I decided to write about this Institute because of the last case study. During the research we came across Adidas AG, which was evaluated by this institute.

Since its establishment in May 1985, the IOeW has been able to extend its range of topics continuously. There are different interdisciplinary research teams, and each of them has developed its own access to socio-ecological questions.

This institution comprises several research fields, such as “Corporate Environmental Management”, “Ecological Economics and Environmental Policy”, “Regional Economic Policy/Sustainable Regional Development”, “Sustainable Consumption”, “Ecological Product Policy”, “Sustainable Energy and Climate Protection”.

I had a closer look on the “Corporate Environmental Management”. This field has shown that environmental protection and company success can indeed go together very well.The main points of research within this field focus on CSR, “sustainable corporate development” and “sustainable corporate governance”.

The IOeW develops and tests innovative methods and environmental protection instruments which enable companies to recognise, utilise and also extend their own framework of action in the interest of the environment.

Beside all the research and projects, the IOeW also organizes different workshops such as ASCEE Expert Workshop on Sustainable Consumption which takes place in the end of May in Brussels.The aim of this workshop is to “assess the potential of various instruments for sustainable consumption practices and greening of the market”.

This research was really interesting, because the IOeW is not only an organization which does evaluations on other companies; they also help to “educate” them by making them aware of the occurring problems.

Last weekend I read a really shocking article at the Herald Tribune about drastic savings in the US research, and that is why I wanted to post here although this class is already completed.
In addition to the fact that America is responsible for a considerable part of the environmental damage and is very uncooperative in terms of “repairing” this situation, the Bush administration now reduces the number of satellites that can measure e.g. the impact of rising temperatures sharply.
Of particular interest is the following fact that the US justification for its rejecting attitude against improving measures was based on the argument that more research concerning globing warming and its causes is needed.
And now the administration is reducing the expenses for research?!
What else to say? I am really shocked that such an ignorant behavior is still possible despite knowing about the current ecological situation.
I think in terms of environmental decisions national executive power seems to be inappropriate and therefore I could imagine that an international committee like e.g. the UN would be useful. This committee should be more powerful, should be allowed a say in environmental issues and / or have a power of veto.
I am not quite sure if such a suggestion is convertible but in my opinion something has to be done in order to prevent those acting.

Hi everyone! I just wanted to refer to a few sites incase you (hopefully stay interested even after class.
1.EUROPA / European Union Stratedy for Sustainable Development
2. EcoEarth
3. The Renewable Resource Data Center
4. Agriculture News
5. School of Renewable Resources
6. Lenntech – Zero discharge of water
You have to be critical of these sites yourself, some are not so “professional”.

Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. (1996) “Determinants of an Environmentally Responsive Firm – An empirical appraoch” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 381-395 (1996) Article No. 0026

This article I think has a lot of relevance with this course as it was an extensive empirical study done on how and what will help to change the corporate mindset into implementing environmental measures. Henriques and Sadorsky’s findings were that a firms formulation of an environmental plan is positively influenced by the following:
• Customer Pressure
• Shareholder Pressure
• Government Regulatory Pressure
• Neighbourhood / Community Pressure

The authors carried out a survey of 750 Canadian companies of which 400 filled out the questionnaire. The survey results clearly indicated that, when firms were asked to specify the most important pressure source for creating an environmental plan, government regulations eqaulled almot 50% of the pressure and customers only 17%. This result I think is visible considering the fact that there is yet not sufficient pressure I would argue coming from the consumer. In contrast, the authors found that firms formulation of an environemntal plan is negatively influenced by the following:
• Other lobby group pressure sources
• Firms sales-to-assest ratio

An interesting finding was that firms in the natural resource sector are far more likely to formulate enivronmental plans, while firms in the service sector are less likely to have any plans. In todays society, the authors state that a firms decision making process is greatly influenced by environemntal regulations. They cite two main reasons as to why these regulations are necessary:
• Externalities – when the production of a good / service results in costs, such as pollution damage, which in the absence of regulation are unlikely to be born by the producer.
• Imperfect Information – whereby workers and consumers may be only partially aware of the health hazards associated with various occupations, consumer products or food stuffs.
A firm deciding to implement an environmetal plan must consider such benefits as the acquisition and/or maintanence of market share, efficiency gains and, importantly, increased positive reputation. Costs are inccured, such as: the cost of implementing the environmental plan, regulatory compliance costs and the associated opportunity costs forgone. To read more follow this link….

Henriques and Sadorsky highlighted five factors which, they argue, influence the likelihood that a corporation will draw up an enviromental plan:
• Environemntal Pressure – internal and external
• Financial Position of the company
• Attitude in relation to the environment
• Firm Size
• Industry Regulation

In defining an environemtally responsvie firm, the authors carried out an estimation sample of 331 firms, in which only 57 companies had plans which satisfied the following characterisitics:
1. Had a formal document describing the environmental plan
2. Had presented the plan to shareholders
3. Had presented the plan to employees
4. Had an environmental EHS unit
5. Had a board or management committee dedicated to dealing with environmental issues.
136 companies met at least one of these criteria, while the remaining firms in the study had no environmental plans.

In conclusion, I found the findings to be unsurprising but beneficial in their aim to educate and highlight the issues. The investigation and methodoly carried out by the authors was also both impressive and thorough and it highlights the fact that there is abundance of room left for further analysis regarding environmental issues and firms accountability.