with some particular methodological issues regarding, among other, aggregate
indicators. An example showing water use by printing firms is shown in Table 5.
Analysis of Results
Data collected by the MEPI study for a large number of European firms across
six industrial sectors provided a basis for better understanding the patterns,
dynamics and drivers of environmental performance in industry. From a wide
variety of results we highlight four, as follows:
Variability in environmental performance. The data revealed wide variability in
the environmental performance of companies operating in the same sector. It was
also found that the pattern of variability was not consistent across different
dimensions of performance. That is, greater variability was discovered across
some performance indicators than others. The range of performance variability
for several indicators in book and magazine printers is illustrated in Table 6.
Performance variability may be explained by technological factors (different
production processes may be used to produce the same output but with vary
different environmental characteristics), the effect of regulation (regulatory
pressure may produce greater convergence in environmental performance), and
the effect of relative prices (different producers may choose to optimize their
facilities differently depending on the price of inputs and pollution control). For
example, water consumption across different parts of the paper industry is shown
in Figure 1.
Firm size and environmental performance. Another relationship investigated
using the MEPI data was between firm size and environmental performance. In
general, we would expect larger firms to be better environmental performers
because they face stronger regulatory and stakeholder pressures, and because
they have greater technical and financial resources to improve performance.
Analysis of the data suggested that large companies were not consistently better
performers than small companies. There is no clear ‘size effect’. In fact, on some
dimensions of performance, larger companies appear to perform worse. Figure 2
shows sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generating companies (note the
logarithmic x-axis).
Profits and environmental performance. Many previous studies have investigated
the links between profitability of companies and better environmental performance.
Our analysis of the MEPI data produced mixed results. For most dimensions of
environmental performance no clear link to profitability is evident. Evidence for a
positive link is sketchy — companies producing more waste tend to be less
profitable in the paper, textile finishing and printing sectors. There are also some
perverse results. Paper companies emitting more chemical oxygen demand
(COD) to water tend to be more profitable, for instance (see Table 7).
Environmental management and environmental performance. Many companies
have introduced environmental management systems as a way of monitoring and
F. Berkhout
180
indicators. An example showing water use by printing firms is shown in Table 5.
Analysis of Results
Data collected by the MEPI study for a large number of European firms across
six industrial sectors provided a basis for better understanding the patterns,
dynamics and drivers of environmental performance in industry. From a wide
variety of results we highlight four, as follows:
Variability in environmental performance. The data revealed wide variability in
the environmental performance of companies operating in the same sector. It was
also found that the pattern of variability was not consistent across different
dimensions of performance. That is, greater variability was discovered across
some performance indicators than others. The range of performance variability
for several indicators in book and magazine printers is illustrated in Table 6.
Performance variability may be explained by technological factors (different
production processes may be used to produce the same output but with vary
different environmental characteristics), the effect of regulation (regulatory
pressure may produce greater convergence in environmental performance), and
the effect of relative prices (different producers may choose to optimize their
facilities differently depending on the price of inputs and pollution control). For
example, water consumption across different parts of the paper industry is shown
in Figure 1.
Firm size and environmental performance. Another relationship investigated
using the MEPI data was between firm size and environmental performance. In
general, we would expect larger firms to be better environmental performers
because they face stronger regulatory and stakeholder pressures, and because
they have greater technical and financial resources to improve performance.
Analysis of the data suggested that large companies were not consistently better
performers than small companies. There is no clear ‘size effect’. In fact, on some
dimensions of performance, larger companies appear to perform worse. Figure 2
shows sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generating companies (note the
logarithmic x-axis).
Profits and environmental performance. Many previous studies have investigated
the links between profitability of companies and better environmental performance.
Our analysis of the MEPI data produced mixed results. For most dimensions of
environmental performance no clear link to profitability is evident. Evidence for a
positive link is sketchy — companies producing more waste tend to be less
profitable in the paper, textile finishing and printing sectors. There are also some
perverse results. Paper companies emitting more chemical oxygen demand
(COD) to water tend to be more profitable, for instance (see Table 7).
Environmental management and environmental performance. Many companies
have introduced environmental management systems as a way of monitoring and
F. Berkhout
180