Though adoption of EMSs (and pro-environmental behaviour) is generally increasing in developed, economically vibrant parts of the world, it is receiving nominal attention in other far less developed parts [1], [3]. Despite the fact that international EMS standards (such as ISO 14001) have been adopted by geographically diverse organisations, their implementation and extent of diffusion differs in different countries [2], and it seems that uptake of these standards has been very much country/region dependent. Figure 1 summarizes the international distribution of ISO 14001 certifications in 2010, with Europe and the Far East together accounting for approximately 90.9% of certifications, and Africa/West Asia and Central/South America together accounting for only 6% of certifications.

Figure 1.

World share of ISO 14001 certifications in % (Adapted from: [14])

In determining pro-environmental behaviour like EMS implementation, organisations are often motivated by factors stemming from within, such as internal resources and capabilities [12]. Some of the most influential drivers of environmental change today include corporate awareness of the finiteness of natural resources and the need for maintaining a sense of stewardship and responsibility towards environmental issues [15], both considered to be strong internal drivers. Organisations are also increasingly influenced by external factors that compel them to play more active roles in environmental management. Market opportunities, government and regulatory influences, and institutional and community pressures all have an influence on the way an organisation manages its impact on the environment, especially in more developed societies [7], [8], [16]. Firms which experience little external pressure from outside institutions have little:

• Regulatory and compliance benefits, which organisations derive through awareness of their environmental legal and statutory requirements thereby attempting to operate within those requirements [8];

• Human resource benefits, where employees are positively affected when they genuinely believe an organisation is adopting pro-environmental behaviour for what is considered to be the ‘right’ reasons [16];

• Positive economic impacts, whereby ems implementation is likely to lead to source and pollution reductions, process intensification and improvement, improved waste management and improved productivity, all of which typically result in cost reductions and subsequently, cost savings [1], [20];

• Market access benefits, where ems implementation has the ability to provide organisations with access to new and existing markets [1], [20];

• Positive impact on external corporate image, where ems implementation becomes a corporate public statement and affords the opportunity of communicating to external parties – customers, suppliers, regulatory bodies, investors and the general public [20];

• The opportunity to improve environmental performance and efficiency by creating support for the implementation of other environmental practices [21]-[23].

EMS barriers usually arise from the cost of pro-environmental initiatives. For example, there are direct and indirect financial implications associated with EMS implementation [24], including time and human resource costs and the costs of engaging external consultants. In addition, externally certified EMSs like ISO 14001 have been widely criticized for not being sufficiently linked to environmental performance. This may be because EMS standards like ISO 14001 mainly focus on management interventions required to implement a functional EMS, and do not have inherent performance indicators or measurement metrics. As such, they cannot be referred to as performance standards but rather management standards [1], [2], [8]. Such criticisms may constitute a barrier to EMS adoption.

As early as the 1950’s the Nigerian government developed environmental laws, a number of which are geared towards controlling environmental issues in industry. Nigeria’s environmental management control efforts (acts, decrees, laws, bye-laws, edicts, regulations, policies, ratification of regional and international agreements, protocols and conventions) can be classified into:

• Special initiatives and actions (International and regional);

• Policy and institutional tools;

• Legal/regulatory tools.

These environmental management control efforts are implemented on two different levels of jurisdictional authority:

• Federal – Federal environmental provisions have jurisdiction over the entire country;

• State – Environmental provisions applicable within each of the 36 states and capital city in Nigeria.

The country has also ratified several environmental management international treaties, not limited to the following [25]:

• The United Nations Conference on Human Environment (the Stockholm Declaration), 1972;

• The Vancouver Conference on Human Settlements, 1976;

• The Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer, 1985;

• The Lugano Convention for Civil Liabilities resulting from activities dangerous to the Environment, 1993;

• The Istanbul Conference on Human Settlements, 1996;

• The Basel Convention for the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1992;

• The Kyoto Protocol (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 1997;

• The Rio de Janeiro United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), 1992. This led to the production of 5 documents:

  • o The Rio Declaration – Principles of a healthy environment and equitable development;

  • o The Agenda 21 – an action plan for sustainable development in the 21st century;

  • o The Convention on Biodiversity;

  • o The Convention on Climate Change;

  • o A statement of Forest Principles.

• Rio 20+ - The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 2012.

However, the Nigerian government faces the problem of implementation and enforcement of new and existing environmental laws, which must be addressed for existing legislation to be effective.

According to [3], EMS drivers and benefits are inextricably linked. This is also true of the relationship between EMS drivers and barriers, as an EMS implementation factor which drives an organisation to display pro-environmental behaviour may also bar another from implementing the same. Table 1 shows how EMS factors may serve multiple functions as drivers, benefits and barriers to EMS implementation in organisations. For instance, regulatory/legal demands/pressures can serve as a powerful driver of pro-environmental behaviour [26]-[28]. This EMS driver can motivate organisations to adopt EMSs in an attempt to seek compliance with regulatory standards or pressure from regulatory bodies. Simultaneously, regulatory/legal demand/pressures can also act as barriers to EMS implementation [7], preventing organisations from exhibiting pro-environmental behaviour in an attempt to avoid unwanted regulators’ attention.

Though similarities exist between models for categorizing EMS implementation factors, there is little direct correlation between sets of models as a whole, especially in regard to functional interpretations and terminologies used. As a result of the differences in results of EMS studies conducted in different world regions, there are also marked differences between categorization models [5], [11], [12], restricting the international applicability of these models [10]. Harmonizing and re-grouping existing EMS models will provide a model with a wider applicability and cross-regional relevance, and will bridge the gaps of previous individual models, providing a consolidated model which can be used to classify EMS drivers, benefits and barriers across a range of geographical and industry settings [11]. Such a classification model has been postulated [13] and is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Efficient choice-social institutional EMS classification model [14]

87% of respondents considered ‘environmental concern’ as being ‘very important’ (VI) or ‘important’ (I) drivers influencing their pro-environmental behaviour (Figure 4). 87% also considered the ‘desire for improved organisational efficiency’ in the same way. ‘Opportunity to avoid/contain pollution’, ‘regulatory/legal demands/pressures’ and ‘environmental/social responsibility’ were rated by 85%, 84% and 83% of organisations respectively as being ‘very important’ or ‘important’ drivers.

Figure 4.

Organisations that rated EMS drivers as ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’

90% of respondents considered ‘reduced environmental accidents and site safety’ as being a ‘very important’ or ‘important’ benefit influencing their pro-environmental behaviour (Figure 5). ‘Enhanced corporate image’, ‘more efficient resource use’, ‘improved employee knowledge and awareness of environmental issues’ and ‘improved external relations’ were rated by 89%, 86%, 86% and 84% of organisations respectively as being ‘very important’ or ‘important’ benefits.

Figure 5.

Organisations that rated EMS benefits as ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’

70% of respondents considered the cost of implementation/budget barriers’ as being a ‘very important’ or ‘important’ barrier influencing their pro-environmental behaviour (Figure 6). ‘Lack of resources’, ‘regulatory agency bureaucracy’ and ‘extensive documentation involved’ and ‘lack of concern about environmental issues’ were rated by 69%, 68%, 61% and 61% of organisations respectively as being ‘very important’ or ‘important’ barriers.

Figure 6.

Organisations that rated EMS barriers as ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’

EMS Implementation Factors (drivers, benefits and barriers) were grouped using the FACES model explained in [13] (in Figure 2 above), and respondents’ combined ratings were compared. The y-axis in Figure 7 represents the percentage of organisations rating a driver as ‘very important’ or ‘important’. The x-axis represents EMS implementation factors. The ‘coverage area’ is a function of the number of EMS implementation factors and the ‘very important’/’important’ (VI/I) ratings:

Coverage area in graph = No. of EMS implementation factors × VI/I rating

The graph shows the blue line (representing all Internal Efficient Choice EMS Factors in the research questionnaire) having the overall highest coverage area. The green line (Internal Social Institutional EMS Factors) with the next highest, is followed by the red line (External Efficient Choice EMS Factors) and the purple line (External Social Institutional EMS Factors).

Figure 7.

Comparison of ratings of EMS implementation factors

From survey results on EMS implementation factors, it appears that both internal (efficient choice and social institutional) EMS factors have comparable influences on the pro-environmental behaviour of Nigerian organisations. A high proportion of respondents considered internal efficient choice EMS drivers like ‘desire for improved organisational efficiency’ (87%) and ‘opportunity to integrate environmental considerations into corporate strategy’ (81%) to be ‘very important’ or ‘important’. Respondents also rated internal social institutional EMS drivers like ‘environmental concern’ (87%), ‘opportunity to avoid/contain pollution’ (85%) and ‘environmental/social responsibility’ (84%) to be ‘very important’ or ‘important’. This demonstrates that while motivated by efficiency and profitability, Nigerian organisations possess a degree of environmental awareness and concern.

Internal EMS factors appear to influence Nigerian organisations to a greater extent than external EMS factors; as external efficient choice EMS drivers like ‘customer/client requirements’ (73%) and ‘potential market advantages’ (67%) were not rated as highly as internal drivers. Empirical literature on EMS drivers reports contrasting results, with studies generally suggesting that EMS motivations are more of an external nature [3, 31, 6]. In addition, a large number of studies assert that organisations’ pro-environmental behaviour is influenced by the demands of their respective markets [5], [12], [16], [32]. The conclusions of these studies are in contrast with survey results on Nigerian organisations. Customer requirements and market advantages do not appear to play a major role in motivating pro-environmental behaviour in Nigeria potentially because:

• They operate in markets where customers do not associate environmental performance with product quality;

• Market domination can be achieved without superior environmental performance;

• They do not supply international markets, where supplier environmental performance is considered important;

• Local markets are not as environmentally sensitive as their developed country counterparts.

The external EMS factor, ‘regulatory/legal demands/pressures’ (83%) also exerts influence on Nigerian organisations. This result is in line with previous studies [8, 33, 34], which conclude that government-backed regulation is a strong driver of pro-environmental behaviour, and will continue to promote the adoption of EMS certification standards. Regulatory drivers are an influential driver for pro-environmental behaviour in developing countries like Nigeria, particularly because a failure to achieve regulatory compliance ultimately leads to unwanted outcomes like legal sanctions, fines, penalties and loss of operating licenses and permits. Organisations wishing to implement environmental initiatives become immediately aware of the existence of legal requirements, and their responsibility to operate within them.

Respondents responses also indicated that a lower proportion of Nigerian organisations are influenced by external social institutional EMS factors like ‘societal/community influences’ (41%) and ‘other external influences’ (46%) such as trade associations, lobbyists, consultants and educational institutions. This may be due to a level of environmental awareness in these external parties insufficient to influence pro-environmental behaviour.

External efficient choice benefits such as ‘better customer loyalty/patronage’ (66%), ‘increased market value’ (65%), and ‘better access to target markets’ (54%), were not rated as highly as internal EMS factors. This demonstrates that Nigerian organisations derive fewer market benefits from pro-environmental behaviour than their developed country counterparts. This may be because Nigerian markets are not environmentally conscious or sensitive enough to demand environmental performance.

The link between market benefits and pro-environmental behaviour has been emphasized by studies such [18], [35], [36]. These studies suggest that:

• An organisations environmental performance may be a barrier to exporting products to international markets;

• The existence of ems certifications facilitates product export to developed country markets, and is useful in overcoming difficult international trade barriers;

• Those organisations may lose competitive position in local and international markets by failing to pay sufficient attention to environmental issues.

However, though it appears that Nigerian organisations do not gain as many market/trade benefits as they do internal benefits, the degree to which Nigerian markets are environmentally sensitive has not been determined. Market access-driven advantages provided by EMS implementation may be based on perceived rather than actual realities. As such, the extent of environmental sensitivity in developing country markets like Nigeria presents an opportunity for future research.

Survey results showing a positive relationship between pro-environmental behaviour and employee relationships in Nigerian organisations are in agreement with those of previous studies, which report the positive, though often difficult to measure, effect of environmental initiatives on organisation’s employee relationships [8], [15], [16], [32], [36]-[38].

84% of respondents rated ‘improved external (community) relations’ as being a ‘very important’ or ‘important EMS benefit. However, only 41% of respondents considered ‘societal/community pressures/influences’ as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ EMS driver. This demonstrates that although Nigerian organisations are not primarily motivated by their external communities, they derive community benefits from pro-environmental actions. This indicates that Nigerian communities may not be as environmentally insensitive as they appear.

The highest rated EMS barriers were ‘cost of implementation/budget barriers’ (70%), ‘lack of resources’ (69%), ‘regulatory agency bureaucracy’ (68%) and ‘extensive documentation involved’ (61%). The cost outlay of pro-environmental initiatives is substantial, and many organisations (including those in Nigeria) are cautious about incurring expenses that do not have a perceived direct link to organisational bottom-line [8], [16], [34], [38]. Moreover, a barrier to pro-environmental behaviour in Nigerian organisations is the challenge of dealing with environmental regulatory bodies. According to [25] and [39], there is a general lack of cooperation between Federal and State environmental protection bodies in Nigeria, leading to bureaucratic delays. Regulatory bureaucracy is also caused by the existence of multiple overlapping functions within environmental protection bodies subsequently leading to overlapping mandates, functions, jurisdictions and permitting systems.