




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (2), pp. 049-058, September, 
2013. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 
 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Environmental management in Brazil: A survey 
evaluating current practice and performance in the 

industrial sector 

 
Wagner Cezar Lucato*, Rosângela Maria Vanalle, Milton Vieira Júnior and José Carlos da 

Silva Santos 
 

Industrial Engineering Post Graduation Program, UniversidadeNove de Julho – São Paulo, Brazil. 
 

Accepted 24 April, 2013 
 

The rapid urban development observed in major cities and the resulting environmental impacts have 
made the lessening of these impacts a key objective in sustainable development and companies have 
been required to consider economic, environmental and social consequences in their cultures, 
strategies and decision-making processes. The goal of this paper was to evaluate to what extent 
manufacturing companies have been responding to these challenges. The study was performed with a 
survey that considered 63 manufacturing firms of different sizes and from a variety of sectors located in 
Brazil. The results of the research and the statistical analysis performed on these results suggested 
that the actions taken by industries to face their environmental challenges have generally been effective 
and surpassed the environmental demands enforced by the law in multiple ways. The hypotheses 
tested as part of this experiment allowed the researchers to verify that companies with ISO 14001 
certification had better environmental performance than those without it, as expected. It was also 
possible to verify that the discipline imposed by forms of certification other than ISO 14001 have had 
positive influence on the environmental performance. The research results confirmed that multinational 
companies had better environmental performance than Brazilian national firms. On the other hand, firm 
size did matter in terms of environmental performance, but no significant difference was perceived 
among manufacturing companies in different industrial sectors. 

 
Key words: Environmental performance, industrial pollution, sustainable development, survey, Brazil. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The environmental impacts of urban expansion have 
been extensively analysed, illustrating the adverse effects 
this expansion has had on air, water, and soil (Brehemy, 
1992; Camagni et al., 2002; Pare´s-Franzi et al., 2006; 
Wu et al., 2010). In fact, environmental degradation has 
intensified as production and consumption have expan-
ded (Jabbour and Santos, 2008), which has made the 
reduction of the environmental impacts resulting from 
 
 

 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: wlucato@uninove.br. Tel/ Fax: + 
55 11 3665-9355. 

 
 
 

 
accelerated urban expansion a key objective in sustain-
able development (Pare´s-Franzi et al., 2006). As a 
result, businesses have generally been pushed to incur-
porate economic, environmental and social performance 
measures into their cultures, strategies and decision-
making processes (Brent and Visser, 2005).  

Environmental issues can usually be expected as a 
result of urban human concentrations and dense econo-
mic activity. For instance, emissions in the São Paulo 
Metropolitan Area (the most industrialised region in 
Brazil) amounted to 1.6 million tons of carbon monoxide, 
382 thousand tons of hydrocarbons, 376 thousand tons of 
nitrogen oxides, 63 thousand tons of particulate 



Lucato et al.               049 
 
 

 
material and 26 thousand tons of sulphur oxides in 2009 
(CETESB, 2010). It is true that most of those emissions 
have arisen from motor vehicle (Tavares et al., 2011). 
However, public authorities have also put pressure on the 
industrial sector to minimise pollution problems in the 
area.  

With these issues in mind, the main purpose of this 
paper was to analyse to what extent the Brazilian 
industries have been responding to current environmental 
challenges. This goal was realised through a survey that 
considered63 national and multinational industries of 
different sizes and from different sectors, located predo-
minantly in the São Paulo State. The results allowed the 
researchers to understand the current environment-
related practices actually employed by the industries 
under study and how these practices have contributed to 
their current environmental performance.  

Sustainable development can be defined as meeting 
the needs of current generations without impeding future 
generations from meeting theirs (Smith and Rees, 1998). 
Sustainable development cannot be achieved without the 
effective implementation of environmental management 
in companies, and it has become critical to their survival 
in a competitive globalised world (Preston, 2001). Thus, 
business sustainability requires the integration of the 
three pillars of sustainable development (social justice, 
economic efficiency and environmental performance) into 
a company's operational practices. Firms have been 
increasingly required by external stakeholders to commit 
to and report on the respective sustainability performance 
of their operational initiatives (Labuschagne et al., 2005) 
as a way to enhance to the goal of becoming high 
performance or “world-class” organisations (Molefe et al., 
2011).  

According to Srebotnjak (2007), many different 
definitions of environmental performance exist. However, 
the ISO 14001 standard – Environmental Management 
System Specification and Use – defines environmental 
performance as “measurable results of an organization’s 
management of its environmental aspects” (ISO, 2004, 
p.3). ISO 14001 is also the international standard that 
permits organisations to obtain an environmental 
management system certification. As a specification 
standard, it is part of the ISO 14000 family, a full set of 
ISO environmental procedures. ISO 14001 enables firms 
to pursue continuous environmental improvements using 
the PDCA (plan-do-check-act) model (Angell and 
Klassen, 1999) and also illustrates how an environmental 
policy simplifies environmental planning, implementation 
and operation by continuously checking company’s 
environmental performance and taking corrective actions 
when required. The central assumption of this approach 
is that by improving its manufacturing processes, a firm 
can provide better environmental practices, improving its 
financial and operational performance as a result 
(Gavronski et al., 2013; Nawrocka and Parker, 2009; 

 
 
 

 
Silva and Medeiros, 2004).  

According to May et al. (2002), companies should 
understand their respective environmental performance 
to formulate proper environmental policies, plans, and 
programs for their activities. Some scholars have deve-
loped research on the correlation between environmental 
and business performance. For instance, results from 
Klassen et al. (1996), King and Lenox (2001) and Koner 
and Cohen (2001) have indicated that businesses with 
better environmental performance and less pollution 
show a higher financial performance.  

To help organisations measure their environmental per-
formance, the International Organisation for Standar-
disation (ISO) has developed the ISO 14031 standard – 
Environmental Management and Environmental Perfor-
mance Evaluation and Guidelines (ISO, 1999). According 
to ISO, the environmental performance evaluation is “an 
internal process and management tool designed to 
provide management with reliable and verifiable 
information on an on-going basis to determine whether an 
organisation’s environmental performance is meeting the 
criteria set by the management of the organisation”.  
Therefore, environmental performance evaluation is 
considered a process or a tool dealing with the utilisation 
of indicators (Jasch, 2000; Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2008). 
ISO 14031 also proposes a methodology to measure the 
environmental performance of companies in terms of 
definitions, working structures, and different types of 
quantitative indicators such as environmental, manage-
ment and operational performance indicators. Note that 
indicators are the main tools used in this standard, and 
are defined as the “specific expression that provides 
information about an organization’s environmental 
performance” (ISO, 1999, p.7).  

Despite an increasing focus on various environmental 
performance indices at the national, sectorial and 
company levels (Srebotnjak, 2007; Mayer, 2008), the 
environmental performance measurement remains one of 
the greatest challenges to organisations (Johnston et al., 
2001) because the uncertainty of measurements in 
relation to the indicators used is often neglected. On the 
other hand, the uncertainty of raw data is a critical issue, 
because an indicator can reveal a true picture of 
environmental performance only if it is based on good-
quality data (Perotto et al., 2008).  

In addition, the basic objective of environmental 
performance evaluation through the use of indicators is to 
assure that industrial activities evolve in line with 
sustainable principles that are acceptable to society and 
the environment. In practice, environmental performance 
indicators can be used in several decision situations by 
internal and external stakeholders to assure a continuous 
process of environmental impact reduction in products or 
processes. Internal stakeholders require detailed indica-
tors to monitor and control the environmental perfor-
mance of their products and activities as part of their 



 
 
 

 
business processes. Conversely, external stakeholders 
need broader indicators that can enable them to pressure 
the company for continuous improvement of its environ-
mental performance (Thoresen, 1999).  

The main purpose of this paper was to investigate to 
what extent the industries located in Brazil have been 
responding to current environmental challenges. To that 
end, the authors decided to identify the key environ-
mental practices being executed by industries in the area 
and how those practices could express the environmental 
performance of each. The following hypotheses (H) were 
also posed to investigate the relationships between a 
firm’s environmental performance and some of its key 
characteristics: 
 
H1: Companies with ISO 14001 certification have better 
environmental performance than those without it.  

Gavronski et al. (2013) have indicated that ISO 14001-
certified Brazilian companies have created a more inte-
grated approach to environmental management by 
adopting practices that favour their environmental 
performance. Therefore this paper tested the selected 
research sample by confirming through hypothesis H1 
that ISO 14001 certification had a positive impact on 
environmental measurement. 
 
H2: The discipline imposed by certifications other than 
ISO 14001 positively influences environmental perfor-
mance.  

Oliveira and Pinheiro (2009) have confirmed the impor-
tance of minimising the resistance to change caused by 
ISO 14001 certification in Brazilian companies. This 
paper verified that the adoption of other types of 
certification (like ISO 9001, for instance) could positively 
impact the implementation of environmental practices that 
result in better environmental performances. 
 
H3: Multinational companies have a better environmental 
performance than Brazilian national firms.  

Many managerial practices used by multinational com-
panies are progressively being emulated by the local 
manufacturing community in developing countries (Cruz 
and Pedrozo, 2009; Melnyk et al., 2003). Therefore this 
study investigated whether this statement applied to the 
environmental practices lead to environmental perfor-
mance. 
 
H4: Firm size matters to environmental performance.  

It has been postulated that larger companies have 
higher environmental awareness than smaller firms 
(Jabbour et al., 2010). This paper verified if the environ-
mental performance of larger companies was significantly 
better than that observed in medium and small firms. 
 
H5: Companies belonging to the auto industry have better 
environmental performance when compared to 

 

  
 
 
 
other industrial segments. 
 
There is a conceivable expectation in Brazil that 
environmental performance in the auto industry is far 
better than that observed in other manufacturing sectors 
as a result of the stringent requirements imposed by 
multinational auto assemblers on their entire supply 
chains (Vanalle et al., 2011). To see if this fact could be 
confirmed, this study tested whether the auto industry’s 
environmental performance was significantly different 
from that identified in other manufacturing segments. 
 
 
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
 
A survey was conducted as per Forza (2002) to evaluate the 
environmental practices employed by industries in Brazil and the 
listed research hypotheses. For that purpose a population frame 
was composed by all the industrial companies associated with the 
São Paulo Industrial Federation. Among them 150 industrial firms 
were randomly chosen by means of a systematic sampling where 
one firm was selected for every 10 existing in the population frame.  

A questionnaire with closed questions was then sent by e-mail to 
the person in charge of environmental management in industrial 
firms forming the research sample. The researchers subsequently 
contacted these persons by phone to encourage completion of the 
questionnaire. Of the questionnaires sent, 63 or 42% were fully and 
adequately answered and used to support the analysis and findings 
in this paper.  

The questionnaire was comprised 11 questions that covered: a) 
current environmental licence status (1 question); b) solid and liquid 
waste disposal methods (4 questions); c) environmental 
consideration in product design, manufacturing processes and 
purchasing (3 questions); d) potential pollution problems affecting 
the firm’s neighbourhood (1 question) and e) environment as a key 
strategic factor (2 questions). Each question posed five statements 
describing different approaches to each of the subjects being 
considered. Those statements described typical practices ranging 
from those with a high level of environmental awareness and 
commitment (that is, best practices) to those involving no 
environmental concern at all (that is, worst practices). However, as 
a result of the questionnaire testing, the sequence of practices 
presented to the interviewees changed from question to question to 
avoid answering bias. As an example, one of the questions posed 
to the interviewees is shown in Figure 1. Note that letters (A) to (C) 
added to this example indicate best environmental practice (A) and 
worst environmental practice (E).(B), (C) and (D) were used to 
show the 3 intermediate alternatives. These letters were not 
included in the questionnaire sent to the firms.  

The returned questionnaires were analysed to verify the ade-
quacy and consistency of the answers provided by the inter-
viewees. From the 72 questionnaires received, 9 were discarded 
due to apparent inconsistencies. The remaining 63 were tabulated 
and their data were processed using SPSS – Statistical Package for 
Social Science for Windows Version 13 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, 
USA).  

Although the literature provides several alternatives to measuring 
the environmental performance of a company (Verfaillie and 
Bidwell, 2000; OECD, 2002, 2005; Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005; 
Styles et al., 2009a, 2009b), this study proposes an environmental 
performance evaluation method based on the best environmental 
practices actually used by organisations. This approach identified 
the environmental practices being utilised by a given company in 
predefined areas and granted a certain number of points to each 

050       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



Lucato et al.               051 
 
 
 
 
 

In relation to the sanitary sewer and other liquid wastes not used in 
the manufacturing floor: 

 
(C) ( ) The company disposes them in the public sewage system but the 
effluents are disposed with no treatment in a body of water; 

 
(D) ( ) The company disposes them in the public sewage system but 
doesn’t know the final destination of its effluents; 

 
(A) ( ) The company has its own sewer treatment plant and totally reuses 
the water resulting from this treatment process; 

 
(E) ( ) The company disposes them with no treatment into cesspit, into a 
nearby body of water or other places. 

 
Figure 1. One example of a question posed to the interviewees.  

Letters (A) to (E) added to this example to indicate best (A) and worst (E) environmental practices. (B), (C) and  
(D) represent statements with intermediary environmental concerns. These letters were not included in the 
questionnaire sent to the firms. 

 

 
practice. A maximum number of points was given to those practices 
reflecting high environmental commitment and a minimum number 
of points was granted to those practices reflecting no environmental 
concerns at all. Proportional points were given to different situations 
in-between those two extremes. By adding all of the points obtained 
by a particular company, it was possible to calculate a score that 
could serve as a measure of that company’s environmental 
performance. Hence, to measure a company’s environmental 
performance, 5 points were granted to each question for which a 
best practice was selected by the interviewee. On the other hand, 1 
point was granted whenever the answer indicated a non-
environmental practice. 4, 3 or 2 points were granted for the 3 
intermediate alternatives depending on the statement chosen. The 
overall environmental performance of a given company was 
measured by adding the points obtained from the 11 questions, 
ranging from a minimum of 11 possible points to a maximum of 55.  

Comparisons of environmental performances of different sets of 
firms were required to test the 5 hypotheses proposed by this study. 
Those evaluations required, where appropriate, descriptive 
statistics and hypotheses testing using two samples mean 
comparisons through an independent t-test and several sample 
mean comparisons using a One-way ANOVA. Significant 
coefficients were identified at p<.05 as per Dancey and Reidy 
(2007). 

 

 
17 belonged to the automotive sector, 5 to the electrical 
component manufacturing sector, 25 to the metal-
mechanical sector and 16 to 12 other industrial sectors; 
and d) certifications: 25 of the researched companies had 
both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications, 30 were only 
ISO 9001 certified, 2 were only ISO 14001 certified and 6 
had no ISO certifications.  

The survey results were initially evaluated on a 
question-by-question basis with the objective to 
identifying the most common environmental practices 
used by the companies under study and those practices’ 
influence on a company’s environmental performance. 
Statistical analyses were then developed to evaluate if 
variables such as ownership, size, industrial sector or 
quality and environmental certification could induce differ-
rent environmental performance in the researched com-
panies, a practice called the performance comparison. 

 
Question-by-question analysis 

 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
As alluded to already, the survey was answered by 63 
companies with the following characteristics: a) owner-
ship: 23 were subsidiaries of multinational companies 
operating in Brazil and 40 were national firms; b) size: 15 
were small (less than 100 employees), 26 were medium 
(between 100 and 499 employees), 13 were large 
(between 500 and 1,999 employees) and 9 were very 
large (more than 2,000 employees); c) industrial sector: 

 
After analysing the returned questionnaires it was 
possible to group the results as shown in Figure 1, where 
A represents the statement reflecting the best environ-
mental practices and E the worst. B, C and D signify 
statements with intermediary environmental concerns. 
The numbers shown in each column indicate the number 
of companies that reported the use of each environ-
mental practice presented on the left (A, B, C, D or E). 
For instance, in terms of the first environmental aspect 
analysed (adequate licensing), 53 of the 63 researched 
companies indicated that they had all the required 
environmental permits (statement A), 3 stated that they 



 
 
 

 
did not have any environmental licences at all (statement 
E) and 1 noted that it was still in the process of obtaining 
the appropriate licences(statement D).  

The first question posed to the interviewees asked 
about the current status of their companies’ environ-
mental licences. 59(94%) of the companies indicated that 
their licences were in full compliance with local 
legislation, indicating that being legally accountable was a 
major concern among industries in the research area. Of 
the remaining 4 companies, 1 affirmed that it was in 
process of fixing licensing issues and only 3 small 
companies stated that they did not have the necessary 
documentation.  

In terms of dangerous solid wastes, 15 firms (24%) 
indicated that they did not generate any such waste. Of 
the remaining 48, 47(98%) said they provided adequate 
waste disposal in accordance with local regulations and 
under direct supervision of environmental authorities. The 
other company stated that it disposed of dangerous solid 
wastes according to the legal requirements, but with no 
previous authorisation from environmental authorities. No 
other environmental issues were reported in this section 
of the questionnaire.  

19 companies (30%) mentioned that they did not 
generate any industrial effluents in addition to conven-
tional sewage material. Of the other 44, 24(55%) 
indicated that they performed an adequate treatment prior 
to returning effluents to the environment because they did 
not reutilise them in the manufacturing process. 6 firms 
(14%) performed some reutilisation and the remaining 14 
(32%) reutilised all effluents for further use. Note that all 
of the researched companies performed an adequate 
effluent disposal and only the degree of effluent 
reutilisation varied.  

The results on sewage disposal were not as positive. 
43 companies (68%) either had their own treatment plant 
with which to reutilise water (13 firms or 20%) or dispose 
of sewage effluent into the public system where proper 
treatment could be performed (30 companies or 48%). 10 
(16%) said they disposed sewage effluents into the public 
system, but the sewage ended up in a nearby river with 
no treatment at all. The remaining 10(16%) indicated they 
disposed of sewage materials into a cesspit or directly 
into a nearby river.  

As far as non-dangerous solid waste are concerned 
(manufacturing, general garbage and organic materials), 
42 companies (67%) reported that they performed waste 
separation and send it for recycling. 61(97%) had their 
scrap and inorganic garbage removed by third parties for 
adequate disposal in authorised landfills, while organic 
wastes were removed by the municipal garbage 
collection services. Only two firms stated that they sent 
both organic and inorganic wastes to an unauthorized 
location (Table 1).  

In terms of product design, 56 companies (89%) 
indicated that they accounted for environmental aspects 

 

  
 
 

 
when designing their products. However, only 31(49%) 
considered the environmental impacts of disposing of a 
product after its useful lifespan. The remaining 24(38%) 
assumed that the product’s destination was the final 
consumer’s responsibility. Only 6 firms (10%) did not 
consider environmental issues when designing their 
products.  

On the other hand, manufacturing process design is 
fared much better. 57 companies (90%) considered raw 
material and energy conservation along with toxic 
material elimination, reduction (of both quantity and 
toxicity) of wastes and gaseous emissions when design-
ning their manufacturing processes. Only 6 firms (10%) 
stated that they considered environmental constraints in 
their manufacturing process as long as these constraints 
did not adversely affect their manufacturing costs.  

Purchasing processes were also questioned in the 
survey. 58 firms (92%) considered environmental aspects 
to some extent during their purchasing process. Of these, 
12 companies (19%) indicated they purchase materials 
and services exclusively from vendors with some type of 
environmental certification, while other 15(24%) adopted 
the same approach but only for items with high pollution 
potential. The remaining 31(49%) stated that they had a 
preference for environmental certified vendors, provided 
that the vendors had the same commercial conditions as 
the non-certified sources. Only 5 (8%) firms declared that 
they did not consider environmental aspects in their 
purchasing processes.  

The next question was about the relationship a com-
pany had with its community in terms of its pollution 
potential. 48 firms (76%) reported not having any type of 
problem. The other 15(24%) indicated that minor 
complaints from neighbours had been reported, but the 
situation had been settled with no adverse impact on 
community relationships.  

In terms of the environmental practices used by the 
companies under study, 59 firms(93%) confirmed that 
these practices were the result of the company’s own 
initiative, inspired by the understanding that: a) environ-
ment protection is one of the pillars of sustainability (41 
companies or 65%); b) modern companies should be 
concerned with protecting the environment (16 or 25%) 
and c) this is a concept already adopted by most of a 
company’s competitors (2 or 3%). 3 firms (5%) indicated 
that environmental practices had been imposed by their 
clients and only one company stated that it was not 
concerned with environmental issues.  

42 companies (77%) confirmed that environment 
protection was one of their key strategic elements as 
perceived by both internal and external stakeholders. 20 
(32%) declared that they were concerned with environ-
mental aspects but that these aspects were not part of 
their strategic thinking. Only one company stated that it 
was not concerned with environmental issues.  

As  stated earlier, a given company’s environmental 

052       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



Lucato et al.               053 
 
 

 
Table 1. Number of companies indicating environmental practices currently in use (A represents a statement reflecting the best 
environmental practices and E the worst. B, C and D represent statements with intermediary environmental concerns). 

 

     
A

de
qu

at
e 

en
vi

ro
nm

en
ta

lli
ce

ns
in

g 

A
d

e
q

u
a

te
 s

o
li

d
 w

a
s

te
 d

is
p

o
s

a
l 

A
d

e
q

u
a

te
 e

ff
lu

e
n

t 
d

is
p

o
s

a
l 

A
d

e
q

u
a

te
 s

e
w

a
g

e
 d

is
p

o
s

a
l 

A
d

eq
u

at
e 

n
o

n
-i

n
d

u
st

ri
al

 

g
ar

b
ag

ed
is

p
o

sa
l 

E
nv

ir
on

m
en

ta
l c

on
si

de
ra

tio
ns

 

in
pr

od
uc

td
es

ig
n 

En
vi

ro
nm

en
ta

l c
on

si
de

ra
tio

ns
 

in
m

fg
.p

ro
ce

ss
de

si
gn

 

E
nv

ir
on

m
en

ta
l c

on
si

de
ra

tio
ns

 

in
pu

rc
ha

si
ng

 

R
el

at
io

ns
hi

p 
w

ith
 

ne
ig

hb
ou

rin
gc

om
m

un
iti

es
 

En
vi

ro
nm

en
ta

l p
ro

te
ct

io
n 

as
 

its
ow

ni
ni

tia
tiv

e 

En
vi

ro
nm

en
ta

l p
ro

te
ct

io
n 

as
 

ak
ey

st
ra

te
gi

cd
ire

ct
io

n 

 

                 

 Best environmental practice  A 59 15  19 13 42 32 53 12 48 41 27 
 

                 
 

    

B 0 47 
 

14 30 14 12 4 15 15 16 15 
 

 
Intermediary environmental 

  
 

  C 0 1  6 4 2 12 0 11 0 2 0 
 

 practice   
D 1 0 

 
24 6 3 1 6 20 0 3 20  

     
 

 Worst environmental practice  E 3 0  0 10 2 6 0 5 0 1 1 
 

                 
 

    Total 63 63  63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 
 

 

 
performance was measured by granting 5 points to each 
question for which a best practice was cited by the 
interviewee and 1 point whenever a non-environmental 
practice was selected. 4, 3 or 2 points were granted as 
the other 3 possible alternatives depending on the state-
ment selected. A company’s environmental performance 
was measured by adding the points obtained from the 11 
questions. Applying those assumptions to the 11 
questions answered by each of the 63 companies 
included in the survey, it was possible to calculate each 
company’s environmental performance. The following 
descriptive statistics on the 63 firms’ environmental 
performance were calculated using SPSS for Windows 
13.0 software: a) a performance range with a: minimum 
of 29 (compared to a possible minimum of 11) and a 
maximum of 53 (against a possible maximum of 55); b) a 
sample distribution mean of 45.1; c) a sample distribution 
median of 46.0; d) a sample distribution standard 
deviation of 5.04; e) a 95% confidence level interval for 
the a mean of 43.8 < µ < 46.4. The statistical analysis 
also indicated that the environmental performance was 
normally distributed about the mean.  

The environmental performance of the industrial com-
panies located in the research area showed that the 
environmental concerns represented a great deal more 
than conventional corporate speech. Environmentally-
friendly practices have been actually used to a great 
extent by the majority of industrial firms in the area, 
regardless of their size, ownership or industrial sector 
they belong. These statistics were not the result of law 

 

 
enforcement, because many of the practices described in 
the questionnaire were not imposed by environmental 
laws. Some examples of these practices are described as 
follows a) There is no legal obligation for companies to 
select and recycle non-industrial garbage, but 42 out of 
the 63 researched companies (67%) selected and 
recycled the garbage anyway, b) There is no provision in 
the law requiring environmental considerations when 
defining manufacturing processes. However, 53 firms 
(84%) indicated that they were concerned with the 
conservation of materials and energy, elimination of toxic 
wastes and reduction of toxicity and quantity of wastes 
and emissions when they developed the fabrication 
processes for their products, c) Environmental legislation 
does not impose rules on a company relationship with the 
community in the vicinity of its plants. However, 48 firms 
(76%) expressed deep concern about maintaining the 
neighbouring public’s immunity to pollution problems 
caused by their manufacturing operations. Therefore, it 
seems that increased environmental awareness could be 
considered a possible source for several of the 
environmental initiatives taken by local industries. 
 
 
Performance comparisons 
 
H1: The data collected in the survey enable some 
interesting comparisons. Initially, it would be reasonable 
to expect that companies with ISO 14001 certification 
would display better environmental performance than 



 
 

 
Table 2. SPSS output for the independent t-test on the equality of the means in H1. 
 
  Levene´s test for    

t test for equality of means   
 

  equality of variances      
 

          
 

            

  
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. error 95% confidence 

 

  difference difference interval  

        
 

             

Performance 
Equal variances assumed 9.61 .003 -2.472 61 .016  -3.0463 1.23224 -5.5103 -0.5822 

 

Equal variances not assumed 
  

-2.688 55.03 .009 
 

-3.0463 1.13311 -5.3170 -0.7755  

    
 

             

 

 
those without it (Fortunski, 2007). This statement 
was tested as a research hypothesis to verify if it 
could be accepted with a significant level of 
confidence. In fact, calculating the environmental 
performance of the ISO-certified companies they 
yielded a 46.9 mean and a 3.0 standard deviation. 
The mean and standard deviation of the other 
firms were 43.8 and 5.8 respectively. To verify if 
there was an actual significant difference between 
the two means, an independent t-test was 
conducted to compare the environmental perfor-
mance means of the 27 ISO 14001 certified 
companies and the other 36 firms. Using SPSS 
for Windows 13.0 it was possible to obtain the 
results shown in Table 2.  

Table 2 shows that the independent t-test for 61 
degrees of freedom demonstrated that if the null 
hypo-thesis was true the result would be impro-
bable because t(61) = 2.47; p < .016. In 
conclusion, the research hypothesis was accepted 
because there was actually a difference between 
the environmental performance of the ISO 14001-
certified companies and the non-certified firms, as 
initially expected. 
 
H2: Does the discipline imposed by certifications 
other than ISO 14001 influence environmental 
performance? To test this hypothesis the com-
panies with no environmental certification were 
grouped together, and a comparison between the 

 

 
environmental performances of the 30 ISO 900-
certified and the other 6 non-certified firms was 
performed within this set. The following results 
were obtained: a) The environmental performance 
mean of the ISO 9001-certified companies was 
44.8, with a 4.2 standard deviation; b) The other 
firms had a 38.7 mean and a 9.8 standard devia-
tion. To verify if a significant difference between 
the two means existed, an independent t-test was 
also conducted as shown in Table 3.  

The independent t-test for 34 degrees of 
freedom could demonstrated that if the null hypo-
thesis was true, the results would be improbable 
because t(34) = 2.54; p < .016. In conclusion, the 
research hypothesis was accepted. In the 
absence of ISO 14001 certification, there was a 
difference in the environmental performance of 
the ISO 9001-certified companies and the other 
firms. 
 
H3: Another research hypothesis was related to 
ownership: do multinational companies have 
better environmental performance than Brazilian 
national firms? The results of testing this 
hypothesis are as follows: a) The environmental 
performance mean of the 23 multinational com-
panies was 47.6, with a 2.6 standard deviation, b) 
The 40 national firms had a 43.7 mean and a 5.5 
standard deviation. The significant difference 
between the two means was also verified through 

 

 
an independent t-test as shown in Table 4.  

The independent t-test for 61 degrees of 
freedom demonstrated that if the null hypothesis 
was true, the results would be very improbable 
because t(61) = 3.27; p < .002. In conclusion, the 
research hypothesis was accepted because 
there was a statistically significant difference in 
the environmental performances of the 
multinational and national companies. 
 
H4: Does size matter when considering environ-
mental performance? To test this hypothesis, the 
companies under study were divided into four 
groups: 9 very large, 13 large, 26 medium and 15 
small. The descriptive statistics for those groups 
were: a) very large - mean 47.4 and standard 
deviation 4.0; b) large - mean 47.1 and standard 
deviation 2.6; c) medium - mean 45.6 and 
standard deviation 4.6; and d) small - mean 41.1 
and standard deviation 5.2. To verify if a 
significant difference existed among those 
means, a One-way ANOVA test was performed 
using SPSS for Windows 13.0. The results are 
shown in Table 5.  

The F test for 3 (between the groups) and 59 
(within the groups) degrees of freedom verified 
that if the null hypothesis was true, the result 
would be very improbable because F(3;59) = 
5.49; p < .002. In conclusion, the research 
hypothesis was accepted because there was a 
statistically 

  054       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 



Lucato  et al.               055 
 

 
Table 3. SPSS output for the independent t-test on the equality of the means in H2. 

 
  Levene´s test for   

t test for equality of means   
 

  equality of variances     
 

         
 

           

  
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. error 95% confidence 

 

  tailed) difference difference interval  

      
 

            

Performance Equal variances assumed 12.338 .001 -2.54 34 .016 6.16667 2.42717 1.23405 11.0993 
 

 Equal variances not assumed   1.518 5.384 .185 6.16667 4.06369 -4.0589 16.39230 
 

 
 
 

Table 4. SPSS output for the independent t-test on the equality of the means in H3. 
 

  Levene´s test for        
 

  equality of   t test for equality of means   
 

  variances        
 

           

  
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. error 95% confidence 

 

  tailed) difference difference interval  

      
 

            

Performance Equal variances assumed 9.375 .003 3.265 61 .002 4,00217 1.22572 1.55120 6.45315 
 

 Equal variances not assumed   3.893 59.284 .000 4.00217 1.02817 1.94501 6.05934 
 

 

 
significant difference in environmental perfor-mance 
depending on the size of the company under 
consideration. However, post hoc analysis 
considering multiple comparisons as per Tuckey’s 
HSD (honestly significant differences) test, indicated 
that significant differences existed at the  
.05 level only between the small companies and all 
the other firms. No differences were significant 
between the very large, large and medium size firms. 
 
H5: This research also investigated a widespread 
idea in the literature indicating that companies 
belonging to the auto industry have had better 
environmental performance compared to other 
industrial segments due to the stringent environ-
mental requirements imposed by auto assemblers on 
their entire supply chains. To test this 

 

 
hypothesis the firms under study were divided into 
four segments: 17 belonging to the automotive 
sector, 5 to the electrical component manufac-
turing sector, 25 to the metal-mechanical sector 
and 16 to 12 other industrial sectors. The 
descriptive statistics for those groups were: a) 
automotive – mean 44.2 and standard deviation 
5.9; b) electrical component manufacturing – 
mean 46.4 and standard deviation 3.16; c) metal-
mechanical – mean 44.7 and standard deviation 
4.4; and d) all others – mean 46.4 and standard 
deviation 5.2. To test if a significant difference 
existed among those means, a One-way ANOVA 
test was once again conducted, which produced 
the results shown in Table 6.  

The F-test for 3 (between the groups) and 59 
(within the groups) degrees of freedom demon-
strated that the null hypothesis could not be 

 

 
rejected because F(3;59) = .69; p < .561. In 
conclusion, the research hypothesis was rejected 
because there was not a statistically significant 
difference in environmental performance accor-
ding to sector.  

Table 7 shows the 5 hypotheses considered in 
this research and the results from the statistical 
tests performed on them. In summary, this 
research suggested that the industries in the 
research area with ISO 14001 certification had a 
better environmental performance than those 
without it, as expected. The same conclusion was 
extended to those companies with ISO 9001-
certified quality systems even in the absence of 
ISO 14001. It was possible to conclude that multi-
national firms implemented more environmental 
friendly practices compared to Brazilian national 
companies. Size mattered to environmental



 
 
 

Table 5. SPSS output for a one-way ANOVA test on H4. 
 

 Sum of square df Mean square F Sig. 
Between groups 343.190 3 114.397 5,492 .002 

Performance   Within groups 1,229.032 59 20.831   

Total 1,572.222 62    
 

 
Table 6. SPSS output for a one-way ANOVA test on H5. 

 
  Sum of square df Mean square F Sig. 
 Between groups 53.361 3 17.787 .691 .561 
Performance Within groups 1,518.861 59 25.743   

 Total 1,572.222 62    
 

 
Table 7. Summary of the tested hypotheses and their respective results. 
 
Hypotheses Status Reason 
 
H1 
 
 
 
H2 
 
 
 
H3 
 
 
 
H4 
 
 
 
H5 

 
Companies with ISO 14001 certification have better 
environmental performance than those without it. 

 
The discipline imposed by certifications other than 
ISO 14001 positively influences environmental 
performance. 

 
Multinational companies have better environmental 
performance than Brazilian national firms. 
 

 
Firm size matters. 
 
 
Companies belonging to the auto industry have 
better environmental performance than those in 
other industrial segments. 

 
Accepted 
 
 
 
Accepted 
 
 
 
Accepted 
 
 
 
Accepted 
 
 
 
Rejected 

 
The independent t-test demonstrated that if the null 
hypothesis was true, the results were improbable 
because t(61) = 2.47; p < .016. 
 
The independent t-test verified that if the null 
hypothesis was true, the results were improbable 
because t(34) = 2.54; p < .016. 
 
The independent t-test established that if the null 
hypothesis was true, the results were very improbable 
because t(61) = 3.27; p < .002. 
 
The F test (ANOVA) corroborated that if the null 
hypothesis was true, the results were very improbable 
because F(3;59) = 5.49; p < .002. 

 
The F test (ANOVA) proved that the null hypothesis 
could not be rejected because F(3;59) = .69; p < .561. 

 
 
 
performance, but only when comparing small companies 
to the other sizes considered. Finally, no significant 
environmental performance differences could be 
perceived among different sectors of industry. 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
The accelerated urban expansion observed in the 
research area has made the reduction of the resulting 
environmental impacts a crucial objective to sustainable 
development. The industrial sector has been challenged 
by environmental authorities to make a significant 
contribution to efforts to reduce pollution in the area, by 
imposing stringent environmental requirements.  

However, the results of the survey presented in this 

 
 
 
study suggested that general actions taken by industries 
to combat the environmental challenges have been 
effective and surpassed the mere shallow environmental 
wording. Companies have shown more environmental 
concern than the “must do” requirements imposed by 
legislation, as the actual practices observed transcend 
legal demands in several aspects. In fact, the results 
indicated that the environmental performance of the 
companies considered in this research reached a 46-
point mean (against a maximum of 55). Furthermore, 
several of the environmental practices reported by the 
firms were broader and more environmentally friendly 
than those required by local environmental authorities. 
The research also highlighted the general characteristics 
of the companies most committed to the utilisation of best 
environmental practices. These companies are ISO 

  056       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 



Lucato et al.               057 
 
 

 
14001- certified or had at least an ISO 9001 certification 
and were usually multinational firms that were not small in 
size and belonged to no specific industrial sector.  

The findings presented here are also subject to some 
limitations. The validity of the proposed environmental 
performance measures should be verified by further 
research comparing it with similar indices that are already 
being used. This step was not performed here because 
proposing a new method to measure environmental 
performance was not the central focus of this work. 
Second, the initial questionnaire answered by the 
researched firms should be followed by a more in-depth 
interview, in which much more detailed information could 
be obtained to shed light on specific points not covered 
by the present survey and create a more meaningful 
analysis. Future research will consider this approach to 
report on amore detailed analysis. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
 
The authors are grateful to the Research Backing Fund 
from UNINOVE – UniversidadeNove de Julho. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Angell LC, Klassen RD (1999). Integrating environmental issues into the 

mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management. J. 
Oper. Manag. 17:575-598.  

Brehemy M (1992). Sustainable development and urban form. London: 
Pion.  

Brent AC, Visser JK (2005). An environmental performance resource 
impact indicator for life cycle management in the manufacturing 
industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 13:557-565.  

Camagni RM, Gibelli P, Riagamonti B (2002). Urban mobility and urban 
form: the social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban 
expansion. Ecol. Econ. 40:199-216.  

CETESB – Companhia Ambiental do Estado do São Paulo (2010). Air 
quality report in the State of São Paulo 2009.CETESB, São Paulo (in 
Portuguese).  

Cruz LB, Pedrozo EA (2009). Corporate social responsibility and green 
management: relation between headquarters and subsidiary in 
multinational corporations. Manag. Decis. 47(7): 1174-1199.  

Dancey C, Reidy J (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology: 

using SPSS for Windows, 4
th

 ed. Harlow, England: Pearson 
Education.  

Fortunski B (2007). Does the environmental management standard ISO 
14001 stimulate sustainable development? Manag. Environ. Qual. 
19(2):204-212.  

Forza C (2002). Survey research in operations management: a process 
based perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod.Manag. 22(2):152-194.  

Gavronski I, Paiva EL, Teixeira R, Andrade, MCF (2013). ISO 14001 
certified plants in Brazil e taxonomy and practices. J. Cleaner Prod. 
39:32-41.  

Huppes G, Ishikawa M (2005). A framework for quantified ecoefficiency 
analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 9:25-41. 

ISO – International Organization for Standardization (1999). ISO 14031  
– environmental management and environmental performance 
evaluation e guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for 
Standardization.  

ISO - International Organization for Standardization (2004).ISO14001 – 
standards and environmental management systems. Geneva: 
International Organization for Standardization. 

 
 
 

 
Jabbour CJC, Santos FCA (2008). Relationships between human 

resource dimensions and environmental management in companies: 
proposal of a model. J. Cleaner Prod. 16:51-58.  

Jabbour CJC, Teixeira AA, Oliveira JHC, Soubihia DF (2010). 
Managing environmental training in organizations: theoretical review 
and proposal of a model. Manag. Environ. Qual. 21(6):830-844.  

Jasch C (2000). Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. 
J. Cleaner Prod. 8:79-88.  

Johnston A, Hutchison J, Smith A (2001). Significant environmental 
impact evaluation: a proposed methodology. Eco-Manag. Aud. 7:186-
195.  

King AA, Lenox MJ (2001). Lean and green? An empirical examination 
of the relationship between lean production and environmental 
performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10(3):244-256.  

Klassen RD, McLaughlin A, Curtis P (1996). The impact of 
environmental management on firm performance. Manag. Sci. 
42(8):1199-1214.  

Koner S, Cohen MA (2001). Does the market value affect 
environmental performance? Rev. Econ. Stat. 83(2):281-295.  

Labuschagne C, Brent AC, Van Erick RPG (2005). Assessing the 
sustainability performances of industries. J. Cleaner Prod. 13:373-
385.  

May PH, Dabbs AW, Fernández-Dávila P, Da Vinha V, Zaidenweber N 
(2002). A corporate approach to social monitoring and assessment 
for development in a fragile environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 
76:125-134.  

Mayer AL (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability 
indicators for multidimensional systems. Environ. Int. 34:277-291.  

Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone R (2003). Assessing the impact of 
environmental management systems on corporate and environmental 
performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21:329-351.  

Molefe GN, Roodt G, Schurink WJ (2011). High performance 
organisation: a quantitative inquiry at a specific metropolitan 
municipality in the Gauteng Province. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5(3):699-
712.  

Nawrocka D, Parker T (2009). Finding the connection: environmental 
management systems and environmental performance. J. Cleaner 
Prod. 17:601-607.  

OECD (2002).Aggregated Environmental Indices: Review of 
Aggregation Methodologies in Use. ENV/EPOC/SE(2001) 2/ FINAL. 
Paris: OECD.  

OECD (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: 
Methodology and User Guide. STD/DOC(2005) 3. Paris: OECD.  

Oliveira OJ, Pinheiro CRMS (2009). Best practices for the implantation 
of ISO 14001 norms: a study of change management in two industrial 
companies in the Midwest region of the state of São Paulo – Brazil. J. 
Cleaner Prod. 17:883-885.  

Pare´s-Franzi M, Saurı´-Pujol D, Domene E (2006). Evaluating the 
environmental performance of urban parks in Mediterranean cities: 
an example from the Barcelona metropolitan region. Environ. Manag. 
38:750-759.  

Perotto E, Canziani R, Marchesi R, Butelli P (2008). Environmental 
performance, indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS 
context: a case study. J. Cleaner Prod. 16:516-530.  

Preston L (2001). Sustainability at Hewlett-Packard: from theory to 
practice. Calif. Manag. Rev. 43(3):26-37.  

Silva GCS, Medeiros DD (2004).Environmental management in 
Brazilian companies. Manag. Environ. Qual. 15(4):380-388.  

Smith C, Rees G (1998). Economic development. 2
nd

 ed. Basingstoke, 
England: Macmillan.  

Srebotnjak T (2007). The role of environmental statisticians in 
environmental policy: the case of performance measurement. 
Environ. Sci. Policy 10:405-418.  

Styles D, O’Brien P, O’Boyle S, Cunningham, P, Donlon, B, Jones MB 
(2009a). Measuring the environmental performance of IPPC Industry: 
I. devising a quantitative science-based and policy-weighted 
Environmental Emissions Index. Environ. Sci. Policy 12:226-242.  

Styles D, O’Brien P, O’Boyle S, Cunningham P, Donlon B, Jones MB 
(2009b). Measuring the environmental performance of IPPC Industry: 
II. Applying the Environmental Emissions Index to quantify 



058       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
environmental performance trends from routinely reported data. 
Environ. Sci. Policy 12:243-256.  

Tavares JR, Sthel MS, Campos LS, Rocha MV, Lima GR, Silva MG, 
Vargas H. (2011). Evaluation of pollution gases emitted by ethanol 
and gasoline powered vehicles. Procedia Environ. Sci. 4:51-60.  

Thoresen J (1999). Environmental performance evaluation — a tool for 
industrial improvement. J. Cleaner Prod. 7:365-370.  

Tsoulfas GT, Pappis CP (2008). A model for supply chain environmental 
performance analysis and decision making. J. Cleaner Prod. 
16:1647-1657.  

Vanalle RM, Lucato WC, Santos LB (2011). Environmental 
requirements in the automotive supply chain – an evaluation of a first 
tier company in the Brazilian auto industry. Procedia Environ. Sci. 
10:337-343. 

 

  
 
 

 
Verfaillie HA, Bidwell R (2000).Measuring eco-efficiency – a guide to 

reporting company performance. Geneva: WBCSD – World Business 
Council for Sustainable Development.  

Wu GC, Cheng YH, Shin-Ying Huang SY (2010). The study of 
knowledge transfer and green management performance in green 
supply chain management. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 4(1):44-48. 
 


