; Perkins, R. What explains the uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level? A panel-data analysis. Environ. Planning A 2004, 36, 823–839. (24) Prakash, A.; Potoski, M. Investing up: FDI and the cross-country diffusion of ISO 14001 management systems. Int. Stud. Q. 2007, 51, 723–744. (25) Ren, Y. Japanese approaches to environmental management: Structural and institutional features. Int. Rev. Environ. Strategies 2002, 1, 79–96. (26) Janicke, M.; Weidner, H. National Environmental Policies — A Comparative Study of Capacity Building; Springer: Germany, 1997. (27) VogelD. Israeli environmental policy in comparative perspective. In Israel the Dynamics of Change and Continuity; Levi-Faur, D., Sheffer, G., Vogel, D. Eds.; Frank Cass: London, 1999; p 246. (28) Levkovitz, A., Is the ‘Tzabar’ Still Green? M.A, Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 1997. (29) De-Shalit, A.; Talias, M. Green or blue and white? Environmental controversies in Israel. Environmental Politics 1994, 3, 237. (30) Tal, A. Pollution in a Promised Land — An Environmental History of Israel; California University Press, 2002. (31) Tal, A. The Environment in Israel — Resources, Crises, Campaigns and Policy — From the Birth of Zionism until the 21st Century; Hakibbutz Hameuchad: Tel-Aviv, 2006. (32) Parag, Y., Environmental Process Networks: The Shaping of Israeli Environmental Policy. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2005. (33) Marom-Albeck, O.; Tal, A. Upgrading citizen suits as a tool for environmental enforcement in Israel: A comparative evaluation. Israel Law Rev. 2000, 34, 373–424. (34) Morag-Levine, N. Partners no more: Relational transformation and the turn to litigation in two conservationist organization. Law Society Rev. 2003, 37. (35) Weinthal, E.; Parag, Y. Two steps forward, one step backward: Societal capacity and Israel’s implementation of the Barcelona convention and the Mediterranean action plan. Global Environ. Politics 2003, 3, 51.

(36) Binyamini, S.; Pizmoni-Levi, O. Environmental organizations in Israel — A movement in movement. In Vital Signs — Israel; Frumkin, R., Hanin, D., Eidelman, A., Eds.; Heschel Center: Jerusalem, 2002; p 184. (37) Ben-Eliezer, U. Is a civil society evolving in Israel? Politics and identity in new non-governmental organizations. Israeli Sociol. 1999, B, 51. (38) Vardi, A.; Tsur, N. Public participation in the formulation of policy and decision making for sustainable development. In Paths to Sustainability — Shadow Report to the Government of Israel’s Assessment of Progress in Implementing Agenda 21: Johanesburg, 2002; p 39. (39) Alexander, E. R. Can Israel plan for sustainable development? An institutional analysis and constructive critique. In Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-national Level; Feitelson, E., Ed.; Ashgate Publishing, Cornwall, 2004; pp 29–45. (40) Tal, A. Assessing the benefits of noncompliance: The role of economic analysis in environmental enforcement. In Environment and Policy — Environmental Policy Research Collection Eidelman, A., Tal, A., Ben-Aharon, N., Eds.; The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies: Jerusalem, 2002; p 11. (41) Israeli Union for Environmental Defense (IUED). IUED, Life and Environment and SPNI filed a Supreme Court petition to oblige Olmert appoint environmental representatives. http:// www.yarok.org.il/text_item.aspx?tid)643&menu)0 (accessed January 3, 2008). (42) Aharon, L. An environmental information law. In Paths to Sustainability II — Interim Assessment of a National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Baikin, L., Bromberg, G., Eds.; New York, 2005. (43) Ivri-Darel, Y. A Decade to Freedom of Information Act but the Public Is Still in the Dark; Ynet: 2007. (44) Israeli Union for Environmental Defense (IUED). IUED Report of Environmental Poverty; 2006. http://www.adamteva.org. il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/on.pdf. (accessed January 3, 2008). (45) Israeli Union for Environmental Defense (IUED). Freedom of Information — IUED Report; 2007. http://www.adamteva.org. il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/meyda2.doc. (accessed January 3, 2008). (46) Talitman, D. Oil and the I.D.F. — Should the prevention of sea-water pollution by Oil Ordinance (1980) apply to the IDF. Law Army 2000, 14, 143. (47) Kerret, D.; Gray, G. What do we learn from emissions reporting? Analytical considerations and comparison of pollutant release and transfer registers in the US, Canada, England and Australia. Risk Anal. 2007, 27, 203–223. (48) Talitman, D.; Tal, A. Self-reporting — key to improved environmental enforcement in Israel. In Environment and Policy — Environmental Policy Research Collection Eidelman, A., Tal, A., Ben-Aharon, N. , Eds.; The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies: Jerusalem, 2002; p 79. (49) Potoski, M.; Prakash, A. Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities′ environmental performance. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 2005, 24, 745–769.

ES702123P

VOL. 42, NO. 8, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

2779