Change the recipe: a
corporate environmental
indicator for plastic soup?
MSc. Business Studies - Strategy Track
Author: Kornelis Jorna (student number 10326936)
1st supervisor: Lars Moratis
2nd supervisor: Dr. Mark van Veen
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam Date of submission: 30 March 2014
© HaskoningDHV Nederland B.V. No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of HaskoningDHV Nederland B.V.; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. The quality
Change the recipe: a
corporate environmental
indicator for plastic soup?
MSc. Business Studies - Strategy Track
Author: Kornelis Jorna (student number 10326936)
1st supervisor: Lars Moratis
2nd supervisor: Dr. Mark van Veen
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam Date of submission: 30 March 2014
CONTENTS
PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
2 INTRODUCTION 5
2.1 Problem description: ‘Plastic Soup’ 5
2.1.1 The use of plastics 5
2.1.2 ‘Plastic Soup’ 6
2.1.3 Sources 6
2.1.4 Effects 7
2.1.5 Potential Solutions 8
2.1.6 Plastic Soup Prevention Indicator 8
2.2 Theoretical perspectives 9
2.2.1 Corporate environmental indicators 10
2.2.2 Institutional Isomorphism 11
2.3 Research questions 12
2.4 Relevance of research 12
2.5 Research methodology and perspective 13
2.6 Report structure 14
3 LITERATURE REVIEW 15
3.1 Corporate environmental indicators 15
3.1.1 Concepts and definitions 16
3.1.2 Content and types of corporate environmental indicators 17
3.1.3 Development of indicators 18
3.1.4 Corporate environmental indicators and corporate decision-making 19
3.2 Organizational decision-making and isomorphism 20
3.2.1 Organizational Decision-making 20
3.2.2 Institutional Isomorphism 20
3.3 Conceptual Framework 24
4 RESEARCH METHOD 25
4.1 Research design 25
4.2 Description of the cases 26
4.3 Strengths and limitations of the case study method 27
4.4 Data collection 27
5 RESULTS 30
5.1 Relationship with subject 30
5.2 CSR issues in organization 33
5.3 Corporate environmental indicators 34
5.3.1 Use of corporate environmental indicators 34
5.3.2 Corporate environmental indicator related to plastic soup? 35
5.4 Influences on decision-making 36
5.4.1 Coercive forces 36
5.4.2 Mimetic forces 40
5.4.3 Normative forces 41
6 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 43
6.1 Conclusions 43
6.1.1 Back to the research questions 43
6.1.2 Answers to the sub questions 44
6.1.3 Conclusions 46
6.2 Discussion 47
6.2.1 Reflection on the results 47
6.2.2 Academic and practical implications 48
6.2.3 Limitations of the study 49
6.2.4 Suggestions for further research 50
7 REFERENCES 52
APPENDICES
1 Interview protocols
2 Overview interviewees and organizations 3 Fragment table with interview results
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The mass production of plastics, started 60 years ago, has led to the fact that almost anywhere on the planet most products that people use are made of plastics (Barnes et al., 2009). It has transformed everyday life and it is evident that plastics bring many societal benefits and advantages (Thompson et al., 2009b). However, those wonderful characteristics of the plastics become a big problem when plastics end in the environment. It is also those characteristics that make plastics much more ‘throw-away’ than other products (Barnes et al., 2009). Every year large amounts of plastics enter the ocean, where it slowly fragments and accumulates in convergence zones (Moore 2008, UNEP, 2011). This abundance of plastic in surface water is often referred to as ‘Plastic Soup’. All ocean water on Earth is contaminated with plastic (UNEP, 2009). This leads to many negative effects, such as ingestion of plastics by marine wildlife, entanglement, ghost fishing and damage to biodiversity, coral reefs and the sea floor.
Industry and companies have been recognized as one of the main sources of environmental pollution (Tyteca et al., 2002). The actions companies can take have an effect on the abundance of the plastic soup. Could a corporate environmental indicator for plastic soup be part of a solution?
This research is based on two theoretical perspectives: the role of corporate environmental indicators in firm decision-making and institutional isomorphism. Literature about corporate environmental indicators doesn’t give much guidance on how the corporate decision-making process with respect to corporate environmental indicators takes place. It doesn’t give a good answer to the question why a certain company is going to monitor a specific corporate environmental indicator. Therefore another theoretical angle is necessary. Institutional isomorphism gives insight into the pressures that influence decision-making within organizations.
According to the theory of institutional isomorphism each organization adapts itself to its environment, which leads to relative homogeneous organizations within a specific environment (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). Dimmaggio and Powell describe the three pressures toward institutional isomorphism as coercive, mimetic and normative forces (ibid, also see Ashworth et al., 2007). The theory suggests that companies yield to all this three forces, without mention if one force is stronger as another.
The three isomorphic forces (coercive, mimetic and normative) have their influence on the decision to incorporate a corporate environmental indicator for plastic soup. If this decision results in a yes, the literature about corporate environmental indicators learns us about the content of a good indicator.
This leads to the following research question:
How do isomorphic forces influence the decision to incorporate an environmental indicator for plastic soup by companies that produce or use plastics?
Data collection consists of 6 interviews with companies and 4 interviews with experts. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews in the period December 2013 – February 2014.
Based on the results of the interviews, it appears that corporate environmental indicators are mainly used for three purposes: to measure, to set targets and to communicate performance. In line with results from earlier research (Keeble et al., 2003, Schwarz et al., 2002; Veleva et al., 2001), these indicators are a useful tool for the companies. None of the interviewed companies have a specific indicator for their influence on the plastic soup. However, the interviewed companies do have corporate environmental indicators that have a relationship with the topic of plastic soup.
The results of the interviews support the theory that these isomorphic forces influence the decision-making of the companies. However, this study shows that coercive forces are much more influential than mimetic and normative forces. Pressure in the supply chain (towards suppliers and clients) and legislation seems to be the most important influencers. Other influencers are investors and economic drivers; it is profitable to measure corporate environmental indicators. Expectation of society, competitors, uncertainties and norms and values of staff are less influential.
This study was the first to combine the use of corporate environmental indicators with the theory of institutional isomorphism and has generated some interesting ideas. Based on the results suggestions for further research are identified. The first suggestion is to take a bigger sample and also includes ‘lagging’ companies with respect to the topic of plastic soup. The second area for further research is to look from another theoretical angle to this problem. A possible theory for this should be the signaling theory, founded by Spence in 1973. From the signaling theory it is possible to look at the influence of information on the decision-making processes within companies (Connelly et al., 2011).
2
INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains the introduction. First, it gives a problem description which provides insight into the background of this research. This leads to an answer on the question why this research has been done, which results in the research questions. This section ends with a short overview of all steps of this report; it offers a perspective to the structure of the research and the following sections of this report.
2.1 Problem description: ‘Plastic Soup’
2.1.1 The use of plastics
The last few decades our use of plastics has grown substantially towards more than 260 million tons of plastic per annum, approximately 8% (4% for feedstock, 4% for energy during the production process) of world oil production (Thompson et al., 2009a). The mass production of plastics, started 60 years ago, has led to the fact that almost anywhere on the planet most products that people use are made of plastics (Barnes et al., 2009). It has transformed everyday life and it is evident that plastics bring many societal benefits and advantages (Thompson et al., 2009b).
Plastics are an incredibly versatile material: it is inexpensive, lightweight, strong durable, corrosion- resistant, with high thermal and electrical insulation properties (Thompson et al 2009a). Besides that there is a huge diversity of polymers which makes it suitable for a vast array of applications. (Thompson et al 2009a).
However, those wonderful characteristics of the plastics become a big problem when plastics end in the environment. It is also those characteristics that make plastics much more ‘throw-away’ than other products (Barnes et al., 2009). Over a third is used for packaging, which is then rapidly discarded (Thompson et al., 2009b).
2.1.2 ‘Plastic Soup’
Unfortunately, plastic is often littered to the environment. Plastic waste is disposed everywhere in the world and ends in surface water. Every year large amounts of plastics enter the ocean, where it slowly fragments and accumulates in convergence zones (Moore 2008, UNEP, 2011). This abundance of plastic in surface water is often referred to as ‘Plastic Soup’. Other common terms for this problem are ‘plastic debris’ and ‘marine litter’, although marine litter is not strictly limited to plastics. But plastics do dominate marine litter (Ryan et al., 2009). It is difficult to give exact numbers in here, but it is estimated that typically 40-80% (reaching 90 – 95% in some areas), of marine litter is plastics, mainly items such as packaging, carrier bags, foot wear and cigarette lighters (Moore 2008, Barnes et al., 2009). Although plastics constitute about 10% of discarded waste, its proportion of the debris accumulating on shorelines is much higher (Barnes et al., 2009). Marine plastics can be divided into two categories, macro (>5mm) and micro (<5mm) plastics (Moore, 2008).
After entering the environment, plastics reach merely every place of it, including the deepest parts of the sea and the shorelines of the most remote islands (Barnes et al., 2009). This means all of our ocean water on Earth is contaminated with plastic (UNEP, 2009). According to the UNEP this is an environmental, economic, human health and aesthetic problem, leaving us a complex and multi-dimensional challenge to solve (UNEP, 2009). Although the subject is already for quite some years issue of debate, we still understand little about the abundance, distribution, sources and impacts of the plastic soup problem (Ryan et al., 2009). Also the possible effects of the so called micro plastics are not yet understood very well and are a matter of concern (UNEP, 2011). Actually, investigation to the extent of the problem and its effects has just recently begun (Moore, 2008).
2.1.3 Sources
Knowledge of the sources of marine litter is very important because it is the main basis for decisions on actions to prevent, reduce and control the problems caused by marine plastics (UNEP, 2009). Plastics in the surface water derive from ships and land-based sources such as runoff from rivers, waste water systems, wind-blown litter and recreational litter (Coe and Rogers 1997). It has been estimated that around 80% of marine debris is from land-based sources and the remaining 20% is from ocean-based sources (Allsopp et al., 2006). These sources can be categorized into three major groups: tourism-related litter (packaging, cigarettes etc.), river and sewage-related debris (street litter, condoms, micro beats etc.) and fishing-related debris (fishing lines and nets, garbage from fishing ships) (Allsopp et al., 2006). As figure 1 illustrates, most plastic accumulates on beaches (1), in coastal waters and their sediments (2), and in the open ocean (3) (Ryan et al., 2009). Macro plastics sometimes may be traced back to its origin, but micro plastics are very difficult to trace (Moore, 2008).
Figure 1: Main sources and movement pathways for plastic (Adapted from Ryan et al. 2009: 2000).
Both sea and land-based sources of plastics to the environment are the result of inappropriate waste management and improper human behavior such as littering (Barnes et al., 2009). Monitoring of the amount of plastics is very complicated, because of large spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the amounts of plastics and our limited understanding of the pathways of plastics in the oceans (Ryan et al., 2009).
2.1.4 Effects
It is commonly agreed that at the moment we only have limited information on the effects of plastics in surface waters (Thompson et al., 2009b; Barnes et al., 2009, Ryan et al., 2009, Moore 2008). Despite that fact, it is well possible to give a short overview of the commonly mentioned effects (derived from Allsopp et al., 2006, Barnes et al., 2009, UNEP 2009, Moore, 2008 Thompson et al., 2009).
Ingestion: Marine wildlife ingests plastic debris, which leads to choking and starving of the animals. As an example, 44% of all seabird species are known to ingest plastic (Moore, 2008). This also leads to toxicity concerns further in the food chain. Together with entanglement ingestion attracts the most public and media attention.
Entanglement / ghost fishing: Also one of the more visible impacts of plastic debris which affects a large number of marine and fresh-water is entanglement. A number for fish, birds and mammals that is affected by ghost fishing by discarded fishing nets is not known, but it is estimated it is about millions of animals. This also results in losses to commercial fisheries.
Damage to biodiversity / coral reefs and sea floor: There is a potential danger to marine ecosystems from the accumulation of plastic debris on the sea floor and in coral reefs. Floating plastic can become
colonized by marine organisms. Since it can persist at the sea surface for substantial periods, this may facilitate the transport of ‘alien’ species
2.1.5 Potential Solutions
The most efficient and cost-effective solution is to reduce the release of plastics in the environment (Ryan et al., 2009). However this solution is very difficult to achieve, because it needs education, coordinated programs, better waste management and infrastructure, global and regional strategies and implementation of regulations and standards at all levels (UNEP, 2009, 2011; Ryan et al., 2009). As a result of this, there has been little progress in reducing the release of plastics in the environment (Barnes et al., 2009; Thompson et al. 2009b). For sure is that solutions for this problem only can be achieved by combined actions by many different organizations which must be considered within a framework of lifecycle analysis and thus incorporate all of the stages in plastic production, together with usage and disposal (Thompson et al. 2009b). In this article, several potential solutions are offered (Thompson et al., 2009b):
• material reduction,
• design for end-of-life recyclability, • increased recycling capacity,
• development of bio-based feed stocks, • strategies to reduce littering,
• the application of green chemistry life-cycle analyses • revised risk assessment approaches.
Industrial companies have an important role in this list of potential solutions. For these companies it is important to get insight in the (potential) effects of the measures they take. Therefore another potential solution can be added to the above list: an indicator which measures this effect and gains insight for these companies.
2.1.6 Plastic Soup Prevention Indicator
It is difficult to stimulate the actors in the supply chain (production industry, industrial users of plastic, waste companies etc.) to make a move on this issue. The ownership of the problem plays an important role in this. In contradiction with other environmental problems, the pollution doesn’t originate from the production place, but in the waste-stadium when it is littered in surface water. A small part of the solution to this lack of ownership could be to provide the responsible industries with tools that help them to gain insight in their contribution to the plastic soup.
Industry and companies have been recognized as one of the main sources of environmental pollution (Tyteca et al., 2002), but also contribute to wealth and development (Herva et al., 2011). This also yields for (industrial) companies that produce or use plastics with respect to the issue of plastic soup. Most times the plastic that are abundant in the surface water is not directly coming from these industrial companies, but it is indirectly coming from them. Therefore the actions companies take can have an effect on the abundance of the plastic soup.
FFact, Partners for Innovation and Royal HaskoningDHV are currently in the process of developing the plastic soup prevention indicator, which is an indicator for the impact of a plastic product on the plastic soup. The goal of this tool is to provide companies with useful information for their decision-making process on the impact of their product on the plastic soup.
The tool can be seen as a new environmental indicator, which companies can use in combination with other indicators such as CO2-footprint, production of secondary resources and profitability. Than companies become able to quantify the impact on the following important indicators and in that manner tests the relationship between:
• CO2 footprint
• Raw material preservation (recycling) • Plastic soup footprint
• Profitability
In this way companies can enrich their decision-making tools and optimize the product chain also on measures regarding the impact of their product in litter phase and on the plastic soup.
Figure 2: Plastic Soup Prevention Indicator
In order to succeed with this tool, more understanding of the role of this kind of indicators in the decision-making process of these companies is needed, which will be the focal point of this research. The essential question is why companies incorporate a specific environmental theme with indicators or why not.
2.2 Theoretical perspectives
As mentioned above, more understanding of the decision-making process in companies about corporate environmental indicators is helpful for the development of the plastic soup prevention indicator. This will be done from two theoretical perspectives: the role of corporate environmental indicators and institutional isomorphism. The choice for corporate environmental indicators is obvious if this kind of indicator is the central object of research. The choice for institutional isomorphism is probably less obvious, but is actually also a logical one. Institutional Isomorphism explains that organizations yield to isomorphic pressures which influence their external level of support and, in the end, their survival (Dimmaggio and Powel, 1983; Ashworth et al., 2007). It gives insight into the driving forces behind decisions in organizations.
Therefore this will be used as a framework to gain insight in the choices and decisions companies make with respect to corporate environmental indicators. The following sections provide an introduction to these two theoretical perspectives.
2.2.1 Corporate environmental indicators
In 1987 the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (‘the Brundtland commission’) introduced in their famous report ‘Our Common Future’ the concept of sustainable development with the following definition:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland et al., 1987: 16).
Following this report, many steps in the challenge of sustainable development were taken by international governments (e.g. the earth summit in Rio 1992). Since the Brundtland-report this issue of sustainable development has gathered significant attention. Sustainable development is an abstract and complex concept, but has great implications for the way business functions (Tahir and Darton, 2010). The core of the concept learns us sustainable development is only possible if we can find a balance between our economy, ecology and environment (Brundtland et al., 1987). This message has landed within different type of organizations, but certainly also plays an important role in business and industry (Kranjc and Glavic, 2004). Industry is one of the main sources of environmental pollution, but also contributes to development and wealth creation (Herva et al., 2011). Industrial activities are at the foreground and impose a heavy burden on our environment (Tyteca et al, 2002). Therefore it makes sense that firms play an important role in the attainment of the sustainability goals (Callens et al., 1999). Companies are challenged to ‘sustain’ their business practices.
There are different drivers for companies to implement sustainability issues in their business processes, such as evidence of good governances for investors, questions asked by customers about the origin of products, the desire of employees to work for companies that visibly account for their responsibilities and governments and civil society are increasingly placing pressure on business to report on social and environmental performance (Keeble et al., 2003). The regulatory pressure on many industries has been increased (Herva and Roca, 2013). Also many companies have adopted sustainability issues in their core business value (Schwarz et al., 2002). Stakeholders are becoming more demanding in information on business activities aside from financial performance (Keeble et al., 2003)
As in many cases, formulating the ambition is one, but realizing it is more difficult. Companies have to find ways to incorporate this concept in their day-to-day business practices. It challenges them to give the concept of sustainable development a practical dimension to the environmental and social aspects of their business. Companies can use corporate sustainable indicators, or if we focus only on the environmental component, corporate environmental indicators, for this goal (De Benedetto and Klemes, 2009, Hutchins and Sutherland, 2008). The ability to measure sustainability is crucial in this in order to navigate towards the sustainability goals (Tanzil and Beloff, 2006).
With the help of these indicators companies can broaden their decision-making process with environmental issues (Kranjc and Glavic, 2004). The indicators play an important role in evaluating and implementing of sustainability issues in business (Dos Santos et al., 2013).
But how is this done by companies linked to the plastic industry with respect to a corporate environmental indicator focused on the impact of a company on the plastic soup? And what influences their decision-making in this? These are the central questions of this study.
The importance of corporate environmental indicators has been widely recognized. Many organizations (ISO, GRI, Lower Centre of Sustainable production and more) have developed corporate environmental indicators (Cucek et al., 2012, Herva and Roca, 2013). Scholars did extensive research to corporate environmental indicators. The focus in all these efforts has been primarily on the content and type of the corporate environmental indicator. The knowledge on the influence of the selection, content and type of indicators in the decision-making process is still poor.
In literature different definitions are used for these types of indicators: sustainability indicators, environmental indicators, sustainability metrics, footprints and more. In this paper the focus is on the environmental part of sustainability indicators and the term ‘corporate environmental indicator’ will be used.
2.2.2
Institutional Isomorphism
Originally Isomorphism is a concept that stems from ecology. It was brought up by Hawley in 1968 as ‘a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’ (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983: 149). Basically, it describes the process of homogenization (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983), which means the diversity of organizational forms is isomorphic to the diversity of environments (Hannan and Freeman (1977). Each organization adapts itself to its environment, which leads to homogeneous organizations within a specific environment. Observed isomorphism can arise from purposeful adaptation to the environment or because non-isomorphic organizations are selected against (Hannan and Freeman (1977). According to Dimmaggio and Powell (1983) there are two types of isomorphism: competitive and institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism can be used to explain why organizations look similar, without making them more efficient (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). The similarity doesn’t arise from competition or an objective requirement of efficiency, Dimmaggio and Powell argued, but is a result of an organizations quest to attain legitimacy within their environment (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Institutional isomorphism is about the fact that companies have many similar characteristics and are for a large part homogenous (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). They argued institutional isomorphism is a useful concept for this, because organizations compete mainly with other organizations (ibid, see also Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). The article of Dimmaggio and Powell identified the pressure organizations face within a field to enhance their legitimacy (Ashworth et al., 2007). In short the major contribution of Dimmaggio and Powel with their influential article is the empirical prediction that organizations yield to isomorphic pressures that confront them (Ashworth et al., 2007).
Dimmaggio and Powell describe the pressures toward institutional isomorphism as coercive, mimetic and normative forces (Ashworth et al., 2007). They describe these three forces as mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983):
• Coercive isomorphism results from pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations, • mimetic isomorphism results from a standard response of companies to uncertainty,
• normative isomorphism results from professionalization.
Coercion, mimesis and transmission of norms are the basic concepts of how behavior diffuses and these three concepts represent three theoretical backgrounds for Dimmaggio and Powell’s types of isomorphism (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). It explains organizational decision-making from the perspective of these isomorphic forces.
2.3 Research questions
In the identified academic literature there seems to be little attention to the role of environmental indicators in de decision-making process within companies. Although it gives some useful insights, it gives limited support to find an answer to the question why companies will or will not adopt an environmental indicator for the plastic soup in their business processes. The three mechanisms for isomorphic change can be used to explain the driving forces within companies that results in the signalized homogeneity. In this study these three mechanisms will be used as theoretical perspective to find an answer to the question what drives companies linked to the plastic industry to implement an environmental indicator for the plastic soup. This results in the following research question:
How do isomorphic forces influence the decision to incorporate an environmental indicator for plastic soup by companies that produce or use plastics?
In order to find an answer to this research question it has been split up in the following sub-questions: a) How do companies that produce or use plastics use corporate environmental indicators? b) Do these companies already have a corporate environmental indicator related to plastic soup? c) To what extent do different isomorphic forces (coercive, mimetic and normative) influence the decision
for a corporate environmental indicator related to plastic soup?
2.4 Relevance of research
This research is relevant both from academic and practical perspective. The current theory on environmental indicators mainly focuses on the content and type of indicators and not so much on the decision why a certain indicator is used or not. Theories on organizational decision making, such as institutional isomorphism, focus on the drivers for organization with respect to decisions, but don’t focus on corporate environmental indicators. Therefore these two theories on its own cannot provide a clear answer to the research question.
The combination of a theoretical framework with insights from literature on corporate environmental indicators and institutional isomorphism is new. It is the first time these two angles of incidence are combined in one research. It gives valuable and new information on the role of corporate environmental indicators in relation to the drivers of business decision making. For answering the research question, which focusses on decision making with respect to corporate environmental indicators, this is a logical and useful combination of the two theories. It is a study that contributes to the development of these theories.
However, the motivation for this study was mainly on practical grounds. Plastic soup is a big emerging environmental problem and companies that produce or use plastics are connected to this theme and are held (at least partially) responsible for it by society. A corporate environmental indicator for plastic soup would probably be a helpful tool for companies to make this responsibility concrete. This research investigates by several companies and experts the use of corporate environmental indicators related to plastic soup. Companies get relevant information about the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating an indicator for plastic soup.
FFact, Partners for Innovation and Royal HaskoningDHV are currently in the process of developing the plastic soup prevention indicator. The result of this research provides these three actors with relevant information about how to develop this indicator. It is important the indicator fit’s the needs of the companies that produce or use plastics, in order to have a chance to become successful.
2.5 Research methodology and perspective
This research has both elements of interpretivism and pragmatism. Interpretivism advocates the necessity to understand the social phenomenon under study in its natural environment (Saunders and Lewis, 2007). The decision of a company to incorporate an environmental indicator is the central object of research. A decision cannot be studied out of its own context (Yin, 2003). This study also has a strong pragmatic base: the research questions and research objective are leading in the design of the study. This study has an inductive character.
Case study research is the preferred research method when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed (Yin, 2003; Saunders and Lewis, 2012). Semi-structured interviews with companies and experts explain the drivers behind the decision. Additional to this sample of companies, which can be seen as the ‘cases’ also interviews with experts with a good overview of the whole industry have been executed. Together this makes it an explanatory type of research. This also leads to the choice to do a cross-sectional study; it is a ‘snapshot’ of the current situation. With semi-structured interviews data was gathered. The results of the interviews are reported per sub question in the result section of the report.
The perspective of this research is on the company that produces or uses plastics and that takes decisions on corporate environmental indicators with respect to the subject of plastic soup. Interviews were held both with companies inside or connected to the plastic industry, as with experts that have a good view on these companies such as a represent of the plastic industry association, public private organizations, state owned harbor companies and the Dutch ministry of environmental affairs.
Figure 3: Research perspective
2.6 Report structure
This report has the following structure. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the relevant literature on the topics of corporate environmental indicators and institutional isomorphism and ends with the theoretical framework. After this description of the theoretical perspectives chapter 4 continues with a detailed description of the methodology of this research. The results that were gathered from the semi-structured interviews are presented in chapter 5 and, together with the conclusions, further discussed in chapter 6. This last chapter also contains a critical reflection and ends with suggestions for further research.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter gives an overview of the relevant literature on the two theoretical perspectives corporate environmental indicators and institutional isomorphism. First in section 3.1 the literature with respect to corporate environmental indicators will be analyzed, followed by the relevant literature on institutional isomorphism in section 3.2. Both these theoretical perspectives will be used to answer the research questions, which are described in section 3.3. The final section of this chapter describes the theoretical framework of this study. This framework shows how the two theoretical perspectives relate to each other and form the foundation for this study.
3.1 Corporate environmental indicators
There is a big pressure on companies to implement sustainability issues in business decision-making (Keeble et al., 2003). This pressure certainly exerts from regulations (Herva and Roca, 2013; Jamous et al., 2013), but also from the acceleration of change in the environment and the improved social awareness (Jamous et al., 2013). These pressures have challenged companies to implement sustainability into their business practices (Jamous et al., 2013; Schwarz et al., 2002). Existing literature on association of corporate sustainability performance and firm performance mainly focuses on financial performance of the firm (Goyal et al., 2013). Because of that, they argue, further research on other non-financial performance indicators needs to be done. However, many organizations have recognized the importance of and developed corporate environmental indicators (Cucek et al., 2012, Herva and Roca, 2013).
In order to achieve their sustainability goals, companies need reliable definitions and measurements (Cucek et al., 2012). Companies have a great deal in implementing sustainability issues in the decision-making process of their business. Or, as quoted by Veleva et al.: “Given the difficulty some have defining sustainable development; one can imagine the greater difficulty in measuring it!” (Veleva et al.; 2001: 448). Measuring of this is indeed difficult, because many times it is outside direct control of the organization (Keeble et al., 2003). In order to measure the sustainability performance the use of corporate environmental indicators are widely seen as a useful tool (Keeble et al., 2003, Schwarz et al., 2002; Veleva et al., 2001). It is also seen as an excellent way to incorporate the goal of sustainability into management decision-making (Schwarz et al., 2002). Indicators have increasingly been used as a tool to measure progress toward sustainable development: GRI, ISO guideline about indicators (14031) (Veleva et al., 2001). Nevertheless the search for corporate environmental indicators for objective environmental and/or sustainability assessments is still an open issue within the literature (Cucek et al., 2013).
So companies need to find a way to incorporate and measure environmental issues within their business decisions. However, the natural environment is very complex (Jamous et al. 2013), and a complex issue requires methods to measure it in a simple way. There is a need for the use of indicators to understand and measure this complex environment (Olsthoorn et al., 2001). Environmental performance indicators are needed on different aspects and levels (Jamous et al. 2013). It seems unlikely that one single set of indicators may cover all the relevant aspects of a company (Tsoulfas and Pappies, 2008)
In other words, the natural environment is simply too complex to measure, therefore we need to break it up in measurable parts, which is exactly what can be done with the help of environmental indicators. Indicators can provide an early warning to prevent economic, social and environmental damage (Herva et al., 2011). The information obtained by these indicators can be used for organizational decision-making (Olsthoorn et al., 2001). It can also be applied for eco-design (Herva and Roca, 2013).
Many companies use corporate environmental indicators. Henri and Journeault (2008) did an interesting research among Canadian manufacturing firms, which gives a good overview of the type of companies that mainly use corporate environmental indicators, and the specific use of these indicators. They conclude corporate environmental indicators are mainly used by larger and public companies and / or companies that have ISO 14001 and a more active environmental strategy (Henri and Journeault, 2008).
It gives insight in the reasons for companies to incorporate corporate environmental indicators. Another big project that gives insight in the ways corporate environmental indicators are used is the MEPI (Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry) project. The project concludes environmental performance indicators are used by different stakeholders in different ways (Berkhout et. al., 2001). Among these stakeholders are internal and external stakeholders.
Corporate environmental indicators are used for internal management and external communication (by business managers), to assess longer-term economic risks (by banks and insurers), respond to the demand for environmental and ethical concerns to be taken into account in investment decisions (by fund managers), to evaluate the effectiveness of different policy instruments in improving overall environmental performance (by policy makers), to compare the environmental profile of firms in order to put political pressure on poor performers (by environmental groups), to observe to what extent companies damage the local environment (by neighbors) and to improve understanding of the causes of good and poor environmental performers (by researchers) (Berkhout et al., 2001). It shows the wide range of uses of corporate environmental indicators.
3.1.1 Concepts and definitions
Within literature many different terms have been used for measurement of environmental performance: metrics, stressors and indicators are some of them. The definition for the term ‘indicator’ used in this paper is derived from the work of Veleva and Ellenbecker: “Indicators typically provide key information about a physical, social or economic system. They allow analysis of trends and cause-and-effect relationships, and thus are a step beyond primary data.” (Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001: 521). The next step is from
‘indicator’ to ‘corporate environmental indicator’. The terms “physical indicator” and “environmental indicator” are often confused (Olsthoorn et al., 2001). According to Olsthoorn there is an important difference between a physical and environmental indicator: physical indicators are concerned with mass and energy flows and are therefore not normative. It are just numbers, which cannot be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. After evaluation a physical indicator can become an environmental indicator, which is. For example, the amount of plastic waste in a mass flow in itself is a physical indicator.
The concentration of plastic waste in the surface water is an environmental indicator. In this paper the following definition for corporate environmental indicator will be used, which is derived from the earlier mentioned definition of Veleva and Ellenbecker for an indicator and the above described analysis of Olsthoorn et al. (2001):
“Corporate environmental indicators typically provide normative key information about the influence of a company on the environmental system. They allow normative analysis of trends and cause-and-effect relationships, and thus are a step beyond primary data and physical indicators.”
These indicators measure the environmental performance of an organization (both current and past) and compare it to the targets set (Herva et al., 2011). The relevance of a normative environmental indicator above a non-normative physical indicator is the function of an environmental indicator to provide
information for decision-making (Olsthoorn et al., 2001). In order to provide this information, the indicator must give a value judgment.
3.1.2 Content and types of corporate environmental indicators
Scholars have conducted extensive research in the field of corporate environmental indicators (Herva et al., 2011; Cucek et al., 2012; Keeble et al., 2003; Olsthoorn et al., 2000; Schwarz et al., 2002; Veleva et al., 2001; Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001; Callens and Tyteca, 1998; Krajnc and Glavic, 2004; Dos Santos et al., 2013; Tanzil and Beloff, 2006). These studies have focused mainly on the content and type of corporate environmental indicators. Although the content and type of corporate environmental indicators are not the prime subject of research in this paper, this section provides a short summary of the most important topics in the scientific debate on this issue. Without the ambition of being complete, the next sections describe some of the insights about the content and the type of corporate environmental indicators. There is extensive literature on the ‘content’ of corporate environmental indicators. Especially from 1990 on there has been a lot of research in this field. Herva et al (2011) provide us with their study with an aggregated insight into the content of corporate environmental indicators, discussed over a period of several decades. Based on their review, corporate environmental indicators are clustered into the following four categories (Herva et al., 2011; Cucek et al., 2012):
(i) indicators of material and energy flows, (ii) indicators with territorial dimension, (iii) indicators of Life-Cycle Assessment and (iv) indicators of Environmental Risk Assessment
The choice of which indicators to use is a critical one in order to achieve the sustainability goals (Tahir and Darton, 2010). The tension within the choice for a type of indicator is between simplicity and complexity. It should be simple, because the purpose of an indicator is to translate data from a complex system into understandable information. On the other hand, every simplification causes also directly a loss of data / information. Higher aggregation of indicators leads to summary indicators. These indicators can give an overview of environmental impacts of a company, but are less relevant for local or highly specific environmental issues (Olsthoorn et al., 2001).
The question for single or aggregated indicators is a difficult one and not easy to answer. It is a trade-off between the practical use and the (scientific) quality of the indicator and thus the information used for decision-making. The following advice “that indicators should be as simple as possible and only as complex as necessary” (Olsthoorn et al., 2001: 457) is definitely true, but gives little guidance to make this concrete. Authors in the debate about indicators tend to use single energy/mass flows or qualitative criteria to express the benefits and drawbacks of alternatives (Herva and Roca, 2013).
Herva et al (2011) argue single index indicators were most appealing for companies, although there is a need to combine simplicity at corporate level for tracking and reporting, with scientific transparency to make the scores reliable. On the other hand it is better not to base decisions on one aggregated sustainability indicator, but on two or three partial indicators (Callens and Tyteca, 1998). It shows the challenges in this issue between simplicity and complexity.
3.1.3 Development of indicators
Another area of research within this field is about the development of indicators. Several authors have shed their light on this field, from different angles of incidence. Each development for a set of indicators should start with an analysis of the purpose the indicators serve (Tahir and Darton, 2010). Three specific lessons for indicator development can be identified (Keeble, 2003):
(i) The importance of the debate across the organization,
(ii) the involvement of external stakeholders in the development of indicators and (iii) the need for line managers to understand the indicators.
According to these three lessons, recognized standards can help in the development process, but every organization has to go through this process itself (Keeble, 2003). These conclusions of Keeble focus mainly on the development process and the role of this process for an organization. Olsthoorn, however, identifies from a more technical approach the following steps for the development of appropriate indicators (Olsthoorn et al., 2000):
(i) Collection of data
(ii) Establishment of database (iii) Aggregation
(iv) Standardization
This can be seen as guidance in the process from data collection to useful indicators. The eight-step model for indicator implementation of the Lowell Centre for Sustainable Production is a continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability performance (Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001). This model seems an adaptation of the Deming-cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) specific for indicators. Another important element during the development of good indicators is that they should be identified from a life cycle perspective (Herva and Roca, 2013).
Summarizing, these different angles give us a good view of three important aspects with respect to indicator development and indicator implementation:
(i) The importance of the connection of the organization with the development process, (ii) the technical aspects of the development of good indicators and
(iii) the importance of a cyclical process in order to keep the issue on the agenda and to strive for continuous improvement.
3.1.4 Corporate environmental indicators and corporate decision-making
As described above, there is extensive literature about the content of corporate environmental indicators. Specific literature about the role of these indicators in business decision-making is less abundant. Several authors describe the importance of corporate environmental indicators for business decision-making (Herva et al., 2011; Keeble, 2003; Schwarz et al., 2002; Olsthoorn et al., 2001), but mainly focus on the content of the indicators to find answers on the question how these indicators can be used as good as possible for companies for their decision-making. Economic criteria often dominate the decision-making processes (Tsoulfas and Pappies, 2008). In order to use environmental indicators for organizational decision-making in a good way, a company needs to have relevant information. Therefore indicators need to develop to provide a basis for decision-making (Cucek et al., 2012). This information depends on three factors: the type of decision, the context of decision-making and the stakeholders involved (Olsthoorn et al., 2003). It is stated that it is import to measure the right thing, so that misleading information will not be used for decision-making at corporate level (Herva et al., 2011). It is important to making the indicators relevant for the management needs (Keeble, 2003). The environmental indicators should be tailored to the information needs of the users (Olsthoorn et. al, 2003). There are different needs for different roles in the company (Olsthoorn et al., 2001). Further there is a need for a balances set of indicators, reflecting the concerns of the various stakeholders (Keeble, 2003). However, none of these authors really go deep into the process of decision-making in companies and the role of corporate environmental indicators in this process (Kranjc and Glavic 2004).
None of the articles however gives specific information on how the corporate decision-making process with respect to corporate environmental indicators takes place. There comes no answer to the question why a certain company is going to monitor a specific corporate environmental indicator. Results from studies in related fields show us there are some initiatives to get insight into the relations between corporate environmental indicators and business decision-making such as the Environmental Performance Strategy Map (De Benedetto and Klemes, 2009) and for example a mathematical model with tradeoffs between sustainability, demand, costs and profit in a supply chain (Glock et al., 2012).
Another theoretical angle is necessary to gain additional insights in the choices in the selection process for corporate environmental indicators. The next section describes subject of decision-making, from the theoretical angle of institutional isomorphism.
3.2 Organizational decision-making and isomorphism
3.2.1 Organizational Decision-making
Although there are profound literature about making, literature about organizational making is scarce. Mintzberg et al., (1976) did a field study towards the ‘structure of unstructured decision-making’ in organizations. Three phases in the decision-making process were identified: the identification phase, the development phase and the selection phase (Mintzberg et al., 1976). The main conclusion in this paper is that organizational decision-making is an inscrutable process and that strategic decision processes are immensely complex and dynamic (ibid).
Simon (1979) looked at rational decision-making in organizations. He concluded we are still in search for a descriptive theory. Eisenhard and Zbaracki (1992) did a study toward ‘strategic decision-making’. They concluded decision makers are boundedly rational, power wins battle of choice and chance matters (Eisenhard and Zbaracki, 1992). Langley et al., (1995) focus on three elements in decision-making: the decision, the decision maker and the process of decision-making (Langley et al. 1995). Strategic leadership researchers have noted that decision-making occurs in broader organizational and
environmental contexts and therefore good information leads to a better decision process (Wong et al., 2011). However this is not easy for environmental issues and often companies do not have complete information on environmental decision parameters (Wu et al., 2011).
Overall the conclusion is clear: organizational decision-making is very complex, which also is an
explanation for the limited availability of research in this field. It doesn’t help us in the search for answers on the question why companies do or do not adopt an environmental performance indicator.
3.2.2 Institutional Isomorphism
Another, more promising, theoretical angle to find an answer to this question is with the concept of institutional isomorphism. Originally Isomorphism is a concept that stems from ecology. It was brought up by Hawley in 1968 as ‘a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’ (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983: 149).
Basically, it describes the process of homogenization (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983), which means the diversity of organizational forms is isomorphic to the diversity of environments (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Each organization adapts itself to its environment, which leads to homogeneous organizations within a specific environment.
This helps to explain the variations in organizational forms in equilibrium from the principle of a one-to-one correspondence between an organization and those units that mediate flows of essential resources into the system (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). Observed isomorphism can arise from purposeful adaptation to the environment or because non-isomorphic organizations are selected against (Hannan and Freeman, 1977).
Dimmaggio and Powell developed this concept more explicitly towards organizational and sociological theory (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). According to Dimmaggio and Powell (1983) there are two types of isomorphism: competitive and institutional isomorphism. Institutional isomorphism can be used to explain why organizations look similar, without making them more efficient (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). Dimmaggio and Powell had studied this phenomenon and were wondering why organizations were so similar (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). This is why Dimmaggio and Powell use the concept of institutional isomorphism to explain homogeneity among organizations. The similarity doesn’t arise from competition or an objective requirement of efficiency, Dimmaggio and Powell argued, but is as a result of an organizations quest to attain legitimacy within their environment (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999).
Institutional isomorphism is about the fact that companies have many similar characteristics and are for a large part homogenous (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutional isomorphism is a useful concept for this, because organizations compete mainly with other organizations (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). The article of Dimmaggio and Powell identified the pressure organizations face within a field to enhance their legitimacy (Ashworth et al., 2007). In short, the major contribution of Dimmaggio and Powell with their influential article is the empirical prediction that organizations yield to isomorphic pressures that confront them; if not, their level of external support, and in the end their survival, will be under pressure (Ashworth et al., 2007). The maturity of an organization field is an important factor, the more mature the field, the more likely it is to be structured by institutional norms and rules (Dimmaggio and Powel, 1983, Ashworth et al., 2007).
Three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change
Dimmaggio and Powell describe the pressures toward institutional isomorphism as coercive, mimetic and normative forces (Ashworth et al., 2007). In their article, they describe these three forces as mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change: coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism and normative isomorphism. In short the three types of isomorphism can be described as follows (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983):
• Coercive isomorphism results from pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations, • mimetic isomorphism results from a standard response of companies to uncertainty,
• normative isomorphism results from professionalization.
Coercion, mimesis and transmission of norms are the basic concepts of how behavior diffuses and these three concepts represent three theoretical backgrounds for the three types of isomorphism (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999).
Coercive isomorphism
Coercive isomorphism results from demands of other organizations and cultural expectations. Demands of other organizations can be formal and informal (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). Formal pressures will be exerted by governments, regulatory and other agencies. These are often operationalized in legal requirements and regulations (Ashworth et al., 2007).
Companies have to comply with legal requirements. Actually, the pressure of legislation on companies has been increased (Herva and Roca, 2013). However, coercive pressures can also stem from contractual obligations with other organizations (Ashworth et al., 2007). These pressures are exerted by suppliers and business-to-business customers who have requirements in the purchasing process, such as codes of conducts and product specifications. Corporate environmental indicators can be used for communication with these stakeholders (Berkhout et al., 2001). Also cultural expectations of society are a driving force for this type of isomorphism (Dimmaggio and Powell 1983, Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). These expectations are often expressed by NGO’s, who have a great influence in public opinion. The influence of coercive pressures from other organizations can be seen as political rather than technical and deals with the problem of legacy (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983, Ashworth et al., 2007).
Mimetic isomorphism
Mimetic isomorphism results from a standard response to uncertainty (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). It is actually a response to uncertain situations. When a clear prediction of a decision is unavailable, the best tactic for an organization is to mimic another, successful, organization (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Uncertainty is a powerful force that encourages imitation, which leads to organizations to model
themselves on other organizations (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). It leads to organizational decisions in situations of uncertainty, which have no clear empirical evidence for beneficial performance. It is just a copy of the decision of other organizations (Ashworth et al., 2007). Mimetic forces are for example visible with respect to innovations. Organizations see innovations that are deemed to enhance legitimacy as desirable, especially in uncertain situations. This leads to a focus on benchmarking (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983, Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Corporate environmental indicators can be used for benchmarking Berkhout et al., 2001). Actually benchmarking is a stimulator for mimicry and therefore it can be seen as a force for mimetic isomorphism.
Normative isomorphism
Normative isomorphism results from professionalization of the organization (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983). According to Dimmaggio and Powell, the selection of staff is an important encouraging mechanism for normative isomorphism. There are two processes involved with respect to normative isomorphism: professionals have received similar training and professionals interact with each other through
professional- and trade organizations (Dimmaggio and Powell, 1983, Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). Normative forces are exerted by the effect of professional standards and the influence of professional communities (Ashworth et al., 2007). The professionals in these organizations have a similar world view en consider the same systems and techniques as legitimate (Ashworth et al., 2007).
The three mechanisms summarized
In short, the three mechanisms can be summarized as illustrated in figure 4.
3.3 Conceptual Framework
The first two sections of this chapter described the theoretical perspectives of corporate environmental indicators and institutional isomorphism. Literature about corporate environmental indicators doesn’t give much guidance on how the corporate decision-making process with respect to corporate environmental indicators takes place. It doesn’t give a good answer to the question why a certain company is going to monitor a specific corporate environmental indicator. Therefore another theoretical angle is necessary. Institutional isomorphism gives insight into the pressures that influence decision-making within organizations. This leads to the following conceptual framework, which can be seen in figure 4. The three isomorphic forces (coercive, mimetic and normative) have their influence on the decision to incorporate a corporate environmental indicator for plastic soup. If this decision results in a yes, the literature about corporate environmental indicators learns us about the content of a good indicator.
T
IM
E
4
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter describes the research method of this study. First, in section 4.1 the research design will be described, followed by the description of the case situation in section 4.2. Then section 4.3 describes the strengths and limitations of the research method, followed by a description of the data collection in section 4.4 and data analysis in section 4.5.
4.1 Research design
The description of the study design is according to the metaphor of the ‘research onion’ of Saunders and Lewis (2007). The layers of the research onion serve as a route map trough the research.
Figure 6: ‘Research onion’ (Saunders and Lewis, 2007)
The outer layer of the research onion contains the research philosophy. This research has both elements of interpretivism and pragmatism. Interpretivism advocates the necessity to understand the social phenomenon under study in its natural environment (Saunders and Lewis, 2007). The decision of a company to incorporate an environmental indicator is the central object of research. Logically, this kind of decision cannot be studied out of its own context. However, this study also has a strong pragmatic base: the research questions and research objective are leading in the design of the study. The next layer is the approach of the study. This study has an inductive character. It has been stated that the current theories on environmental indicators and decision-making cannot provide us with a clear answer on the research question. Theory on indicators focuses on content and development on indicators, theory on decision-making / institutional isomorphism has no specific focus towards environmental indicators. It is a study that contributes to the development of these theories. This research focuses on a decision.
With a sample of several companies that produce or use plastics this study tries to explain this kind of decisions. Information about the decisions of these companies will be gathered with semi-structured interviews. Additional to this sample of companies, which can be seen as ‘case situations’, also interviews with experts with a good overview of the whole industry have been executed. Together this makes it an explanatory type of research.
Although there are good reasons to use multiple information collection methods, this study only contains semi-structured interviews. The reason for this choice is practical; the time for the study is limited. This also leads to the choice to do a cross-sectional study; it is a ‘snapshot’ of the current situation. Together it makes that this study has several characteristics of a multiple case study, but in essence it is more a description of the decision in several companies (the ‘cases’) based on interviews with representatives from those companies, complemented with l insights from experts who have a broader view of the industry. An approach based on a case study is an appropriate study method for this kind of study (Yin, 2003). It provides the opportunities to get a rich image of all important elements of the decision. The next section provides further argumentation for this statement.
4.2 Description of the cases
According to several authors (Yin, 2003; Saunders and Lewis, 2012), case studies are the preferred research method when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed. Yin (2003) further argues the case study method is especially appropriate when the investigator has little control over the events. There are many definitions for the case study; a good definition was formulated by Yin: A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (ibid). This definition clearly shows the most important characteristics of the case study: it is an in-depth investigation of a specific situation (‘the case’) in a real-life context. As the case is the prime subject of research, it is important to give a clear definition of the case. According to Yin (2003) there are several subjects suitable as a case. Among them is the subject of a ‘decision’. In the research question of this study the ‘decision’ is the central element, which makes it also the central element in the cases. In this study a ‘case situation’ is the decision of a specific company that produces a plastic product or has another place in the plastic waste supply chain. More specific it is the decision to (or not to) incorporate an environmental indicator for the plastic soup in their business. Actually, this is exactly the issue formulated in the research question, which proves the case addresses the core of the research. In order to get a thorough insight in the important elements of this decision, several case situations will be researched. The specific decision of a single company (the single cases) together with the insights of the experts that oversee the whole industry leads to a more general view on the subject and gives the opportunity to identify the main considerations and generalize to overall conclusions (Yin, 2003).
4.3 Strengths and limitations of the case study method
Every research method has its strengths and limitations and every researcher should be aware of these. This section describes the strengths and limitations of the case study method. A good analysis of this provides important information to place the results of this study in the right context. A case study has a distinct advantage when contextual conditions are relevant to the phenomenon under study and the boundaries between the phenomenon and context boundaries are not clear (Yin 2003). In this situation a case study can provide the researcher with detailed understanding of the context of the research and the activity in that context (Saunders and Lewis, 2012; Flyvbjerg 2006). A qualitative approach with a case study does include and accounts for the context of the real world. The specific kind of information a case study provides cannot be retrieved with other research methods (Saunders and Lewis, 2012).
Siggelkow (2007) mentions the biggest weakness of the case study: the lack of selectivity and the risk to present only those details that relate to the conceptual arguments. Within a case study the researcher gains rich and detailed information. As a result of this, he has to select what to describe in the research. This leads to a significant risk of a biased result. This is a weakness of the case study that is difficult to counterattack. It is important both the readers and the authors of case studies are aware of these possible biases. However, other common critiques on case studies are less difficult. Flyvbjerg (2006) describes these most common critiques as the five common misunderstandings about case-study research and argues against them. In short, he argues context-dependent knowledge actually is at least as valuable as theoretical (context-independent) knowledge, case studies do provide good bases for generalizing hypotheses en for generalization of the gained information and it is possible to generate theories based on case study research. Summarizing, the most important strengths of the case study are the possibility to study complex real-world situations in their context, the rich and detailed understanding of the case that is created and the power to generate new ideas from a colorful description of the case. The most important weakness is the risk of biases caused by the selections of the researcher during the research, especially during the reporting of the results, but also during the selection of the cases. The researcher must be aware of this and should be very clear about how these selections have been executed. The next section describes the selection of the case situations.
4.4 Data collection
Data collection has been done with semi-structured interviews with two groups of interviewees: company representatives and experts. The first group, the company representatives, work in a company that produces or uses plastics. The interviewees have a function related to the topic of plastic soup (e.g. CSR-manager or CSR-manager business group plastic products). The interviews with this first group have been used to gather in depth information about how these companies use corporate environmental indicators and if they have an indicator related to plastic soup. The second group, the experts, consists of interviewees that have a good overview of the developments in the plastic industry in the Netherlands.
