INTRODUCTION
While voluntary standards such as ISO14001:2004 have undoubtedly helped to embed environmental consideration within business systems (Zhang and Zwolinski, 2017), the approach has failed to keep pace with the changes demanded of business by science and wider society. This is particularly apparent in how business responds to, or even takes the lead with, the social, environmental and economic challenges presented by climate change. The focus of ISO14001:2004 on control and conformity placed an artificial ceiling on company environmental engagement (Schuler et al., 2017). As a motivation for driving improved environmental behaviour, ISO14001:2004 is similar to legal requirements; once the legal box has been ticked, the requirement conformed to, no further action needs to be taken. Understanding the real significance of the revised ISO14001:2015 standard, and how it now offers a real tool for tackling climate change, comes through a recognition of how the whole approach of the system has been reframed. This reframing is more than the move from operational to strategic thinking that the revised standard embodies and which introduces a High Level Structure (HLS) across the family of ISO standards. Indeed, we posit that ISO14001:2015 represents a complete values shift-away from the closed, limiting effects of conformity and control and towards the creative, open values of influence, innovation and working together. This shift in values can be understood through the values framework of Shalom Schwartz. In this chapter, we argue that using Schwartzâs value system as a lens, ISO14001:2015 is fundamentally reframed from control (power) and conformity values to achievement and self-direction. The implications of this reframing are explored by drawing on empirical evidence with small and medium enterprise (SME) managers in the East of England to demonstrate the significance of different approaches between managers drawing on the different value-sets. In particular, it is clear that managers drawing on power (with conformity) may be focused on short-term actions with direct financial payback, whereas managers drawing on achievement (with self-direction) are seen to focus on longer term projects that look to make a difference to causes of concern. The willingness of the two different value-sets to be Open or Closed to working with others will also be shown to reflect the reframed nature of ISO14001:2015 and management impact on environmental and social behaviours. Finally, implications for business and the environmental management profession are discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Climate change is likely to affect every aspect of business operations over the coming years (Howard-Grenville et al., 2014). This may be due to the direct impact of extreme and changing weather on premises or production systems, or indirectly through impacts throughout the value chain or within wider socio-economic systems (Crichton, 2009). In order to address this, business needs to take a holistic approach that understands potential impacts and seeks to both mitigate against these risks and adapt to what cannot be changed. Certainly, in terms of an evolution in business/environment thinking, the next few years will move business quite logically from resource efficiency and zero waste to zero net carbon and circular resource use thinking (Lacy and Rutqvist, 2016). How business responds to these challenges is likely to affect what the rest of society is able to achieve.
The introduction of various voluntary environmental management schemes in the 1990sâ2000s that took a system-based approach, including EMAS and BS8555, helped business to identify the most significant impacts of business operations on the environment in order to manage and minimise these. Indeed ISO14001:2004 has undoubtedly helped to embed environmental consideration within business systems (Zhang and Zwolinski, 2017). Certainly between 2007 and 2014, the number of worldwide certifications has increased from 150,000 to over 320,000,1 there has been a rise in the development of environmental management as a profession, and a generally wider awareness of environment as a business issue, not least perhaps through greater understanding of the impact of climate change. However, environment has still remained a poor cousin compared with quality2 and even health and safety, with their comparable ISO systems, and so has failed to keep pace with the changes demanded of business behaviour by increased scientific understanding.
The failure to meet the severity of environmental challenges is, at least in part, linked with ISO14001:2004 as a blunt, paper-driven instrument (Curkovic and Sroufe, 2010). The focus on control and conformity placed an artificial ceiling on company environmental engagement. There were too many opportunities for meeting the requirements by ticking boxes without necessarily demonstrating a real commitment to improving environmental performance or minimising the impact of the company on the environment (e.g. Boiral, 2011; Curkovic and Sroufe, 2010). For example, a company could choose as to which part of their operation or which facility would be certified by ISO. Although a business was supposed to focus on aspects of the business that had the greatest environmental impacts, this did not need to be so. This meant that a manufacturing operation could be relocated to countries with lower national environmental requirements while the company still held certification; or the high impact of logistics could be excluded from a distribution company, with the certification gained for the service function. A focus on conformity could mean meeting the letter, rather than spirit, of the standard and limited innovation beyond that which was required.
As a motivation for driving improved environmental behaviour, ISO14001:2004 is similar to legal requirements; once the legal box has been ticked, the requirement conformed to, no further action needs to be taken. Business as usual can return. The environment can remain an externality that neither needs to be properly costed or accounted for, reflecting earlier ideas where legal and compliance-based approaches were the main drivers for engagement (Naude et al., 2012). Indeed, Coglianese and Nash (2001) refer to the effect of ISO14001 as âregulating from the insideâ (cited in Prakask and Potoski, 2011, p. 3) with perceived benefits relating to improved regulatory compliance, improved organisation of compliance systems, and compliance facilitating improved investor confidence. Compliance, motivated by the avoidance of not conforming, limits environmental engagement and innovation by encouraging low standards so that conformity is assured (Sullivan, 2005, p. 22; Williamson et al., 2006, p. 324; Fineman, 1996, p. 496).
While ISO14001:2004 does include the notion of continuous improvement, this too can be limited by the focus on conformity. The need for annual improvement in each metric, measured within the management system, can limit improvement to small incremental changes that could be added to year on year. For example, dramatic improvements in energy saving one year are to be avoided if the same degree of improvement could not be expected the following year: far better to pace change at a manageable 2% improvement per year than raise expectations following one good year!
To understand the real significance of the revised standard and how it now offers a new tool for tackling climate change, it is important to recognise how the whole approach of the system has been reframed. This reframing is more than the move from operational to strategic thinking that the revised standard embodies. ISO14001:2015 represents a complete values shift-away from the limiting effects of conformity and control in favour of influence, innovation and working together â throughout the business and value chain. The revised standard shifts the focus from looking inwards to aspects of the business that are under the direct control of the organisation to looking outwards, beyond the organisation to understand its wider context and those interested parties (openly and broadly defined) that the business can influence. This means going beyond the prescriptive to explore effective long-term thinking, working together throughout the value chain to develop innovative solutions and new ways of working. This is important because climate change is taking business into the unknown and well beyond existing boundaries, where only creativity, passion and innovation may lead to real change. This shift in values can be understood through the values framework of Shalom Schwartz. This chapter argues that, using Schwartzâs value system as a lens, ISO14001:2015 is fundamentally reframed from power and conformity to achievement and self-direction. Furthermore, this chapter draws on empirical research to demonstrate how managers drawing on these two different value-sets act on climate change and how the reframing is likely to enable business to better meet the challenges of climate change.
The UK-based Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) is a worldwide alliance of environment and sustainability professionals. IEMAâs support to the development of the profession illustrates the skills the environmental management profession view as important to tackle future challenges. Outward facing and innovative skills are emphasised as well as the need to lead change and build relationships. The shift in values encourages managers to think big and outside of the box. It encourages a whole new mindset and skillset within the sector and facilitates a whole new breed of environmental practitioner who embodies the values inherent with the new approach. No longer is the job description of an environmental manager primarily about the ability to control and conform to a system. No longer is it enough to give the role to whoever manages the Health and Safety standard because they are good at measuring and monitoring a system. With the revised standard, the focus shifts to the ability to lead and communicate with others. It is now about having the skills to influence, to engage, to be innovative, to find creative solutions by working with others, to really understand what the system is trying to achieve and why, and how this links to what the business is about. This not only enables business to deliver against environmental challenges but creates exciting new opportunities for the environmental management sector, with new skills, new people, new partnerships and new technical innovations developing.