INTRODUCTION

Over the last 20 years globalisation has dominated economic development and competitive advantage, commercial organisations have developed a significant global economic influence, as competition for new markets and cheaper production intensifies. In parallel with globalisation of economic markets, however, the concept of sustainable development has also come sharply into focus, driven in part by depleting world resources, destruction of vital eco-systems, climate change and increasing consumer pressure for green products. Once rated a low priority corporate citizenship and core values, which underpin sustainability, are now becoming a competitive and strategic issue for the majority of industry and commerce.

The rapid emergence of environmentalism, as described by Elkington (2002), can be regarded as the most pervasive new social movement of the post-1945 period. Environmentalism has significantly influenced the way society views consumerism and the need to preserve vital world resources for future generations. Increasingly, environmentalism and the sustainable agenda is influencing governmental policies and regulation, the use of resources, and technologies and the whole concept of lifecycle use, reuse and final disposal, and indeed the very structure of national and international economies.

As discussed by Hart (2007), it is easy to state the case in the negative; faced with impoverished customers, degraded environments, failing societies and political systems, it will be increasingly difficult for organisations to do business. The positive case, however, is even more powerful. The more we learn about the challenges of sustainability, the greater our understanding of the issues and how to address them, as society is poised at the threshold of a historic moment in which commerce and industry will be radically transformed.

Some estimates, as highlighted by Hart (2007), have stated that humankind now uses more than 40 per cent of the planet's net primary productivity. If, as projected, the population doubles over the next 40 years, we may out-compete most other animal species for food, driving many to extinction. In short, human activity now exceeds sustainability on a global scale. Economic activity will have to increase tenfold just to provide the basic essentials, technology will have to improve 20-fold merely to keep the planet at its current levels of environmental burden.

Hart (2005) goes on to discuss that those who believe that ecological disaster will somehow be averted must also appreciate the commercial implications of such beliefs; that sustainable development, over the coming decades, will constitute one of the biggest opportunities in the history of commerce. Taking the entire planet as the context in which they do business, organisations have to address the issue of environmental degradation, and recognised that they are part of the solution to social and environmental problems. Only when an organisation thinks in these terms can it begin to develop a sustainable vision.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING

Given that significant environmental concerns are being expressed by an organisation's wider stakeholder groups, heightened environmental awareness signifies the need for commercial organisations to consider their business performance on a much wider set of criteria, and not centred, as has been the case historically, on financial performance alone.

Large corporate bodies are increasingly aware of the fact that key markets, as identified by Hamel and Prahlad (1994), are on the verge of rapid change, driven by new environmental standards, levels of public disclosure and consumer confidence in their brand values, ethics and codes of business conduct. Organisations are increasingly embracing the concept of 'triple bottom line' reporting — financial, environmental and social performance — in an effort to demonstrate their corporate responsibility credentials to a wide range of stakeholders such as investors, consumers, employees and local communities.

As highlighted by Napper (2002), a gradual, yet inevitable erosion of the primacy of shareholder value over the interests of other stakeholder groups is widely envisaged, sponsored by the adoption, by organisations, of environmentally oriented principles and values, as they strive to attain sustainability while addressing the issues of competition in a rapidly changing marketplace. This situation will be no different for the smallest of enterprises as all commercial organisations large and small attempt to address society's seemingly insatiable appetite for information with regard to corporate social responsibility and in particular environmental management.

The continuing development in organisational transparency and triple bottom line reporting is irreversible. In a briefing document issued by the National Business Initiative (2007), it highlights that environmental reporting is increasingly becoming integral to everyday business practice, from small regional organisations to large multinational organisations. If appropriately managed, it is also an opportunity to significantly improve an organisation's management effectiveness and continual learning, while clearly stating a commitment to corporate responsibility. Companies that await the conclusive business case for nonfinancial reporting are missing the opportunity to strengthen what is ultimately every organisation's most valuable asset, that of trust, in its management, products, services, and ultimately its brand.

Elkington (2002) states that, once regarded, as a low priority 'corporate citizenship' and sustainable development are becoming a competitive and strategic issue for large sections of commerce and industry. The shift in business thinking, over the last ten years, has embraced the benefits of triple bottom line reporting and the need to understand the challenges that sustainability presents to future competitiveness and ultimately business survival.

For decades, business has resisted demands for greater corporate transparency in such areas as environmental protection and other so-called 'triple bottom line' priorities (Gray et al., 1993). Today however, leading organisations are competing with one another to be viewed as a good corporate citizen and perusing environmental disclosure excellence in order to demonstrate their environmental credentials.

Similarly, as investors and financial markets are demanding increasingly more information regarding an organisation's wider business activities, so too are consumer groups and individual consumers increasingly aware of their need to embrace environmentalism, and the need to buy goods and services which are regarded as being good for the environment. Consumers are becoming more informed and educated with regard to the environment and are increasingly at the forefront in bringing pressure to bear on commerce and industry to provide goods and services, which address climate change and environmental degradation.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Just as large multinational organisations have a significant role in shaping our future with regard to the environment, the built environment also has a significant role, particularly with regard to inner city regeneration, brown field redevelopment, out-of-town development and use of natural resources.

Annually on a global basis, construction activity consumes 3 billion tons of raw materials, is responsible for producing 50 per cent of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and indirectly 33 per cent of CO₂ and 40 per cent of the landfill waste. Within the UK, the built environment is a colossal asset, valued in excess of £5,000bn. It is estimated that combined, the three sectors of Property, Facilities Management and Construction also represent 20 per cent of GDP, which in 2004 equated to approximately £230bn. The built environment cluster provides the infrastructure within which the rest of the economy operates. It also provides 77 per cent of the fixed assets of the economy, according to the Office of National Statistics.

As identified by Barkham (2007), within the context of the retail-shopping environment, retail sales account for 21 per cent of our gross domestic product, and have a significant role in shaping the built environment, and the communities within which they operate. The shopping centre industry can adopt a position of environmental leadership and influence touching as it does so many people's lives, whether shoppers, retailers, investors, transport networks, energy suppliers and local communities (Crewe, 2007).

Shopping is the UK's national pastime. The average individual makes an annual 200 trips to the shops and about 33 per cent of an average household's annual spending is on nonfood retail goods. These statistics highlight the significance of shopping centres on society's everyday life and the potential power they have in influencing retail behaviour with regard to the environment (Bullough, 2007).

The built environment and in particular the built assets of the retail industry accounts for a significant proportion of CO₂ emissions during initial construction, and more significantly, through the whole lifecycle phases of operational use, subsequent refurbishments and final decommissioning. To emphasise the scale of shopping centre development and potential environmental impact, Barkham (2007) estimates that an additional 6.1 million square meters of new retail space will be required over the next ten years, in addition to the 5.6 million square meters, which is currently at the planning stage. It is also predicted that retail spending will increase over the next ten years by approximately 3.2 per cent per annum.

Given the importance and influence that shopping centres have on society, and their prominent position within our communities in providing economic growth, delivery of goods and service and employment, there is a compelling case for the management of shopping centres to adopt similar reporting principles to those of large corporate organisations. In discharging their environmental and social responsibilities to the local and wider national communities, there is a growing requirement for retail shopping centres to also demonstrate their credentials as 'a good corporate citizen', and embrace the principles of 'triple bottom line reporting' by publishing their environmental performance.

As discussed by Elkington (2002), non-financial reporting within large corporations, or as it is more commonly referred to, corporate environmental reporting, first began to appear during the early 1990s, and has grown significantly to become a more common feature of annual corporate reporting. Mostly prepared and issued on a voluntary basis by organisations, it has had the effect of presenting the data in a highly diverse manner, which has made the process of comparison very difficult. However, the development of international standards such as ISO 14001 has initiated a more common understanding of the indicators to be adopted and measurements that are required to be undertaken.

The growing demand for information, organisational transparency and appropriate stakeholder engagement is forcing the issue of corporate responsibility, and environmentalism further up the business agenda's of most commercial organisations. Environmental management presents an opportunity to attain differentiation while embracing the need to drive change and implement appropriate management processes that address sustainability, and consumer demands for greener products and services (Hart, 2005).

From a retail shopping perspective, as stated by Barkham (2007), a greater focus on people is the key to satisfying ever-changing demands and expectations, which, in turn, is central to the ability to differentiate successfully in the marketplace. The rapid changes in commerce and industry being forced by sustainability and climate change will require shopping centres to be more transparent in reporting their environmental impacts and ongoing management process to a wider range of stakeholders.

With regard to the built environment and as identified by Langston and Ding (2001), sustainability requires the integration of environmental, ecological and energy factors into the design at conceptual stages of the overall procurement process. Notwithstanding the importance of addressing environmental performance and impact at the initial design stages, it is recognised that the future operational issues of energy consumption, lifecycle maintenance, capital replacement, water use and waste streams will have significantly higher environmental impact during the life of a building.

SHOPPING CENTRES

Sustainability, as identified by Barkham (2007), will drive change in future shopping centre design with greater use of onsite renewable energy with rapid take up of micro generation from wind, tidal and solar sources, as well as biomass boilers, underground heat sources, combined heat and power and rainwater harvesting. The challenge facing the operators of large built assets will also be to ensure that the physical assets are maximised in terms of operational effectiveness, and that there are effective maintenance policies to reduce energy and waste. Issues such as the quality of the internal environment, effective use of space, temperature control, cleaning and general amenity all combine to reflect the brand values and credibility of an organisation.

The increasing awareness, by the public, of environmental issues and global warming, does present a considerable opportunity for shopping centres and retailers to attain a competitive advantage while differentiating themselves in the marketplace. The development and implementation of appropriate environmental policies can be a major market differentiator, as well as being commercially advantageous. In addressing environmental issues, the retail industry needs to develop an understanding of what it means to the shopping centre environment, and the values and culture, which it will require to adopt. The role of appropriate environmental management is to promote compliance beyond the requirements of legal compliance, involving areas such as health and safety, emissions, energy use and waste management (Langston and Ding, 2001).

The priority for most large property operators and owners is pollution reduction and prevention, as this will not only lead to reduced costs in terms of lower energy requirements and waste disposal, but will also lead to reputational improvement. Environmental management is not a 'bolt on' process, but should be embedded within the processes of everyday management. As discussed by Heemskerk et al. (2004), environmental management can be compared with the principles of total quality management. As with total quality management, pollution prevention strategies depend upon continuous improvement policies to reduce waste and energy use.

Commercial organisations in the UK urgently require to address the issue of waste production and the problem of rising costs of waste disposal (Reeve, 2004). It is recognised that the costs associated with landfill disposal represents an under pricing of the waste assimilative capacity of the natural environment. Owing to the decreasing availability of landfill sites in the UK, economic, social and political pressures over the coming decades will serve to force up disposal costs closer to the true economic cost to society.

As highlighted by Langston (2001), the increasing costs of disposal, being forced in part by the European landfill directive, will have important positive ramifications for the need to minimise waste, increase reuse initiatives and waste re-cycling. Wyatt et al. (2000) takes the importance of environmental management a stage further by stating that a clear and fully integrated environmental strategy should not only guide competency development but also shape an organisation's relationship to customers, suppliers, other companies and policy makers. Commercial enterprises can and must use their influence to change the way customers think by creating preferences for products and services consistent with sustainability, clearly shopping centres will have their role in influencing and driving change.

As an example of the need to monitor and control environmental impacts within the built environment, approximately £12bn of energy is wasted every year, which equates to 30 per cent of the energy consumed in the UK. In the non-domestic building sector, it has been estimated that over 20 per cent savings in energy, emissions and costs could be achieved immediately by simply utilising existing cost-effective technology. This is confirmed by the Building Research Establishment and applies throughout Europe as confirmed by figures given as part of the EU Buildings Performance Directive.

Nondomestic energy consumers have been tasked with the job of reducing their CO₂ emissions by 2050 and energy management has been identified as a leading exponent in tackling the waste. The Energy White Paper states that energy efficiency is the 'cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives'. Furthermore, it encourages innovation, requiring 'smarter ways to satisfy our energy needs'. Therefore, as identified by Wilkinson et al. (2004), it is important that environmental policies adequately address the issue of monitoring, control and continuous improvement.

Notwithstanding the overall competitive advantage of pursuing appropriate environmental policies, there are a number of benefits to be gained from adopting a sustainable building management strategy, including: reduced energy costs, reduced landfill disposal costs, ensuring the risk of prosecution is minimised, greater understanding of whole life costs of ownership and reduction of asset maintenance and acquisitions costs. Prudent environmental management will ultimately support the economic performance of commercial built assets.

As identified by Barkham (2007), effective action on climate change will demand a partnership approach between landlords and tenants, to develop appropriate management processes to identify and monitor environmental performance. Significant savings can be realised through better waste management, recycling, tax concessions and lower refurbishment costs arising from the use of more durable natural materials in new buildings.

Collectively, an appreciation and understanding of these issues pertaining to the environment will enable shopping centre owners and operators to play a key role in supporting the competitiveness of the core activity by reducing the burden of costs associated with waste management and statutory conformance. Furthermore, it will ensure those appropriate property strategies are implemented which will have reduced environmental impact not only at the initial procurement phase but also throughout the operational lifecycle and eventual decommissioning phases of the built asset.

As discussed by Matthews (2003), organisations in developing their overall Corporate Social Responsibility policies have identified Environmental Management Systems such as ISO 14001, as a means of addressing changing environmental issues. Organisations recognise that merely complying with regulatory requirements is no longer acceptable in terms of competitiveness, and now aspire to pollution prevention and monitoring of their operations to prove their credentials as good corporate citizens.

Watson and Emery (2004) state that the need for prudent environmental management has never been more compelling from both a good business management and commercial viewpoint. Chan (1998) has identified that 'At the heart of the emerging sustainable value creation concept is a recognition that for a company to prosper over the long-term it must continuously meet needs for goods and services without destroying natural and social capital'. He also recognises that a well-functioning Environmental Management System, (EMS), provides assurance to the management and stakeholders of the organisation that:

• environmental policies, objectives and stakeholders expectations are addressed;
• regulatory compliance is a more integral part of the business operation;
• emphasis is placed on prevention rather than cure;
• There is a systematic approach to support and ensuring continual improvement in environmental and profit performances and —
• There is a 'green passport' to a greater market.

It is highly likely that stakeholders such as customers, communities and shareholders will increasingly perceive the implementation of ISO 14001 as a given. Alternatively, organisations will tend to use ISO 14001 as a way to enhance relationships with consumer groups, communities and environmentally conscious investors (Poksinska et al., 2002).

The international standards for environmental management (ISO 14001), launched in the UK in October 1996, have become synonymous with Environmental Management Systems. It is applicable to any type and size of organisation, anywhere in the world and can apply to individual sites or to entire organisations. With respect to public disclosure, ISO 14001 only requires an organisation to make available its Environmental Policy and does not require publication of progress against improvement targets; however, an organisation is required to maintain an open dialogue with all stakeholders and also prove that all legal requirements are being met (Goodman and Stanger, 2002).

ISO 14001 requires the implementation and certification by an external body to a standard that looks for continual improvement through the identification and control of environmental impacts. The level of improvement in environmental performance, however, is set by the individual organisation (Matthews, 2003). The standard is focussed upon internal environmental issues, which does not require the view of local community activities or global actions to be taken into account for most cases.

Watson and Emery (2004) identified that EMSs are designed to facilitate compliance with environmental regulations and to satisfy the requirements of all organisational stakeholders. The incentives to introduce such systems vary, and are influenced by national regulatory frameworks and stakeholder pressures. This can be highlighted by environmental leader states such as Germany, Great Britain and Sweden, where highly complex national environmental regulations have resulted in a high prevalence of ISO 14001 certification and accompanying environmental management systems.

Quality standards such as ISO14001, as argued by Watson and Emery (2004), provide an organisation with a recognised framework to achieve appropriate management standards. ISO 14001 is an environmental management system standard, and provides the incentive for companies to seriously pursue excellence in environmental management. To gain accreditation, organisations must have in place a framework by which they can understand, prioritise and address their environmental impacts. The emphasis is not only on managing those impacts but also measuring them, accounting for them, reporting on them to stakeholders and having those reports externally reviewed and verified (Goodman and Stanger, 2002). The key advantages of ISO 14001 accreditation as identified by Hamschmidt and Dyllick (2001) are:

• Improving cost control from tighter management control over waste and control of pollution.
• Compliance with legislation and being aware of future legislative changes.
• Demonstrating an organisation's commitment to the environment.
• Reduce overhead costs such as waste disposal, energy and insurances.

Within the built environment, an EMS attempts to capture the environmental burdens of an entire facility or organisation and encourage continual improvement of environmental performance. As identified by Freimann and Walther (2001), an EMS typically consists of policies, procedures and audit protocols for operations that create waste materials or emissions. For example, if a process produces a hazardous waste, then the EMS will detail how the waste is to be collected, handled, and disposed of; who is responsible for each activity and what to do if a spill or leak occurs. The system also provides for auditing practices and reviewing these practices for improvements. The development and operation of an EMS follows the general four-step plan of benchmarking — plan, do, check, act. Once environmental impacts have been identified, most EMSs include a set of goals or objectives for reducing environmental impacts.

Spence and Mulligan (1995) identify that within the context of the built environment new construction adds just 2 per cent to the existing building stock every year and the replacement rate is much lower. It is therefore essential that if a more sustainable environment is to be achieved within the built environment then improving the performance of existing buildings through effective maintenance and environmental management is vital. Obviously the existing building stock and its effective management with regard to the environment will have a significant impact on the ability of the UK government to achieve its CO₂ reduction objectives.

Of greater significance to shopping centre management is the issue of ongoing maintenance. The main concern of maintenance being the building fabric, external works, infrastructure and mechanical and electrical plant. This includes periodic servicing, preventive maintenance and scheduling of routine services such as repair work and replacement.

Cooper (1999) states that the maintenance and waste management strategies that an organisation chooses to adopt will have a significant affect on environmental impacts and sustainability. Appropriate maintenance strategies are required to ensure that building plant and equipment are preserved in their original condition, operating within the prescribed operational parameters and, where possible, to increase life expectancy and reduce energy consumption.

As described by Hart (2005), such company or organisational logic goes beyond the internal, operational focus to that of a more external strategic focus of overall Corporate Social Responsibility. Maintenance strategies need to extend beyond the traditional viewpoint of serviceability and plant up-time. The waste streams produced because of maintenance also need to be carefully managed as well as the reuse and re-cyclability of plant and equipment, which become redundant because of replacement due to obsolescence or poor serviceability.

As highlighted by Incognito (2002), within the built environment organisations and their support partners need to achieve competitive advantage not only by merely keeping abreast of environmental developments but also by initiating change within the organisation and responding with new environmentally friendly services, processes and maintenance strategies.

Various studies by consultancies and business ratings groups find investors willingness to pay for strong governance practices and above-average performance of portfolios containing well-governed companies. This can be paralleled with society's growing appetite for environmental information and the individual consumer's willingness to pay an additional premium for goods and services that are good for the environment.

Within the built environment the government's energy efficiency labelling scheme for commercial buildings has initiated an awareness of the environmental impact that buildings have. With respect to energy management developers and owners are beginning to recognise the marketing potential this labelling scheme will have in attracting potential occupiers. Locally, the retail-shopping environment being able to demonstrate a prudent approach to environmental management would support competitiveness, not only to landlords, but also to the retailers who occupy the space. Therefore, it can be argued that a shopping centre that has implemented an appropriate environmental management system will have a greater occupancy rate and eventual return on investment, while also providing a competitive edge in attracting shoppers who want to support environmental awareness and sustainability.

Regardless of the size of organisations, and whether in the public or private sector, and as identified by Tapscott and Ticoll (2003), it is not a question of 'if' they should respond to these trends, but rather 'how' and 'when'. Environmental reporting is increasingly becoming more prevalent. If there is an element of choice, it is only between what Tapscott and Ticoll (2003) describe as 'active transparency' that is, shaped to support strategy and business growth, versus 'forced transparency' in which an organisation's willingness to report openly is largely reactive and crisis-driven. Nonfinancial reporting, including environmental and social management, will undoubtedly become a given, as it offers stakeholders the competency, credibility and business values of the reporting organisation.

Hooghiemstra (2000) highlights the 'legitimacy theory', which identifies the changing social norm with regard to an organisation's operating environment and relationship with society. Central to legitimacy theory is the concept of a social contract implying that an organisation's survival is dependent on the extent that it operates 'within the bounds and norms of society'. However, as the societal bounds and norms may change over time, organisations continuously have to demonstrate that its actions are legitimate and that it behaved as a good corporate citizen, usually by engaging in corporate social reporting. Therefore, corporate social reporting may primarily be considered as a reaction to factors in an organisation's operating environment, and more significantly public pressure.

Hooghiemstra (2000) goes on to discuss the legitimacy theory and its perceived role as providing information that legitimises an organisation's behaviour by intending to influence stakeholder's and in turn society's perceptions about the organisation, in such a way that the organisation is regarded as a 'good corporate citizen' and its actions justify its continued existence.

As described by Rowland-Jones et al. (2005), an EMS is a system that organisations utilise in a structured process to assess their operations to ensure that they are functioning in an environmentally compliant manner, and are regarded as a 'good corporate citizen'. They define the impacts of their activities on the natural environment, subsequently proposing actions to minimise or reduce those impacts that they consider as harmful. An EMS is a management system that aims to encourage an organisation to control its environmental impacts, and more significantly, to continuously reduce such impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting an EMS such as ISO 14001 creates benefits for organisations, having the potential to enhance the participant's environmental image. While often difficult to quantify, this enhanced image could lead to such things as increased sales, better ability to recruit talented employees and improved relations with environmental regulators and other stakeholders.

This latter advantage could lead to greater industry influence over policy-making processes. Since command-and-control regulations (that still form the basic structure of environmental policies) are often perceived to be unfriendly to industry and commerce, and are economically inefficient, better access to and influence over regulatory process could bring real benefits to companies involved.

EMSs have the potential to bring companies tangible financial gains, identifying and gaining a better understanding of waste streams, reducing waste and energy use, which in turn lead to significant cost savings. These savings would come in the form of lower energy expenditures, reduced waste-handling fees and lower costs of disposal. However, by pursuing transparent environmental management policies, operators of shopping centres can more readily demonstrate their commitment to the local communities within which they operate. In addition, they will be seen to play a responsible role in sustaining society's future while being better informed and prepared to address the predicted rapid changes that climate change and environmental issues pose to the retail industry.

References

1. Barkham, R. (2007). Future of Retail Property — Shopping Places for People, British Council of Shopping Centres, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, London.
2. Bullough, J. (2007). Future of Retail Property — Shopping Places for People, British Council of Shopping Centres, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, London.
3. Chan, R.H. (1998). ISO 14000: Change for the better, Proceedings for the ISO 9000 and Total Quality Management Third International Conference, 14–16 April, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong.
4. Cooper, I. (1999). Which focus for building assessment methods — Environmental performance or sustainability. Building Research & Information. 27 (4/5), 321–330. | Article |
5. Crewe, T. (2007). The Mall Briefing Document 'Enviromall', November (2007), www.themall.co.uk.
6. Elkington, J. (2002). Cannibals with Forks, Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp. 17–99.
7. Freimann, J. & Walther, M. (2001). The impacts of corporate environmental management systems: A comparison of EMAS and ISO 14001. Greener Management International 36, 91–104.
8. Goodman, S. & Stanger, C. (2002). Guide to Environmental Management Law and Practice 2002, Workplacelaw Network, Cambridge, pp. 51–55.
9. Gray, R., Bebbington, J. & Walters, D. (1993). Accounting for the Environment — The Greening of Accountancy Part 2, The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, Paul & Chapman Publishing Ltd, London.
10. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 24–32.
11. Hamschmidt, J. & Dyllick, T. (2001). ISO 14001: Profitable? Yes! But is it eco-effective? Greener Management International 36, 43–54.
12. Hart, S.L. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World's Most Difficult Problems, Wharton School Publishing, New Jersey, pp. 9–55.
13. Hart, S.L. (2007). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. The Harvard Business Review, 120–126, January 1997.
14. Heemskerk, B., Pistorio, P. & Scicluna, M. (2004). Sustainable Development Reporting: Striking the Balance, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1–4.
15. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communications and impression management: New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. 27, 55–68. | Article |
16. Incognito, J.D. (2002). Outsourcing: Ensuring survival with strategic global partners. Journal of Facilities Management. 1 (1), 7–15. | Article |
17. Langston, C.A. & Ding, G.K.C. (2001). Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 38–41.
18. Matthews, H.D. (2003). Environmental management systems for internal corporate benchmarking. Benchmark an International Journal. 10 (2), 95–106. | Article |
19. Napper, S. (2002). Environmental management. Essentialfm Report. 13, 1–20.
20. Napper, S. (2003). Corporate social responsibility. Essentialfm Report. 13, 6–7.
21. National Business Initiative, Quick Brief, 2007.
22. Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. & Eklund, J.A.E (2002). Implementing ISO 14001 in Sweden: Motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 20, 585–593. | Article |
23. Reeve, P. (2004). Special waste. Health & Safety at Work, March 2004 edition, Vol.12, 10–13.
24. Rowland-Jones, R., Pryde, M. & Malcolm, C. (2005). An evaluation of current environmental management systems as indicators of environmental performance. Management of Environmental Quality. 16 (3), 211–219. | Article |
25. Spence, R. & Mulligan, H. (1995). Sustainable development and the construction industry. Habitat International. 19 (3), 279–292. | Article |
26. Tapscott, D. & Ticoll, D. (2003). The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business, Simon & Schuster, New York, pp. 22–88.
27. Watson, M. & Emery, R.T.A. (2004). Environmental management and auditing systems: The reality of environmental self-regulation. Managerial Auditing Journal. 19 (7), 916–928. | Article |
28. Wilkinson, D., Monkhouse, C. & Baldock, D. (2004). Institute for European Environmental Policy. The Future of EU Environmental Policy: Challenges & Opportunities, A special report for the all-party parliamentary group, London.
29. Wyatt, D.P., Sobotka, A. & Rogalska, M. (2000). Towards a sustainable practice. Facilities. 18 (1/2), 76–82. | Article |