1 Introduction
2 Survey
-
Section 1: the main goal of this part of the questionnaire was to obtain a picture of a company and its market position. Questions in Part 1 focused, on the one hand, on general issues, such as name, number of employees, organisational and legal structure and scope of business, while on the other hand, they referred to information on management systems and allocation of powers (in relation to major areas of business), the characteristics of suppliers (scope of business, size of the organisation and possibility of subsidy) and clients (institutional versus individual, scope and size of the institutions) and the business's market share. Some of the data were obtained earlier, at the stage of selecting firms for the project and at the first introductory meeting, so they were often placed in the questionnaire by an interviewer before an interview. The task of a company's representative was to verify and clarify them.
-
Section 2: the second part of the questionnaire concerned environmental services implemented in a company and included issues related to the object and scope of the LCA, the positions of people who agreed to carry out the study and supervised its progress, the method of communication with a company, the procedure for collecting inventory data and motives for implementing the service. Here, some of the information was also known to persons responsible for providing the service in a company, it was entered in advance, before an interview.
-
Section 3: this section contained questions designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the analyses from the point of view of the companies. Representatives of the organisations evaluated the usefulness of LCA results and determined their actual or possible applications. They also stated whether the LCA conducted changed their management models, conduct or thinking about their products. In addition, they identified issues that caused most problems in the implementation of the environmental service.
-
Section 4: the last part of the questionnaire was designed to obtain information as to whether and to what extent the organisations analysed undertook activities related to environmental protection or environmental management. Preliminary information of this type was obtained from the companies prior to the classification of the companies for different areas of the project and at the first meeting when the purpose and scope of the LCA were jointly determined.
2.1 Survey sample
1. Size of the companies analysed | ||
---|---|---|
Micro | 11 | 44 % |
Small | 12 | 48 % |
Medium | 2 | 8 % |
Total | 25 | 100 % |
2. Legal and organisational structure of the companies analysed | ||
Self employed | 18 | 72 % |
Private partnership | 2 | 8 % |
Registered partnership | 2 | 8 % |
Limited liability company | 3 | 12 % |
Total | 25 | 100 % |
3. Management systems in the companies analysed | ||
3.1 According to the number of systems implemented | ||
No systems implemented | 14 | 56 % |
1 System implemented | 7 | 28 % |
2 Systems implemented | 3 | 12 % |
3 Systems implemented | 1 | 4 % |
Total | 25 | 100 % |
3.2 According to the type of system implemented | ||
ISO 14001 | 2 | 7 % |
EMAS | 0 | 0 % |
Cleaner Production | 0 | 0 % |
Responsible Care | 0 | 0 % |
ISO 9001 | 9 | 30 % |
BHP OHSAS 18001 | 1 | 3 % |
HACCP | 1 | 3 % |
ISO 22000 | 0 | 0 % |
ISO 27001 | 0 | 0 % |
Others | 3 | 10 % |
No formalised management systems | 14 | 47 % |
Total | 30 | 100 % |
2.2 LCA studies in the companies analysed: general information
Motivation for LCA | Compliance by a 5-point scale (as a weighted average) 0 = insignificant (min) 5 = very significant (max) | |
---|---|---|
1 | New product development | 2.7 |
2 | Product improvement plans | 4.4 |
3 | Free service | 4.0 |
4 | Cooperation with the well-known Centre (getting a certificate confirming the cooperation) | 4.2 |
5 | Existing product/process seen as adversely affecting the environment | 1.5 |
6 | Similar measures taken by competition | 0.8 |
7 | Creating an image in the eyes of suppliers | 2.8 |
8 | Creating an image in the eyes of clients | 4.0 |
9 | At the express request of suppliers | 0.8 |
10 | At the express request of clients (their reported preferences) | 1.2 |
11 | Applying for an eco-label | 2.0 |
12 | Development/implementation of environmental management system | 2.4 |
-
product improvement plans—result: 4.4
-
opportunity to show a certificate confirming participation in the project and the cooperation with the centre supporting entrepreneurship, which is well-known in the region—result: 4.2
-
free service—result: 4.0.
3 Usefulness of LCA to the companies analysed
Areas of application of LCA results | Compliance by a 5-point scale (as a weighted average) 0 = insignificant (min) 5 = very significant (max) | |
---|---|---|
1 | Marketing | 4.1 |
2 | Product development | 3.9 |
3 | Packaging improvement | 2.4 |
4 | Creating an image of a product | 4.7 |
5 | Creating an image of an organisation | 4.6 |
6 | Educational activities | 0.1 |
4 Life cycle thinking and companies' environmental activity
Reasons for decisions to improve existing products or services or introduce new ones | Compliance by a 5-point scale (as a weighted average) 0 = insignificant (min) 5 = very significant (max) | |
---|---|---|
1 | Imitating competition | 2.0 |
2 | Analysis of client preferences | 3.7 |
3 | Own intuition and creativity | 4.4 |
4 | Analysis of patents and technological innovations | 2.9 |
5 | Own patents and developments | 0.2 |
6 | Applicable standards | 0.2 |
Criteria affecting decisions to change existing products | Compliance by a 5-point scale (as a weighted average) 0 = insignificant (min) 5 = very significant (max) | |
---|---|---|
1 | Cost reduction | 3.8 |
2 | Competitive advantage (leadership) | 3.8 |
3 | Catching up with the competition | 2.8 |
4 | Compliance with legal requirements | 3.8 |
5 | Meeting the needs of the market | 4.0 |
6 | Measures enforced by business partners | 2.0 |
7 | Image creation | 4.0 |
Motivation for carrying out an LCA in the future | Compliance by a 5-point scale (as a weighted average) 0 = insignificant (min) 5 = very significant (max) | |
---|---|---|
1 | Legal requirements (if this type of analysis becomes obligatory) | 4.6 |
2 | Strong environmental trends | 3.8 |
3 | Similar analyses performed by the competition | 2.4 |
4 | LCA suggested by key suppliers | 2.9 |
5 | Compliance with environmental criteria in public procurement (acting as a contractor in tenders) | 3.2 |
6 | Creating an image of an organisation | 3.9 |
5 Discussion and conclusions concerning LCA related aspects
-
company management and division of powers: ‘holding power in one hand’ was a characteristic of most of the participating companies as private entities with a low level of employment. Decisions related to conceptual activities (design and development), costs of products (including pricing, margins), promotion and marketing, and quality management issues (mainly analysing the causes of returns and complaints) were often made by an owner. On the one hand, it can be seen as an advantage, because one, undispersed ‘source’ of decisions should theoretically speed up decision-making processes. What is more, owners knew their businesses ‘from the inside’, which meant that they were complex, but unfortunately often the only competent source of information in the entire organisation. In addition, as a result of one-man management, owners tend to be saddled with a number of different responsibilities and focus only on areas they consider crucial for the functioning of their organisations. If they analyse trends and competition, they focus rather on non-environmental aspects. Owners frequently did not have time to collect and evaluate data collected during the project. In many cases, despite the preliminary enthusiastic attitude to the idea of an LCA, the willingness to cooperate declined after the guidelines on the scope and type of inventory data required were learned. They often obtained selective data that did not allow the balancing of unit processes. Some organisations where an LCA had been conducted expected quick results based on a small amount of data. Commonly, there was a conviction that the analysis would be based on information similar to that required for mandatory environmental reports submitted by companies to marshal's offices, and which would refer only to their operation. Therefore, it proved problematic to obtain data related to suppliers, handling a product during use and organising waste treatment. Collaboration with those companies where persons were specifically delegated to collect contacts and data was clearly more effective,
-
mentality: the situation in the SME market is often more fragile than that of large organisations; hence, they are characterised by short-term thinking, ‘here and now’, which is not conducive to the implementation of a life cycle perspective. Representatives of the companies analysed were often genuinely surprised by the proposal to take the analysis beyond the boundaries of their organisations and focus on indirect environmental aspects. Most companies limited their environmental activities to make mandatory reports. The overall impression is that environmental issues are generally seen from the angle of compulsory laws and rarely associated with voluntary development activities. Perhaps to some extent, this can be explained by the fact that only two organisations had an environmental management system according to ISO 14001. The way of thinking of the organisations analysed may also be determined by the fact that they pointed to the cost-free nature of the analysis and the opportunity to gain certification as the main reasons for making an LCA, factors which were often more important than product development and image building,
-
resources: limited resources, especially human resources, seem to be a significant barrier to the implementation of life cycle techniques in SMEs. In the case of micro- and small-sized enterprises with low employment status, personnel training and systematic analyses are problematic. From this point of view, carrying out such analyses from time to time and outsourcing them to an independent body are more likely to occur than a situation in which the use of LC techniques becomes an inherent part of the daily management of an organisation and its products,
-
position in a supply chain: for the majority of companies participating in the project, suppliers of the main resources and products were medium and large domestic and foreign enterprises. The companies described their relationships with those suppliers as of secondary importance, indicating their rather weak position in the supply chain. The analysis of reasons for carrying out an LCA showed that the incentive did not come from suppliers. The desire to create an image in the eyes of suppliers, however, obtained a higher score but still oscillated around a moderate rating. The impact of clients on the decision was also low. In this case, it is quite irrelevant that they were mostly institutional clients. It can be assumed that environmental awareness in Poland is quite low, which is reflected in the approach of both retail and institutional clients. Nevertheless, the companies recognised the possibility of using LCA results in marketing and creating an image in the eyes of clients,
-
flexibility: the limited size of the small and medium companies—where a few, a dozen or rarely a few dozen people are usually employed—gives the owners/managers the possibility of exerting a direct impact on their workers. If the owners decide to carry out a pro-environmental activity in their companies, their decision has a chance of being quickly and directly communicated to and approved by all employees. On the other hand, the SMEs have a tendency to form alliances in order to achieve a particular goal, for instance, to increase their competitiveness.