12.Cluster Analiza

7/23/2019 12.Cluster Analiza

1/21

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269394647

Outcomes of Environmental Management

Systems: the Role of Motivations and Firms

Characteristics

ARTICLE in BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 2014

Impact Factor: 2.88 DOI: 10.1002/bse.1884

3 AUTHORS:

Iaki Heras-Saizarbitoria

The University of the Basque Country UPV/

107PUBLICATIONS 1,122CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Germn Arana

Universidad del Pas Vasco / Euskal Herriko

28PUBLICATIONS 116CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Olivier Boiral

Laval University

112PUBLICATIONS 916CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/institution/Laval_University?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Boiral?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4http://www.researchgate.net/profile/German_Arana?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universidad_del_Pais_Vasco_Euskal_Herriko_Unibertsitatea?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_6http://www.researchgate.net/profile/German_Arana?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/German_Arana?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_7http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_5http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Inaki_Heras-Saizarbitoria?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_4http://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_1http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269394647_Outcomes_of_Environmental_Management_Systems_the_Role_of_Motivations_and_Firms_Characteristics?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269394647_Outcomes_of_Environmental_Management_Systems_the_Role_of_Motivations_and_Firms_Characteristics?enrichId=rgreq-cb735a4a-f6de-4651-8dfb-78741df3ece4&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2OTM5NDY0NztBUzoxNzI5MTcyMzcyMzE2MTZAMTQxODIzODA5MDYxOQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2


2/21

Outcomes of Environmental Management Systems: the Role of Motivations and

Firms Characteristics*

Iaki Heras-SaizarbitoriaDepartment of ManagementUniversity of the Basque Country UPV-EHU

[email protected]

German AranaDepartment of Management

University of the Basque Country [email protected]

Olivier BoiralDepartment of Management

Universit [email protected]

Abstract

This article analyzes the influence of the sources of motivation that lead companies toadopt Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) on the outcomes of those systems. Aset of hypotheses derived from an extensive review of the literature is analyzed usingcluster analysisin order to identify groups of companiesas well as correlation andregression analyses, with data obtained from a survey of 361 Spanish organizations thathave environmental certification. The results reveal that for the groups identified,companies from the Holistic cluster (with high levels of both internal and external

drivers) and from the Internal focus cluster (with more intensive internal sources ofmotivation) secure greater benefits from the process of adopting an EMS. This articlealso sheds light on the influence on the outcomes of some variables that have beenunder-researched, such as the economic resources invested in an EMS and whether ornot the certified companies belong to a sector with high environmental pressure.Thefindings help to characterize the firms with environmental certification and may alsohelp managers, policy makers and other stakeholders to anticipate the potential benefitsof EMSs.

Key words: Environmental Management, Environmental Management Systems,EMAS, ISO 14001, Spain

(*) This is a prereview, precopyedit author version of an article in press in theBusiness Strategy and the Environment,not for redistribution. [Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.,


3/21

1. Introduction

An increasing number of organizations are adopting third party certifiableEnvironmental Management Systems (EMSs) based on international standards

(Lagodimos et al.,2007; Neugebauer, 2012). EMSs represent infrastructural investmentin environmental policies and procedures in a plant (Gavronski et al., 2012). Theinternational reference standards for EMSs, also referred to as meta-standards, arevoluntary codes or guidelines that have a third party verification architecture. Thesestandards do not fix environmental goals or environmental targets to be achieved (e.g.reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, recycling or energy consumption) as a result ofthe adoption and possible certification. Rather, they define the procedural requirementsconcerning the type of policy, plans, organizational practices and control mechanisms to

be adopted by companies so that they can manage the activities which have a significantenvironmental impact better. Interest in EMSs extends beyond the organizations thatadopt them, as regulators are interested in their potential to achieve greaterenvironmental protection (Darnall et al., 2008).

At the international level there are two main frameworks for this purpose: ISO 14001and the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). The latter was launched in 1993and came into force in 1995, and has since been adopted by nearly 4,200 Europeanorganizations, especially in Germany, Spain and Italy (European Commission, 2013).The EMAS standard was originally restricted to companies in industrial sectors, butsince 2001 it has been open to all economic sectors, including public and privateservices. From the practitioner perspective, although it is quite similar to ISO 14001 andfully compatible with the latest version of that standard (Neugebauer, 2012; Morrowand Rondinelli, 2002), the EMAS system is generally considered more demanding(Testa et al.,2014) in terms of managerial requirements (e.g. objectives, performance

indicators and regulatory compliance).Among other relevant research avenues related to the study of the adoption of EMSs(for a recent review, see Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral, 2013), a series of works haveattempted to analyze the motivations that organizations have for adopting EMSs basedon the international standard, and the results or benefits of such adoption. These issueshave been analyzed from very diverse theoretical and scholarly perspectives, rangingfrom complex theoretical perspectives (e.g. signalling theory, green clubs, self-

regulation) to more technical orpragmaticperspectives. Some exploratory contributionsthat follow the latter line have tried to establish taxonomies (e.g. Boiral, 2001, 2007;Hera-Saizarbitoria et al.,2011; Gravonski et al., 2013) that shed light on similarities

between firms in a particular group and differences between groups (Gravonski et al.,2013). This is an approach that can be directly linked to the increasing body of researchthat provides typologies of corporate motivation for environmental strategies


4/21

statistical control variables with no attention or previous analysis, despite themethodological problem that arise from doing so (Spector and Brannick, 2011). Asrecently underlined by CarballoPenela and CastromnDiz (2014), some specificcharacteristics of the companies, such as differences in size and sector of activity, could

play a relevant role for both drivers and the benefits of environmental strategies.

Taking into account this gap in the literature, the aim of the present study is to shedlight on the impact of the sources of motivation that lead companies to adopt an EMSand the characteristics of those firms on the benefits they perceive from the process ofadoption. The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Following thisintroduction, a review of the literature that deals with the motivations for the adoptionof EMSs and the benefits is presented, together with a review of the taxonomies and the

characteristics of the adopting companies as described in earlier research. From thisreview, the working hypotheses are derived, which are then used to structure theanalysis. The results of a survey of Spanish companies are then described. Lastly, theconclusions are presented, and the original contributions of this research are identified.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

As recently stressed by Ervin et al. (2013), scholars from many disciplines havecontributed to an extensive literature on the motivations for environmental management,frequently based on neo-institutional theory. Similarly, there is a great body ofempirical literature on the analysis of the motivations leading companies to adopt EMSs

based on ISO 14001 or EMAS (HerasSaizarbitoriaand Boiral, 2013; Gravonski, 2013).

From an empirical perspective Bansal and Roth (2000) propose three types of motivethat lead companies to implement an EMS based on an international standard ofreference: ethical, competitive and relational. Ethical motives are a response to feelingsrelated to environmental responsibility. Competitive motives arise from the search for

competitive advantage. Relational motives emerge from the desire on the part of acompany to become legitimized and to improve the relationships between the differentinterest groups in the company (stakeholders). Similarly, Neumayer and Perkins (2005)identify two main sources of motivation that lead companies to implement this type ofstandard, namely internal motives related to efficiency (efficiency motives) that is, animprovement in performance, productivity and profitability and external orinstitutional motives related to the social pressure exerted by different agents to

persuade company managers to adopt certain practices. Boiral (2007) has also stressedthat the adoption of ISO 14001 can be driven by institutional pressures and the searchfor organizational legitimacy in the eyes of various stakeholders (e.g. clients, publicauthorities, environmental groups), or by internal motivations to improve environmental

practices. Gonzlez-Benito and Gonzlez-Benito (2005) differentiate the following fourdrivers for the adoption of EMSs: operational competitive motivations (costs,


5/21

relationships with public authorities, competitive position) plays a more important rolethan internal motivation (e.g. improvement of environmental performance, employeeinvolvement, innovation, cost saving) in the adoption of an EMS (Boiral, 2007; Yeungand Mok, 2005; Jiang and Bansal, 2003).

As stated in the introductory section, some works in the specialized literature try toestablish taxonomies of the factors that drive companies to adopt EMSs. This can belinked to the profuse literature describing how companies can be classified in terms oftheir drivers for decisions on corporate environmental strategy (e.g. Paulraj, 2009;Wahba, 2010; Papagiannakis et al., 2013). In relation to EMS adoption, in order toexamine the relationships between internal and external motivational factors, Boiral(2001, 2007) provided evidence of four clusters depending on the rationale for adoption:

Mobilizing integration, with both high internal and external sources of motivation;Proactive integration, with high internal motivation and low external motivation;Ritualintegration, with high external motivation and low internal motivation; and finally,

Reactive integration, with low internal and external motivation. This typology wasapplied in a quantitative empirical survey for ISO 9001certified firms (Boiral and Roy,2007), a standard with a very similar structure with ISO 14001, and for the later globalgreen standard for EMSs by Heras-Saizarbitoria et al.(2011). More recently, Garvosnkiet al. (2013), who focused on the adoption of ISO 14001 by Brazilian companies,obtained a taxonomy of three clusters: Holistic, which included the companies withmore intensive internal and external drivers, companies that sought the certificationmotivated simultaneously by the expectations of their markets, concerns with theirresponsibility for the environment and improvements in management (efficiency);

External focus,with high external motivation and low internal motivation, which showonly concern for expectations of the market; and finally Internal focus, the internallyoriented companies which seek certification looking for improvements in the internal

aspects of management.Just like the motivations for adopting an EMS, the outcomes, results or benefits have

been widely studied in the empirical academic literature. Generally speaking, althoughvarious studies have highlighted the positive impact of EMSs on environmental

performance (e.g. Zeng et al., 2005; Sambasivan and Fei, 2008; Russo, 2009;Schylander and Martinuzzi, 2007; Curkovic and Sroufe, 2011), others studies are morenuanced on this issue and tend to question the benefits of EMSs or to stress the absence

of measurable effects (e.g. Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Barla, 2007; Boiral, 2007, 2011).Most studies on these issues have found that the greater degree of motivation whetherof an internal nature (e.g. an improvement in the internal efficiency of the company) orexternal (e.g. customer demand) the greater the benefits perceived by companies thatimplement and become certified in accordance with ISO 14001. In a survey of 63Brazilian companies from the chemical, mechanical and electronic industries,


6/21

Although the internal and external motivations are assumed to influence the benefits ofEMS adoption positively, the impact of these two types of motivation may be different.This issue has been analyzed in the empirical literature on the adoption of EMSs basedon qualitative (e.g. Boiral, 2007; Brouwer and Van Koppen, 2008) and quantitative

studies (e.g. Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Gavronski et al.; 2008; Fryxell et al.,2004; Lannelongue et al., 2013). Most of these studies have concluded that internalmotivations have a stronger influence on performance than external motivations. First,higher internal motivation to implement the standard generally means that organizations

perceive the relevance of EMS adoption to improve environmental practices andperformance. As a result, the perceived benefits are higher because, from the outset, theEMS is designed to meet internal needs, which encourages the internalization of the

standard (Qi et al., 2012; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009; Boiral, 2007, 2011). Conversely,external motivations to adopt EMSs, such as market demand, are not necessarily in linewith the internal needs related to environmental management practices (Christmann andTaylor, 2006; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Boiral, 2007, 2011). Second, external

pressures can lead to a superficial adoption of an EMS mostly intended to improveorganizational image rather than environmental performance (Christmann and Taylor,2006; Boiral, 2007; Yin and Schmeidler, 2009; Boiral, 2007, 2011, 2013). As far as weknow this research avenue has not been analyzed from the perspective of the

taxonomies. Therefore, taking into account the literature on the adoption andtaxonomies of EMSsand notably in the work by Gavronski et al.(2013)we positthe following hypothesis:

H2: Companies belonging to the group with higher internal sources of

motivation (Internal focus) experience better outcomes from their EMS than

companies with a lower source of internal motivation (External focus) or

companies that also have external motivations (Holistic).

As underlined in the introductory section, in addition to the motivational factors, othercharacteristics or determinants of the companies may have a relevant impact on the

benefits obtained from the adoption of an EMS. Nevertheless, this issue has been under-researched in the literature. As pointed out by Melnyk et al.(2003) years ago, the roleof the adoption of EMS has been studied in isolation and it has ignored the possibleconfounding impact of the main characteristics and determinants of the firms, and these

factors can potentially affect the outcomes for the companies. But these factors haveonly been studied very tangentially by the scholarly literature notably in the ratheratheoretical and empirical works that were published in the early stage of disseminationof EMSs (e.g. Chin et al.,1998; del Brio et al.,2001). In contrast with that, these factorshave been studied more deeply by the practitioner literature that provides advice aboutthe process of adoption of EMSs (e g Cascio 1996; Block and Marash 2000) but


7/21

a formal EMS may require that the firm have access to sufficient resources and apositive relationship might be anticipated: the higher the level of resourcesavailable to the firm for the EMS, the greater the outcomes of the EMS.Although this is just a hypothesis that should be explored, many works in the

literature (e.g. Szymanski and Tiwari, 2004; Nishitani, 2009) use the size of thecertified firm as a proxy for more resources to devote to the adoption.

- Sector of activity:The potential outcomes for a company might be related to itssector of activity. Firstly, as is evident from the practitioner literature (e.g.Cascio, 1996) not all the sectors of activity can reduce costs and increase

productivity when an EMS is adopted (Chiariniet al.,2013; CarballoPenela andCastromnDiz, 2014). Manufacturing companies are better placed to obtain

more benefits. Secondly, companies belonging to those sector with a higherintensity of adoption of EMSs, such as manufacturing (Lagodimos et al.,2007;Bodas, 2009), may get outcomes more easily, as some crucial services (e.g.consulting) will be more specialized and sector benchmarks and best practiceswill be more available (Delmas, 2001; Mrtensson and Westerberg, 2014). .

- Age of the EMS: How long an EMS has been in place should affect itsoutcomes. As identified by both the scholarly (e.g. Corbett and Kirsch 2001;Boiral, 2011) and practitioner literature (e.g. Cascio, 1996), an EMS should taketime to become integrated in a company and provide operative benefits. AsMelnyk et al. (2003) found, a mature and well-established EMS should have

better outcomes.

- Previous experience with other meta-standards: Companies with an existingquality or environmental standard can adopt a new meta-standard faster and

better due to the commonality of elements in those standards, as they are basedon the same generic model (Boiral, 2011). Indeed, evidence of the relationship

between successful ISO 9001 adoption and subsequent successful ISO 14001has been provided in the scholarly literature (e.g. Zhu et al., 2013) and the

practitioner literature on the adoption of EMSs (e.g. Block and Marash, 2000).

With regard to the size of the firm, in order to be more rigorous, more detailedmeasures, such as the investment per plant or per employee in order to implement and

certify the EMS, could be a better proxy for the resources allocated by the companies.For example, Gavronski et al.(2011), in one of the few examples that we have found inthe literature, showed that when the level of environmental investment in a plantincreases, the effectiveness of its green process management strategies also increases(but only weak support for the relationship was provided). Similarly, in addition to thenormal sectoral classification, it might be interesting to analyze whether companies that


8/21

pressure, the age of the EMS and previous experience with other meta-standards

improve the outcomes of EMSs.

3. Research methodology

In order to evaluate the research hypotheses, a survey was carried out in Spain, one ofthe European Union regions where EMSs based on both ISO 14001 and EMAS havebeen most widely distributed in both absolute and relative terms (blind reference). Theresearch focuses on EMAS rather than ISO 14001 for two main reasons. Firstly, EMAScertification has been under-researched in the literature (Testa et al., 2014). Althoughthis may be understandable to some extent, because many more companies all over theworld are ISO 14001 certified than EMAS registered, the latter is generally consideredto be a more stringent and substantial scheme for EMSs (European Commission, 2013;

Neugebauer, 2012). As a result, one can expect that the use of this system as an internaltool to manage environmental issues in organizations will be more relevant. Secondly,the European Commission's Environment Directorate established a centralized, detaileddata source of EMAS registered companies (including information about the formalmanager of the EMS) that is rigorously maintained and that is accessible to researchersfrom all over the world. Consequently, the data on EMAS registration is reliable,accessible and open.

The survey was sent by e-mail for the attention of the EMS coordinator of theorganization with an accompanying introductory letter to the 1,217 Spanish companiesregistered with EMAS. The data pertaining to firms registered with EMAS were

provided on the last working day of November 2011 by the EU EMAS HelpdeskService. After following up by telephone, the survey was concluded at the end of May2012, at which time 361 valid responses had been returned by companies with validEMAS registration. This is a response rate of 29.66 %, which is a very high rate for

Spanish companies, since there is not a strong tradition of collaboration of firms withresearchers (del Brio et al., 2001; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011), especially if oneconsiders that it was obtained during a period of major economic crisis.

Responses were given on a 5 point Likert scale (with values 1 to 5, from least togreatest importance). Items were measured using the managers perception of severalaspects of the process of adoption of the EMS. Perceptual measures are often used inthe empirical management literature and are considered to satisfy reliability and validityrequirements (Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004). In our survey, the main reasons forcompanies to adopt an EMS and the benefits obtained its implementation andregistration were initially solicited with open questions, and later through closedquestions. The responses to the open-ended questions were coded by two independentcoders and their work was then supervised and analyzed by the principal researcher. Ascoders were in agreement for nearly 90% of the responses, their coding was considered


9/21

motivation that were identified in the closed questions. The motivational factors for theEMS were grouped together into internal and external sources of motivation, based onthe academic literature analyzed. In the case of sources of motivation of an internalnature, the following types were grouped together: improvement in environmental

efficiency (reduction in consumption, waste, etc.) and minimizing environmentalproblems (leaks, spillage, etc.). As for external motives, the following were groupedtogether: improvement in the image and social impact of the firm in the market,customer demand, demands from a public body and the search for a competitiveadvantage over competitors.

Similarly, the responses given regarding the benefits of adopting the EMS werehomogeneous, with over 90% of responses matching the five main benefits of the

adoption of EMSs that had been referred to in the academic literature. Subsequentlyrespondents gave their ratings in closed questions on a 5 point Likert scale. Anassessment of the general level of satisfaction with the adoption of an EMAS-basedEMS was included. In addition to the independent and dependent variables included inthe analysis shown below, the following control variables were also included, based onthe previous evidence from the literature: the size of the certified companies (measured

by the number of employees), the initial investment per employee, the belonging to themanufacturing sector, the relevance to the industrial sector of environmental pressure(Eurostat, 2010) and the previous experience working with EMS and with another meta-standards.

Internal consistency was tested by a reliability test using Cronbachs alpha as thecriterion. The construct of motivation had an indicator value of 0.680, meaning that thequestionnaire has acceptable internal consistency (Robinson, 1991). The Barlettssphericity result was significant (p = 0.00), the KMO test value (0.691) was acceptableand the determinant of the correlation matrix (0.266) was not null. On the basis of these

results, we proceed to the cluster analysis (Cureton and D'Agostino, 1983; Hair et al.,2006).

4.2. Cluster analysis

We conducted a cluster analysis with SPSS (by means of the technique of K averagesbased on a vectoral quantification). The solution with three clusters was considered to bethe optimal one. Boxs M test (p = 0.219) showed that there were no significantcovariances within groups. Similarly, the WilksLambda test (p = 0.000) was used totest for differences between the averages of the groups. Subsequently, by means of acanonical analysis, it was shown that 97.8 % of the original cases and 95.6 % of thecross validations were correctly classified (Hair et al.,2006).

These results (se the Table 1) are in line with those of Gavronski et al. (2013). The firstgroup the Holistic group has a higher degree of motivation in all variables The second


10/21

than theInternal Focusgroup. Similarly, the characteristics of the companies in the threegroups were analyzed.

Insert Table 2 here

Table 3 shows a summary of the statistical differences between the companies that belongto each group, and the Holistic cluster includes a significantly higher proportion ofcompanies that operate in sectors with high environmental pressure.

Insert Table 3 here

4.3. Correlation and regression analysis

Once the clusters had been identified and explored, we then used correlation and

regression analysis to test the hypotheses of the study. Table 4 contains a summary ofthe correlations between the variables included in the analysis.

A positive correlation among all the outcomes for the Holistic group is noteworthy.There is also a negative correlation between belonging to theExternal focusgroup andall the outcomes except for improvement of external image. Similarly, membership ofthe Internal focus group is correlated positively with improvement of environmentaleffectiveness and negatively with improvement of image and competitiveness. Withregard to the characteristics of the certified companies, improvement of environmentaleffectiveness is negatively correlated with the belonging to the manufacturing sectorand positively correlated with previous experience of other meta-standards. Finally, theoutcome related to compliance with environmental laws and regulations is positivelycorrelated with belonging to a sector with high environmental pressure.

The purpose of the regression analysis is to evaluate the influence of the threeindependent variables the belonging to each of the three identified clusterson thedependent variable, namely, the outcomes of the EMS, measured by the perceptions ofthe managers. We introduced the characteristics of the certified companies asindependent variables, and carried out six regressions in two steps. In the first step, weintroduced the mentioned characteristics of the companies and in the second step thevariable of belonging to a specific cluster. To analyze the significance of the regressionmodel, we used the F value for the regression and for the step, as shown in Table 5. Inthe second step, the regression and the steps are significant for all cases, but this is notthe case for the first step. The significance of these values and the betas of the

independent variables are evidence for the influence of the motivations on the resultsand satisfaction (Dean and Snell, 1991). The values of R2 in the second step areincreased by the dependent variables and they explain between 11.1% and 25.6% of theresults and satisfaction.

I t T bl 4 d 5 h


11/21

coefficients lead us to accept the second hypothesis for the case of four of the sixoutcomes considered, namely, compliance with laws and regulations, environmentaleffectiveness improvement, minimizing environmental problems and generalsatisfaction with the EMS.

The analysis leads us to reject Hypotheses 3 (the influence of the characteristics ordeterminants of the certified companies on the outcomes). Generally speaking theregression in the first step is not significant and the correlation coefficients and theregression coefficients are not very high and are not significant, with the exception of afew interesting cases. Firstly, there is a relevant positive influence statisticallysignificantof the variable high environmental pressure on the benefit of fulfilling thelaws and regulations. Secondly, that outcome is also influenced by the experience of the

certified companies with EMSs. Finally, the environmental effectiveness improvementoutcome is influenced negatively by the variable of belonging to the manufacturingsector and positively by the age of the EMS as well as by the previous experience of thecertified companies with other meta-standards.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Our survey shows that companies with a certified EMS that belong to the group orcluster with more intensive sources of motivation (Holistic cluster, following the

terminology of Gavronski et al.,2013), both internal and external, experience higheroutcomes from the adoption of EMSs. Similarly, partial support is provided thatcompanies belonging to the group with higher internal sources of motivation (Internal

focus) experience higher outcomes from the EMS than companies with a lower internalmotivation (External focus) or companies that also have external motivations (Holistic).However, only partial support was found, as only four of the six considered outcomeswere related to the adoption of the EMS, namely compliance with laws and regulations,

the improvement of environmental effectiveness and reducing environmental problems.Our study substantially corroborates the previous evidence for the importance ofinternal motivation on the effectiveness of the adoption of EMSs (Boiral, 2011;Brouwer and Van Koppen, 2008; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2011; Gavronski et al.; Qiet al.,2012). In the case of EMAS, the impacts of internal motivation may be reinforced

by the higher requirements of this management system compared to ISO 14001, notablyon employee involvement, legal compliance, and external reporting. Given these higherrequirements of EMAS, one can assume that organizations belonging to the Internal

focusgroup are more likely to obtain substantially improved outcomes from this process(e.g. improvement of practices, reduction of waste and pollution, implementation of anenvironmental policy). Conversely, in organizations in theExternal focusgroup, whichhave adopted the EMS mostly because of external pressures, the standard is notnecessarily substantially integrated in internal practices, and this may explain why its


12/21

environmental performance. This evidence supports the conclusion of hlstrm et al.(2009) who argued that EMSs should not be considered to be proof of greening.

It would be possible to discuss the fine detail of the results of this study at great length,but in general terms the findings lead us to conclude that more attention should be givento the characteristics of the companies, as described here, as well as to otherdeterminants which might be suggested on a theoretical basis.

The fact that companies from sectors with high environmental pressure perceive thatthey receive higher benefits in terms of fulfilling laws and regulations raises interestingand challenging questions about the role of EMSs as a self-regulation mechanism. Onthe one hand, as highlighted by Clapp (2001), the requirement to comply withenvironmental regulations may not lead to much improvement, as firms should in theoryalready be complying with such regulations. Nevertheless, this argument is based on theassumption that companies actually comply with regulations. The fact that EMSs suchas the EMAS and ISO 14001 standards contain specific requirements related to theidentification and integration of legal and others compliance obligations suggests thatthis compliance should not be taken for granted. For example, Spain has been found to

be a frontrunner in terms of breaches of environmental laws and regulations (Muoz,2014; CJEA, 2004; blind reference), as they are not systematically enforced, due to a

lack of adequate public resources (e.g. human resources for monitoring, adequatecoordination among different levels of the public administration), real political supportand the cultureof the country regarding legal enforcement in practical terms. Thus, the

public support by means of direct grants, of standards for EMSs a measure that isextensively disseminated in the EU (Testa et al.,2014)could be questionable in thelight of some of the findings of this work.

From this perspective, the promotion of EMSs such as ISO 14001 and EMAS can be

seen as a self-regulation mechanism intended to improve the compliance of companieswith existing regulations and to promote environmental initiatives beyond governmentstandards (Christmann and Taylor, 2006; Potoski and Prakash, 2005). The widediffusion of the EMAS standard in certain EUs countries, including Spain, may beexplained by the implementation of governmental incentives to encourage the adoptionof this standard and to develop, through third party certification, a market-basedregulation process (Glachant et al., 2002; Steger et al., 2002; European Commission,2013). This self-regulation process seems particularly important in sectors with high

environmental impact and relatively weak governmental control. The fact that ourresults show that Spanish companies belonging to sectors with higher environmentalimpact tend to be more concerned with the outcome related to fulfillment ofenvironmental laws and regulations confirms that the EMAS standard is perceived to bea self-regulation mechanism. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this mechanism remainsunderstudied and more research is needed on the role of EMAS and others EMSs to


13/21

The influence of the maturity of the EMSs and the environmental certification suggeststhat certification should not be considered as an end in itself but rather as a tool forcontinual improvement and communication. Policy makers and public decision makersshould be aware of the real implications of the adoption of EMSs. Generally speaking,

government incentives for ISO 14001 and EMAS adoption should be examined, andmeasures sought to discourage superficial adoption of the standard with the intention ofimproving corporate image and obtaining public grants. Those incentives should be, asfar as possible, directed toward companies with a real Holistic or Internal focus,meaning that they intend to improve environmental practices and performance. Forexample, prior to the award a grant for the adoption of an EMS, government agenciescould require organizations to explain their motivation, the expected benefits of theEMSs and/or to demonstrate their improvement of environmental performance. In thecase of EMAS, the EU could also provide more information on the internal benefitsrelated to EMAS adoption (e.g. case studies, descriptions of exemplary organizations,an EMAS toolkit for various types of organizations). The EMAS awards, launched bythe EU to reward the environmental performance of certified organizations (EuropeanCommission, 2014) could be used to promote best practice in the implementation of thestandard and highlight its benefits through the example of organizations with aHolisticor anInternal focuson the standard.

In the light of the findings of this study, it might be appropriate to revisit the question ofsupport or grants from public agencies to encourage general implementation andcertification of standards for EMSs such as EMAS. These are measures that areextensively employed in the EU (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2014) responding to theencouragement included in the proper EMAS regulation, and are shown to be effectivehere, but public support aimed at encouraging compliance with public laws is limited bythe regulations of some government bodies (e.g. the EC).

The limitations of this study provide opportunities for future research. First, thequantitative methodology used, even though it is similar to most studies in this area,does not allow deeper examination of the implementation of the standard and attitudesinside the organization. As with the vast majority of quantitative studies, theinformation used in this paper is based on the perceptions of managers who have taken

part in the process of introducing the EMS. Thus, the results may be influenced by thesocial desirability bias of the respondents (Arnold and Feldman, 1981), a bias related to

the personal interests of the respondents in underlining the success of the adoption ofthe EMS. Moreover, the research is focused in a specific geographical, economic, socialand cultural context. More research should be carried out with companies withenvironmental certification from other regions in order to study comparatively theinfluence and weight of the institutional and cultural variables. Finally, the real impactof the mentioned public support measures on the adoption and the outcomes of EMSs


14/21

Aravind D. 2008. Variations in implementation of certifiable management practicesacross certified firms: an examination of the determinants and consequences of ISO14001 implementation. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, Missouri.

Aravind D, Christmann P. 2008. Institutional and resource-based determinants ofsubstantive implementation of ISO 14001.Academy of Management Proceedings14:1-6.

Arnold HJ, Feldman DC. 1981. Social desirability response bias in self-report choicesituations.Academy of Management Journal24: 377-385.

Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecologicalresponsiveness.Academy of management journal434:717-736.

Barla P. 2007. ISO 14001 certification and environmental performance in Quebec's pulpand paper industry.Journal of environmental economics and management533: 291-306.

Block MR, Marash IR. 2000. Integrating ISO 14001 into a quality management system.McGraw Hill International. New York.

Bodas I. 2009. The diffusion of ISO 9000 and 14001 certification, cross sectoralevidence from eight OECD countries. Summer Conference - Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Frederiksberg, Denmark, June 17 19.

Boiral O. 2001. ISO 14001 certification in multinational firms: the paradoxes ofintegration. Global Focus13:79-94.

Boiral O. 2007. Corporate greening through ISO 14001: a rational myth? OrganizationScience181:127-146.

Boiral O. 2011. Managing with ISO systems: lessons from practice.Long RangePlanning 443: 197-220.Boiral O, Roy MJ. 2007. ISO 9000: integration rationales and organizational impacts.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management27:226-247.

Brouwer MA, Van Koppen CSA. 2008. The soul of the machine: continualimprovement in ISO 14001.Journal of Cleaner Production164:450-457.

CarballoPenela A, CastromnDiz JL. 2014. Environmental Policies for Sustainable

Development: an Analysis of the Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategies in theService Sector.Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI:10.1002/bse.1847.

Chiarini A. 2013. Strategies for Developing an Environmentally Sustainable SupplyChain: Differences Between Manufacturing and Service Sectors.Business Strategy andh h i /b


15/21

Clapp J. 1998. The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 andthe developing world. Global Governance14:295-316.

Corbett CJ, Kirsch DA. 2001. International diffusion of ISO 14000certification.Production and Operations Management10:327-342.

Cureton EE, D'Agostino RB. 1983. Factor analysis: an applied approach. LawrenceErlbaum Associates. Hillside, New Jersey.

Curkovic S, Sroufe R. 2011. Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chainstrategy.Business Strategy and the Environment202:71-93.

Darnall N, Jolley G J, Handfield R. 2008. Environmental management systems andgreen supply chain management: complements for sustainability?Business Strategy and

the Environment17:30-45.Del Brio J, Fernndez E, Junquera B, Vzquez CJ. 2001. Motivations for adopting theISO 14001 standard: a study of Spanish industrial companies. Environmental Quality

Management10: 13-28.

Delmas M. 2001. Stakeholders and competitive advantage: the case of ISO14001.Production and Operations Management10:343-358.

Ervin D, Wu J, Khanna M, Jones C, Wirkkala T. 2013. Motivations and barriers tocorporate environmental management.Business Strategy and the Environment.Forthcoming: DOI: 10.1002/bse.1752.

European Commission. 2013. EMAS: Statistics and Graphs; Brussels, available fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/articles_en.htm. Accessed December7, 2013.

European Commission, 2014. EMAS Awards 2014; Brussels, available from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emasawards/pdf/FINAL%20EMAS%20Awards%20brochure%2025-3%20hauteok-3.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2014.

Eurostat 2010: November 2010 European Commission - EUROSTAT Information Hub Environmental Pressure of Sectors, by NACE Code

Fryxell GE, Lo CWH, Chung SS. 2004. Influence of motivations for seeking ISO 14001certification on perceptions of EMS effectiveness in China.Environmental Management332:239-251.

Gavronski I, Ferrer G, Paiva E. 2008. ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: motivations andbenefits.Journal of Cleaner Production16:87-94.

Gavronski I, Klassen RD, Vachon S, Nascimento LFMD. 2011. A resource-based viewof green supply management. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics andT R 47 872 885


16/21

Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black W. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. PearsonPrentice Hall. New Jersey.

HerasSaizarbitoria I, Boiral O. 2013. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a ResearchAgenda on Management System Standards*.International Journal of Management

Reviews151:47-65.

Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Molina-Azorn JF, Dick GP. 2011. ISO 14001 certification andfinancial performance: selection-effect versus treatment-effect. Journal of Cleaner

Production191:1-12.

Jiang RJ, Bansal P. 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001.Journal of ManagementStudies404:1047-1067.

Ketokivi MA, Schroeder RG. 2004. Perceptual measures of performance: fact orfiction?Journal of Operations Management 22:247-64.

Lagodimos AG, Chountalas PT, Chatzi K. 2007. The state of ISO 14001 certification inGreece.Journal of Cleaner Production15:1743-1754.

Lannelongue G, GonzalezBenito J, GonzalezBenito O. 2013. Input, Output, andEnvironmental Management Productivity: Effects on Firm Performance.Business

Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI: 10.1002/bse.1806.LpezNavarro M, TortosaEdo V, LlorensMonzons J. 2013. EnvironmentalManagement Systems and Local Community Perceptions: the Case of PetrochemicalComplexes Located in Ports.Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming:DOI: 10.1002/bse.1817.

Mrtensson K, Westerberg K. 2014. Corporate Environmental Strategies TowardsSustainable Development.Business Strategy and the Environment. Forthcoming: DOI:10.1002/bse.1852.

Melnyk SA, Sroufe RP, Calantone R. 2003. Assessing the impact of environmentalmanagement systems on corporate and environmental performance.Journal ofOperations Management21: 329-351.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. London.

Morrow D, Rondinelli D. 2002. Adopting corporate environmental management

systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS Certification. EuropeanManagement Journal 202:159171.

Muoz D. 2014. Espaa a la cola en cumplimiento de la legislacin ambiental de laUnin Europea. Available at http://geoinnova.org/blog-territorio/espana-a-la-cola-en-cumplimiento-de-la-legislacion-ambiental-de-la-union-europea/


17/21

Paulraj A. 2009. Environmental motivations: A classification scheme and its impact onenvironmental strategies and practices.Business Strategy and the Environment 18:453468.

Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems andprospects.Journal of management124:531-544.

Potoski M, Prakash A. 2005. Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO 14001 andfirms' regulatory compliance.American Journal of Political Science49:235-248.

Qi G, Zeng S, Li X, Tam C. 2012. Role of internalization process in defining therelationship between ISO 14001 certification and corporate environmental

performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management193:

129-140.Robinson JP. 1991. Criteria for Scale Selection and Evaluation in Measures ofPersonality and Social Psychological Attitudes.Academic Press. New York.

Russo MV. 2009. Explaining the impact of ISO 14001 on emission performance: adynamic capabilities perspective on process and learning. Business Strategy and the

Environment185:307-319.

Sambasivan M, Fei NY. 2008. Evaluation of critical success factors of implementationof ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process AHP: a case study fromMalaysia.Journal of cleaner production16:1424-1433.

Schylander E, Martinuzzi A. 2007. ISO 14001experiences, effects and futurechallenges: national study in Austria.Business Strategy and the Environment162:133-147.

Spector PE, Brannick MT. 2011. Methodological urban legends: the misuse of

statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods 14:287-305.Steger U, Schindel C, Krapf H. 2002. The experience of EMAS in three Europeancountries: a cultural and competitive analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment11:32-42.

Szymanski M, Tiwari P. 2004. ISO 14001 and reduction of toxic emissions. Journal ofEconomic Policy Reform7:3142.

Testa F, Rizzi F, Daddi T, Gusmerotti NM, Frey M, Iraldo F. 2014. EMAS and ISO14001: the differences in effectively improving environmental performance.Journal ofCleaner Production68:165-173.

Wahba H. 2010. How do institutional shareholders manipulate corporate environmentalstrategy to protect their equity value? A study of the adoption of ISO 14001 by Egyptianfirms Business Strategy and the Environment 19: 495-511


18/21

management system implementation linkage. Journal of environmentalmanagement114:232-242.


19/21

Table 1: Analysis of the motivational clusters of companies

1-Holistic2-External

Focus3-Internal focus Total F statistics

131 118 112 361

Image Improvement 4.28 (0.91) [2,3] 4.01(0.97) [1] 3.82(0.94) [1] 4.05(0.95) 5.79**

Customer demands 3.19(0.81) [2,3] 1.67(0.76) [1] 1.65(0.72) [1] 2.21(1.15) 101.91**

Administration 3.32(1.05) [2,3] 1.78(1.03) [1,3] 2.30(1.13) [1,2] 2.50(1.24) 56.29**

Competitive advantage 4.08(0.97) [2,3] 3.74(1.01) [1,3] 2.08(0.90) [1,2] 3.34(1.24) 134.75**

Internal efficiency 4.35(0.72) [2,3] 2.94(0.91) [1,3] 4.06(0.89) [1,2] 3.79(1.07) 70.16**

Envir. proactivity 3.97(0.98) [2] 2.61(1.01) [1,3] 3.97(0.92) [2] 3.52(1.16) 62.58**

Source: prepared by the authors. Note: ** p


20/21

19

Table 4: Descriptive statistics and correlations for motivations and outcomes of the EMS

Firmsize

Initialinvest peremployee

.

Manuf. Envir.Press.

Age ofEMS

Previous ISO

Holistic ExternalFocus

InternalFocus

Imageimprov.

Fulfilllaws -regul

Environ.effect.

improv.

Minimizeenviron.

problems

Competit.

improv.

Satisfaction

Firm size 1Initial Invest per employee -0.061 1Manufacturing 0.113* -0.088 1Environmental pressure -0.024 0.123 0.021 1Age of EMS 0.089 0.048 -0.009 -0.064 1

Previous ISO 0.067 0.003 0.201** 0.009 -0.427** 1Holistic 0.070 0.100 0.001 0.261** 0.006 -0.064 1External Focus -0.087 -0.047 0.036 -0.081 0.090 -0.001 -0.523** 1Internal Focus 0.017 -0.065 -0.049 -0.184** -0.090 0.067 -0.503** -0.466** 1Image improvement 0.031 0.101 -0.074 0.082 0.036 -0.014 0.310** -0.092 -0.213** 1Fulfill environmental laws/regulations -0.092 0.049 0.080 0.155** 0.083 -0.009 0.196** -0.250** 0.053 0.161** 1Environmental effectiveness improvement -0.065 0.073 -0.132* 0.072 -0.030 0.134* 0.247** -0.379** 0.125* 0.213** 0.432** 1Minimize environmental problems -0.018 0.122 -0.038 -0.020 -0.000 0.050 0.246** -0.361** 0.111 0.165** 0.464** 0.498** 1Competitiveness improvement 0.019 0.107 -0.041 0.039 -0.014 0.096 0.300** -0.172** -0.124* 0.322** 0.173** 0.292** 0.321** 1Satisfaction 0.106 0.100 -0.109 -0.048 0.090 0.012 0.251** -0.320** 0.061 0.249** 0.263** 0.475** 0.380** 0.247** 1Source: prepared by the authors. Cell entries are standardized coefficients; *P


21/21

20

Table 5: Results of regression analysis for the motivational clusters, the company characteristics and the outcomes from EMS

Image improvementFulfill environ. laws

and regulations

Environmentaleffectivenessimprovement

Minimizeenvironmental

problems

Competitivenessimprovement

Satisfaction

Control Variables Step1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2Firm size -0.087 -0.086 0.075 0.009 0.064 0.000 0.080 0.016 -0.023 -0.019 0.129 0.065

Initial Invest per employee 0.087 0.064 0.035 0.010 0.053 0.017 0.118 0.090 0.100 0.058 -0.069 -0.108

Manufacturing 0.003 -0.017 0.088 0.093 -0.192* -0.203* -0.065 -0.056 -0.030 -0.065 -0.107 -0.088

Environmental pressure 0.081 0.035 0.176 0.181 0.033 0.022 0.020 0.011 0.031 -0.052 -0.051 -0.077

Age of EMS -0.018 -0.003 0.170 0.202 0.127 0.172 0.086 0.136 0.017 0.049 0.109 0.141

Previous ISO -0.017 -0.001 0.078 0.087 0.229 0.251 0.062 0.070 0.105 0.134 0.055 0.068

Independent variables

Holistic 0.258** 0.176* 0.263** 0.225** 0.474** 0.313**

Internal Focus -0.164 0.161 0.103 0.151 -0.234** 0.069

External Focus 0.124 -0.347** -0.386** -0.394** -0.299** -0.405**

Model information

R2 0.026 0.111 0.071 0.187 0.071 0.215 0.030 0.178 0.023 0.256 0.040 0.204

F for the regression 0.588 2.110* 1.718 3.800** 1.701 4.497** 0.667 3.480** 0.510 5.052** 0.881 3.968**

F for the step 0.588 14.897** 1.718 10.022** 1.701 23.305** 0.667 20.922** 0.510 13.229** 0.881 14.202**

Source: prepared by the authors. Cell entries are standardized coefficients; *P

12.Cluster Analiza

Documents

Transcript of 12.Cluster Analiza