Grantee Research Project Results
2005 Progress Report: Oregon Business Decisions for Environmental Performance
EPA Grant Number: R831034Title: Oregon Business Decisions for Environmental Performance
Investigators: Ervin, David E. , Khanna, Madhu , Speir, Cameron , Jones, Cody , Wu, Junjie , Koss, Patricia , Hall, Terry
Current Investigators: Ervin, David E. , Khanna, Madhu , Wu, Junjie , Koss, Patricia
Institution: Portland State University , University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign , Oregon State University
Current Institution: Portland State University , Oregon State University , University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: June 1, 2003 through May 31, 2006 (Extended to May 31, 2007)
Project Period Covered by this Report: June 1, 2004 through May 31, 2005
Project Amount: $251,973
RFA: Corporate Environmental Behavior: Examining the Effectiveness of Government Interventions and Voluntary Initiatives (2002) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
The objectives of this research project are to: (1) collect primary data on the environmental practices of a random sample of Oregon firms; (2) identify and measure the major environmental performance indicators (e.g., toxic releases, water pollutant emissions, and solid waste levels) for Oregon firms; (3) collect data on firm, industry, regulatory, and voluntary environmental program factors hypothesized to influence business environmental performance; (4) test the influences of firm, industry, and regulatory conditions, simultaneously with voluntary program factors, on the use of environmental policies and practices; (5) test the influences of firm, industry, regulatory, and voluntary program factors on firms’ environmental performance; and (6) infer the voluntary program elements (i.e., policies and practices) and other factors that significantly improve firm environmental performance.
Progress Summary:
The period from June 2004 to May 2005 was devoted primarily to several tasks related to selecting the sample of business firms to survey, conducting telephone interviews with industry professionals, collaborating closely with the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) at Washington State University to develop the survey instrument, pretesting the instrument, refining the instrument based on feedback, and refining analytical approaches and subjects.
Sample Selection
A list of all for-profit firms that employ workers in Oregon was obtained from the Oregon Employment Department (OED). This list was found to be the best sampling frame available because it includes facility-level location data, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, number of employees, and other key information. The OED appears to be the only agency that provides industry classification information for individual facilities—critical for sector-specific analysis—and which is legally accessible for socioeconomic research conducted by universities and other state agencies.
This list was examined for industrial sectors that are economically significant because of the number of facilities and the number of individuals employed in the sector. Because of the small number of facilities in four-digit sectors, sectors were defined at the three-digit NAICS level. The 12 sectors with the greatest number of facilities and the highest employment levels in the state and represented a variety of organizational characteristics, environmental regulatory frameworks, and voluntary environmental management approaches were selected for review.
From these sectors, six sectors were chosen for the survey. These sectors have the greatest numbers of facilities and the highest employment levels and encompass manufacturing and service industries. A sample of all facilities with 10 or more employees yielded a total of 2,134 facilities in the following sectors that are eligible for the survey:
- NAICS 236, Construction of Buildings.
- NAICS 311, Food Manufacturing.
- NAICS 321, Wood Product Manufacturing.
- NAICS 334, Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing.
- NAICS 484, Truck Transportation.
- NAICS 721, Accommodation.
To ensure the highest response rate possible, each facility in the sample was contacted by telephone to verify the mailing address and obtain the name of the appropriate individual to whom to address the survey. The SESRC, which will enumerate the survey and has assisted in the design, reports response rates of up to 50 percent by obtaining a specific contact at each facility, and conducting two or three followup contacts.
Telephone Interviews
Twenty telephone interviews were conducted with environmental managers and business decisionmakers to assist in developing the survey instrument. These interviews revealed that firms use a variety of methods to collect, monitor, audit, and report environmental information. In addition, measured pollutants, toxins, and wastes vary by industry sector and depend largely on which environmental impacts are regulated, the types of alternative process technologies that are available, and accessibility of markets for recycling and reselling of waste byproducts. Motivations for voluntary environmental management varied with organizational characteristics of the firms. More highly competitive firms and firms closer to the retail customer tended to engage in voluntary environmental management for the perceived product/brand/firm differentiation. Firms with high disposal and cleanup costs tended to engage in voluntary environmental management to reduce costs. Upper management philosophy was found to be quite influential in a firm’s decision to engage or not engage in voluntary environmental management.
Survey Development
The survey instrument was developed based on reviews of the corporate environmental management theoretical and empirical literature and feedback from the telephone interviews. Per telephone interview responses, the survey was made concise, and alternatives to the environmental performance questions were included. Additional questions that were not originally planned were incorporated into the survey based on interview comments regarding employee motivation and training.
In January 2005, the project team met with SESRC staff to review the survey instrument against proposed analytical models and to incorporate SESRC recommendations regarding survey methodology and format. This meeting resulted in a more simplified, consistent instrument. Principles from the Dillman Tailored Design Method were used (Dillman, 2000). The instrument was then pretested at several firms, including a large building contractor, two hotels, a major electronics manufacturer, and a prominent wood products manufacturer. Based on feedback from those pretests, the environmental performance questions in the survey were revised for simplicity and relevance to each sector. An extensive literature review was conducted to determine the most relevant performance indicators for each of the six sectors, and separate survey instruments were designed for the manufacturing and service sectors.
The manufacturing and service sector surveys differ only in the environmental performance questions. The basic structure of the survey is the same for all sectors and includes qualitative and quantitative measures of the strength of motivations and barriers, as well as specific performance indicators. Leichert scales have been designed in accordance with accepted empirical methods (Fowler, 1995; Smith, 2005).
Analytical Methods and Subjects
The survey data will be analyzed using factor analysis and structural equations modeling techniques. Factor analysis will be used to convert responses to the questions into factors or constructs that best represent the dependent and independent variables to be used in the empirical models. The empirical model will examine the motivations for firms to adopt environmentally friendly management practices. Adoption will be measured using a variety of different methods, such as a sum of practices adopted, summated scales, and factor analysis. Among the motivations that we will be examining here are pressures for firms to be environmentally friendly from consumers, investors, and regulators. Barriers to adoption because of high costs also will be explored. We then will examine whether the extent of adoption of such practices has led firms to undertake other changes such as adoption of pollution prevention techniques, recycling, and so forth. Furthermore, we will analyze the role of environmental practices and activities on the environmental performance of firms. Environmental performance is being measured through several indicators, such as air pollution emissions, hazardous wastes emissions, solid waste, energy use, and waste water discharges. An extensive literature review is underway to determine the most appropriate analytical models for examining the hypothesized relationships between facility, market, and government factors and environmental management behaviors and performance.
Drs. Ervin and Jones briefed three Oregon Legislators about the planned research in a meeting at Portland State University in Portland, OR, in December 2004.
Future Activities:
The schedule of planned activities during the next project year includes:
- Final survey preparation (to be completed by August 31, 2005).
- Survey enumeration via mail and phone (September–November 2005).
- Database cleaning and preparation for analysis (November–December 2005).
- Data analysis (January–April 2006).
- Preparation of final report (April–June 2006).
As a result of longer than expected times to launch the project, hire all research assistants, draw the sample, and construct the survey instruments, a 1-year no-cost extension likely will be requested to fully analyze the data and prepare publications of the results.
References:
Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007, pp. 441-444.
Fowler FJ. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 1995;913.
Smith SM, Albaum GS. Fundamentals of Marketing Research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. 2005;1112-1117.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 10 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
socio-economic, public policy, Northwest, pollution prevention, corporate environmental decision making,, RFA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Scientific Discipline, Geographic Area, INDUSTRY, Reinvention, State, Small Businesses, Corporate Performance, Economics and Business, decision-making, Social Science, Economics & Decision Making, Environmental Law, Oregon, polchotomas choice selectivity model, compliance assistance, policy making, decision analysis, decision making, environmental decision making, incentives, cost benefit, economic incentives, corporate evironmental reform, cost/benefit analysis, environmental policy, compliance costs, benefits assessment, corporate environmental behaviorRelevant Websites:
http://obep.research.pdx.edu Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.