sustainability

Article
Reasons to Adopt ISO 50001 Energy
Management System
Frederic Marimon 1, * ID
and Martí Casadesús 2 ID

1 Department of Economics and Business Management, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya,

08017 Barcelona, Spain
2 Department of Business Management and Product Design, Universitat de Girona, 17003 Girona, Spain;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-932-541-800

Received: 7 September 2017; Accepted: 25 September 2017; Published: 27 September 2017

Abstract: Purpose: The main aim of this paper is to analyze the relationships between the corporate
motivations that lead organizations to establish the ISO 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS)
standard, and the difficulties and benefits derived from its adoption. Design/methodology/approach:
Three independent exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted in order to identify (i) sources
of motivation: social requirements, ecology drivers, and competitive advantage; (ii) the difficulties
of an ISO 50001 adoption: operational difficulties and organizational difficulty; and (iii) types
of benefits: ecological benefits and operational benefits. In a second step, an exploratory path
analysis, performed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), was used to analyze the relations
among motivation, difficulties, and benefits related to the adoption of the ISO 50001 standard.
Findings: Social requirements explain operational difficulties, which in turn impacts on operational
benefits. Ecology drivers are directly related to ecological benefits. Organizational difficulties
have an inverse relationship with operational and ecological benefits. Operational difficulties
are related to operational benefits and ecological benefits. Research limitations/implications:
The questionnaire was disseminated to 87 Spanish companies with ISO 50001 certification. Managers
and other practitioners such as consultants, auditing companies, and official organizations in charge
of developing standards might find useful implications. Originality/value: The standard was
published in 2011 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This paper contributes
to assessment of the benefits of the standard by collecting information directly from the pioneer
organizations that have adopted it, and provides clues on how to implement the standard and
improve it in future.

Keywords: sustainability; ISO 50001; Energy Management System; motivations; difficulties; benefits

1. Introduction
The adoption of international standards on Environmental Management Systems (EMSs), notably
the ISO 14001 standard, has grown significantly worldwide over the last two decades [1,2]. Following
this successful path, some other management standards that deal with environmental management
aspects have been launched, such as the ISO 14006 standard for eco-design [3], the ISO 14064 standard
for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gases, and the ISO 14031 standard for environmental
performance evaluation, among many others. This is also the case with ISO 50001, a standard to guide
the adoption of an Energy Management System (EnMS), which was published in July 2011. Targeting
broad applicability across national economic sectors, it is estimated that the standard could influence
up to 60% of the world’s energy use [4].
In particular, ISO 50001 accounts for 11,985 registered organizations in 2015. The certification
grew rapidly, from 459 in 2011 to 1981 in 2012, with total annual growth of 332%. Considering the

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740; doi:10.3390/su9101740 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 2 of 15

growth of ISO 50001 and ISO 14001, also referred to as meta-standards [2], and given the importance
of the promotion of energy management for cleaner production [5], a study analyzing causal relation
between motivations, difficulties, and benefits is needed.
The main aim of this paper is to analyze the relationships between the corporate motivations
that lead organizations to establish the ISO 50001 EnMS standard and the difficulties and benefits
derived from its adoption. This research helps to fill this gap, based on the information obtained from
57 Spanish companies that participated in a survey.

2. Description of the ISO 50001 Standard and Literature Review

In a recent study, Lee and Cheng conducted an extensive review of academic articles showing
how different EnMSs yield substantial energy-saving effects [6]. Particularly, they prove how these
energy-saving performances correlate with specific EMS functions. Their main contribution, according
to their review, is that EnMSs are efficient in terms of savings. Previously, May et al. proposed the
four key elements that guarantee the full integration of energy efficiency into the manufacturing
process [7]: strategy, tool, process, technology. Accordingly, an efficient EnMS should be embedded in
these four pillars.
Merli et al. conducted an extensive study [8], based on a large survey (nearly 562 valid
questionnaires were collected in Italy), which analyzed the motivations, main difficulties, and results
(in terms of environmental and financial performance) of the implementation of a formal management
system based on Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). Tourais and Videira also analyzed [9],
through a literature review of 80 papers, the motives and benefits that drive organizations to adopt
the EMAS.
However, the literature devoted to the ISO 50001 standard is still scarce. Chiu et al. [10] analyzed,
through some case studies, how the implementation of the ISO 50001 standard improved energy
performance indicators. These good results are also an additional motivation for competitors to
implement the standard. Karcher and Jochem [11] also found that the positive results of ISO 50001,
in terms of monetary savings, motivate other organizations to implement it. Moreover, they also state
that the main enabler is the positive attitude of the staff. The EnMS energy savings have been analyzed
in different settings and geographical areas: Cholette and Venkat [12] focused on the logistic chain for
food and beverages in USA; more recently, Jabbour et al. [13] analyzed how ISO 50001 can optimize
the emissions of CO2 and the management of the green and low-carbon supply. McKanet et al. [14]
provided a methodology to assess the impacts of these gas emissions at a national, regional, and global
scale. All in all, there is a stream of research devoted to technical issues. However, there is a lack of
research related to the impact of the standard in the management of the organization. There is one
precedent in this minority research line: Wulandari et al. [15] analyzed motivations and difficulties in
implementing the ISO 50001 standard, but without studying the relationship between motivations
and benefits.
Therefore, there is still a lack of consensus related to which motivations, difficulties, and benefits
organizations have in implementing the ISO 50001 standard. Hence, our aim contributes to the extant
literature providing deep insight in how the motivations and difficulties to adopt the ISO 50001
standard really impact on performance results, both ecological and operational. In order to address
this, this section starts with a description of the standard, and follows with a literature review on these
three issues.

2.1. Description of the Standard ISO 50001

The ISO 50001 Energy Management System is a standard, created by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), defining the requirements of an Energy Management System.
The standard specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and improving
an Energy Management System, with the purpose of enabling an organization to follow a systematic
approach in achieving continual improvement of energy performance, including energy efficiency,
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 3 of 15

energy security, energy use, and consumption [16]. ISO 50001 aims to facilitate the establishment of the
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 3 of 15
systems and processes necessary to improve energy performance in organizations, including energy
efficiency, use, and of
establishment consumption
the systems[4].and processes necessary to improve energy performance in
ISO 50001 is including
organizations, not the first
energyenergy management
efficiency, standard [4].
use, and consumption in the world. Earlier, there were
approximately
ISO 50001 is not the first energy management standard in the world.The
14 regional and/or local energy management standards. research
Earlier, thereconducted
were
approximately
by Anisimova [17] 14 regional and/or
concluded that the local energy management
previous standards.standards
energy management The research
haveconducted by
many features
Anisimova
in common. [17] is
This concluded that the previous
not accidental, since allenergy management
the previous energystandards have many
management features in
standards before
common. This is not accidental, since all the previous energy management
ISO 50001 were developed by individuals working within the ISO management model for continuous standards before ISO
50001 were developed by individuals working within the ISO management model for continuous
improvement. Still, ISO 50001 has several significant improvements, especially compared to the
improvement. Still, ISO 50001 has several significant improvements, especially compared to the
European Energy Standard EN 16001:2010 [18].
European Energy Standard EN 16001:2010 [18].
The structure
The structure of ISO 50001
of ISO is isdesigned
50001 designedaccording
according totoother
otherISO
ISOmanagement
management system
system standards,
standards,
ISO 9001
ISO 9001 (Quality Management Systems) and ISO 14001 (Environmental Management Systems) in in
(Quality Management Systems) and ISO 14001 (Environmental Management Systems)
particular. Since
particular. all three
Since management
all three managementsystemssystems are basedon
are based onthe
thePlan-Do-Check-Act
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)
(PDCA) cyclecycle
(Figure 1), ISO
(Figure 50001
1), ISO cancan
50001 be be
integrated
integratedeasily
easilytotothese
these systems [19].
systems [19].

Figure 1. Plan-Do-Check-Act
Figure 1. Plan-Do-Check-Act(PDCA) CycleofofISO
(PDCA) Cycle ISO50001.
50001. Source:
Source: [20].[20].

In the context of energy management, the PDCA cycle can be summarized as follows [20]:
In the context of energy management, the PDCA cycle can be summarized as follows [20]:
 Plan: conduct the energy review and establish the baseline, energy performance indicators
‚ Plan:(EnPIs),
conduct the energy
objectives, review
targets, and establish
and action the baseline,
plans necessary energy
to deliver resultsperformance
in accordanceindicators
with
(EnPIs), objectives,
opportunities targets,energy
to improve and action plans and
performance necessary to deliverenergy
the organization’s resultspolicy.
in accordance with
opportunities to improve
Do: implement energy
the energy performance
management action and the organization’s energy policy.
plans.
‚ Do: Check: monitor and measure processes and
implement the energy management action plans. the key characteristics of operations that determine
energy performance against the energy policy and objectives and report the results.
‚ Check: monitor and measure processes and the key characteristics of operations that determine
 Act: take actions to continually improve energy performance and the EnMS.
energy performance against the energy policy and objectives and report the results.
‚ Act:Motives
2.2. take actions to continually improve energy performance and the EnMS.
There are various motives behind the application of standards. From an empirical perspective,
2.2. Motives
Bansal and Roth [21] propose three types of motive that lead companies to implement ISO 14001:
There are variouslegitimation,
competitiveness, motives behind the application
and ecological of standards.
responsibility. Fromand
Neumayer an empirical perspective,
Perkins [22] also
Bansal and Roth [21] propose three types of motive that lead companies to implement ISOto14001:
underlined a couple of motivations that lead companies to adopt ISO 14001: internal related
efficiency, and legitimation,
competitiveness, external related and
to theecological
social pressure exerted by different
responsibility. agents toand
Neumayer persuade company
Perkins [22] also
underlined a couple of motivations that lead companies to adopt ISO 14001: internalISO
managers to adopt certain practices. Pan [23], exploring the motivations of firms registering related
14001 in four far Eastern countries (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong-Kong), found that the desire for
to efficiency, and external related to the social pressure exerted by different agents to persuade
company managers to adopt certain practices. Pan [23], exploring the motivations of firms
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 4 of 15

registering ISO 14001 in four far Eastern countries (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong-Kong),
found that the desire for improving corporate image, environmental improvement, gaining marketing
advantage, and improving relations with communities were the most important reasons for the
ISO 14001 certification. In the same vein, Psomas et al. [24], through exploratory factor analysis in
Greek companies, emphasized three main sources of ISO 14001 motives: competitive advantage,
social requirements, and environmentally-friendly policy. González-Benito, J. and González-Benito,
O. [25] differentiated the following four drivers for the adoption of EMSs: operational competitive
motivations (costs, productivity), commercial competitive motivations (market, image, customers),
ethical motivations, and relational motivations (regulators, local organizations). Gavronski et al. [26]
proposed four typologies of motivation in implementing the ISO 14001 standard: pressures from the
external stakeholders; pro-action looking for future business concerns; legal motivations; and internal
motivations. Recently, Marimon et al. [1] found that some sectors are using the ISO 14001 certification
in order to “clean” their image as “dirty” sectors or sectors which are aggressive against the
environment. This is particularly true in the energy sector. In the same vein, Marimon et al. [27]
claim that other standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are also used by the energy
sector in order to disclose information about their interaction with and respect to the environment.

2.3. Difficulties
According to Wessels [28], the difficulty of ISO 50001 implementation in Toyota SA was in
changing people’s mindset that energy reduction does not necessarily have an impact on safety, quality,
or production cycle time. Babakri et al. [29] has investigated the obstacles of ISO 14001 implementation
in US companies, such as high cost of certification, lack of available resources, lack of leadership
commitment, uncertainty of ISO 14001 benefits, etc. Velázquez et al. [30] stated that the difficulty
in EnMS implementation in petroleum industries in Seville was in determining the energy baseline
and energy performance indicator (EnPI) because of the complexity of the data; the production
rates are highly variable and several interacting processes coexist at a single site. One cannot easily
determine the energy baseline and energy performance indicator (EnPI). Another difficulty comes
from the technical issue of installing an automated real-time energy measurement in accordance with
Wessels [28]. Liyin et al. [31] mentioned that the increased cost, and the time and resources consumed,
have discouraged construction companies from engaging actively in improving their environmental
performance. In the same vein, Babakri et al. [29] also mentioned that the two highest obstacles of
ISO 14001 are the high cost of certification and lack of available resources, along with the benefits
uncertainty of ISO 14001 adoption.

2.4. Benefits
The ISO 50001 standard is a powerful tool for organizations to improve their energy performance.
Wessels [28] showed that the implementation in Toyota SA has proved to be successful with indicators
of energy savings/year and kg CO2 savings/year. Velazquez et al. [30] also found that 2.82 GWh
energy savings have been achieved. Lambert [32] estimated that the Bentley Group saved at least
180 kW and 1,532,768 kWh in one year. Also, it has been shown that in the Bridgestone group, between
2000 and 2010, the energy used on site for each car produced was reduced by two thirds [33]. Recently,
Jabbour [13] also identified several contributions of the ISO 50001 in support of the adoption of green
supply chain management. The integration-energy-practice model for introducing an ISO 50001 Energy
Management System can efficiently meet demands for energy performance indicators and pass the
international certification for ISO 50001 Energy Management Systems [34].
Other standards, such as ISO 14001, are proven to give operational benefits as well. ISO 14001
gives operational benefits in terms of cycle time, efficiency, flexibility, cost, plant safety, overall
productivity, product innovation, product performance, product quality, defects, quality assurance,
and process optimization [35–38]. Giving another perspective, Psomas et al. [24] stated that the
internal benefits of ISO 14001 adoption in Greek companies are more significant than the external
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 5 of 15

ones. Chavan [39] highlighted that the ISO 14001 standard is a powerful tool for organizations to
both improve their environmental performance and enhance their business efficiency by minimizing
environmental liabilities, maximizing the efficient use of resources, reducing waste, demonstrating a
good corporate image, building awareness of environmental concern among employees, gaining better
understanding of the environmental impacts of business activities, and increasing profit through more
efficient operations.

3. Methodology and Data

3.1. Questionnaire
To investigate the motivations and benefits of companies who have adopted the ISO 50001 EnMS,
a structured questionnaire was designed on the basis of a comprehensive literature review. Since there
is scarce previous empirical literature related to ISO 50001, some items were borrowed from previous
authors who have analyzed motivations and benefits of other related standards (e.g., ISO 140001 and
EMAS). The questionnaire contained four sections: (1) background information; (2) organization
motivation to adopt ISO 50001; (3) adoption process of ISO 50001; and (4) result of ISO 50001
implementation. Each section has different content, as shown in more detail in Table 1. The last
three sections correspond to the three constructs analyzed in the literature: motivations, difficulties,
and benefits.

Table 1. ISO 50001 Survey Sections.

Chapter Contents
Organization classification
1. Organization data
International scope
2. Input Motivations
Commitment leadership
Human resource
Other resources
3. Implementation
Time and cost
Difficulties
Integration
Operational benefits
4. Output Financial benefits
Innovation

A total of six pages of questions were employed, using a combination of the one-to-five
Likert scale and open-ended answers. The Likert scale provides five alternatives with different
degrees of agreement: (1) no effect; (2) a little important; (3) important; (4) very important;
and (5) totally important.
It is important to stress that since the methodology used to obtain the quantitative information is
based on the perceptions of specialized managers in charge of the process, it could suffer from social
desirability and other related bias [2].

3.2. Sample
This research is focused in Spain since it has the second-highest share of ISO 50001 certification
throughout the world, next to Germany [19]. Given that Spain has been a member of the European
Union since 1986, Spanish energy policy goals are derived from the EU goals and aligned with
“Europe 2020”. In line with the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by 20% from 1990
to 2020, Spain will have to increase energy efficiency to contribute to the EU target of reducing energy
demand by 20% by 2020.
As stated, despite the study being focused in Spain, the findings of this research could clearly be
of interest to stakeholders from other countries, since it can be argued that the main characteristics
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 6 of 15

of the process of adoption of management standard systems do not differ much from one region to
another, since the organizational field in which these kinds of standards have been disseminated is a
global one [2].
Consequently, the questionnaire was disseminated first via internet and, for the organizations
from which we didn’t obtain any response, later through paper questionnaire to senior management
representatives who were in charge of energy management certification in the organizations adopting
the ISO 50001 EnMS. These organizations were recorded in the database of AENOR (Asociación Española
de Normalización y Certificación), the company in charge of the development and diffusion of technical
norms and certifications in Spain.
The questionnaire was disseminated in November 2014 to 87 companies of the total 120 ISO 50001
certified Spanish organizations [19], out of which 57 responded, representing a response rate of 65%
(Table 2). The small quantity of the data sample is mainly due to the low number of certifications,
the difficulty to discover the organizations adopting ISO 50001, the difficulty of data access, and the
exploratory character of the study. Although the quantity of organizations which collaborated in the
study was small, it is a high response rate when taken as a relative measure.

Table 2. Profile of the “ISO 50001” studied organizations.

Study Date February 2014

Study population 120 ISO 50001:2011 certified organizations based in Spain in November 2013
Study sample 87 organizations
Number of responses 57 organizations
Response rate 65%

3.3. Statistical Analysis

The statistical software EQS was used for data processing. First, an array of Exploratory Factor
Analyses (Kaiser criterion and varimax rotation method) was applied to discover the latent constructs of
the motives, difficulties, and benefits. These analyses provide a few factors that account for the original
observable variables, which enables the interpretation due to the fact that previous variables are
gathered in a small number of factors. The motivations to obtain the ISO 50001 certification comprises
the drivers that influenced the top management to seek the EnMS certification. The difficulties are
related to the complexity faced during ISO 50001 implementation. The benefits scale is related to
performance improved or created by the certification process.
Next criteria were used to retain items from these Exploratory Factor Analyses: (i) load at 0.50
or more on a factor; (ii) do not load at more than 0.50 in two factors; and (iii) have an item to total
correlation of more than 0.40.
The reliability of the obtained constructs was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, Composite
Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). According to Hair et al. [40], in this research
the values of 0.6 to 0.7 are accepted as the lower acceptable limit of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.
The accepted limit for CR is 0.7 and 0.5 for AVE, although for exploratory studies where the constructs
are not settled, these thresholds can be relaxed.
Once the reliability and validity of these constructs were probed, they were used in an exploratory
path analysis, which was conducted correlating all motivation with difficulties and all difficulties
with benefits. The model obtained was then improved by adding parameters suggested by Lagrange
Multiplier Test until it reached the required parameter fit indices.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Profile of Respondents

Based on the number of employees it is observed that the responding companies were small,
medium, and large, given that 33% employ less than 100 employees and 43% employ between 101
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 7 of 15

and 500 workers, representing the largest group in terms of size. Interestingly, the percentage of
organizations having between 501 and 1000 workers (4%) is less than the percentage of organizations
having more than 1000 employees (20%). According to the organizations’ average turnover,
the organizations with big turnover (>50 M€) comprised the highest percentage (38%) of the
respondents, followed by organizations with micro turnover (<2 M€) with 36%, organizations with
small turnover (<10 M€) with 14%, and organizations with big turnover (<50 M€). The majority of
organizations adopting ISO 50001 (85%) integrate their meta-standards adoption with ISO 9001 and/or
ISO 14001, while only 15% do not.

4.2. Motives for the ISO 50001 Implementation

The measured variables, with respect to the motives that led companies to the ISO 50001
certification, were used as the basis for Exploratory Factor Analysis. The result was the establishment
of three latent constructs or factors with which the motives were discovered (Table 3). Based on the
loadings of the ISO 50001 motives, the latent constructs were labeled as: F1 “social requirements”,
F2 “ecology drivers”, and F3 “competitive advantage”. From Table 3 it can be observed that all
the Cronbach’s alpha are above 0.7. The F2 and F3 achieved the CR threshold recommended by
Hair et al. [40], whereas F1 achieved only 0.660. The convergent validity is indicated by an AVE above
0.5 and a CR value higher than the AVE, which is satisfied by all factor loadings except for F1. In any
case, even though F1 doesn’t comply with the CR and AVE threshold, it is still considered reliable
since its Cronbach’s alpha, as a lower bound reliability parameter, complies.

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis for the motives in adopting ISO 50001.

F1 F2 F3
Variables Mean Value Social Requirements Ecology Drivers Competitive Advantage
Incentive given by public administration 2.19 0.701
Pressure from professional association 2.30 0.969
Improve energy efficiency 4.42 0.727
Reduce the greenhouse gas effect 3.49 0.749
Enhance employee energy awareness 4.02 0.605
The rise of energy prices 3.67 0.659
The impacts of climate change 3.39 0.907
Competitors pressure 2.51 0.708
Clients’ requirements 2.67 0.833
Image improvement 3.67 0.520
Model information
Eigenvalue 4.674 2.679 1.337
Cronbach’s alpha 0.809 0.847 0.721
Composite reliability (CR) 0.660 0.953 0.895
Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.492 0.676 0.501
Mean value a 2.246 3.796 2.947
a Mean value range: 1 represents “no effect” to 5 represents “totally important”.

Consequently, internal drivers such as ecology drivers seem to be the strongest motives for
adopting ISO 50001 for the organizations that participated in the present study. However, external
motives such as obtaining a competitive advantage and social requirements seem to also be present,
but are less significant with regard to their contribution to the organizations’ decision to adopt
ISO 50001. The term “social requirements” might cause some misunderstanding. In this case, it is
composed of two items. The first is related to public administration incentives, and the second is
related to the incentives promoted by other professional institutions.
The findings from the study of Psomas et al. [24] on Greek companies with ISO 14001 is in line
with findings from the present survey. Using the Exploratory Factor Analysis, it was shown that both
internal reasons and external reasons influence ISO 14001 certified companies, and the internal reason
constructs of “environmentally-friendly policy” are of higher significance than external reasons of
“competitive advantage” and “social requirements”.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 8 of 15

4.3. Difficulties for the ISO 50001 Implementation

Using the measured variables with respect to the difficulties during ISO 50001 adoption as the
basis for Exploratory Factor Analysis, the result was the establishment of two latent constructs with
which the difficulties were discovered (Table 4). Based on the loads of the ISO 50001 difficulties,
the latent constructs were labeled as: F6 “Operational difficulties”, and F7 “Organizational difficulties”.
The reliability and convergent validity of these two constructs were found in a way analogous to
that in the previous subsection (see Table 4). The construct F7 does not comply with the minimum
threshold for AVE. Nevertheless, since the CR index is good enough, it can be considered reliable.

Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis for the difficulties in adopting ISO 50001.

F6 F7
Variables Mean Value Operational Difficulty Organizational Difficulty
The necessity of continuous measurement tools 3.34 0.849
Data complexity 3.04 0.721
Lack of economic resources 3.02 0.715
Norm complexity 2.26 0.751
Changing mindset 2.77 0.661
Internal communication 2.40 0.758
Lack of Leadership commitment 2.28 0.759
Benefits uncertainty 2.57 0.559
Model information
Eigenvalue 4.238 0.943
Cronbach’s alpha 0.838 0.775
Composite reliability (CR) 0.971 0.781
Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.721 0.475
Mean value a 2.92 2.50
a Mean value range: 1 represents “no effect” to 5 represents “totally important”.

Based on Table 4, the difficulties faced by the organizations adopting ISO 50001 are quite low,
showed by the mean values of 2.92 and 2.50, with the operational issues more difficult than the
organizational ones. The previous experience of adopting international standards such as ISO 9001
and ISO 14001 may have facilitated conformity with ISO 50001 requirements. It has to be considered
that 85% of the organizations adopting ISO 50001 have adopted other international standards, namely,
ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

4.4. Benefits for the ISO 50001 Implementation

The measured variables with respect to the benefits for adopting ISO 50001were used as the basis
for Exploratory Factor Analysis. The result was the establishment of two latent constructs with which
the benefits were discovered (Table 5). Based on the loadings of the ISO 50001 benefits, the latent
constructs were labeled as: F4 “Ecological benefits”, and F5 “Production benefits”. The reliability and
validity of these constructs were assessed in the same way as in previous subsections (see Table 5).

Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis of the benefits for adopting ISO 50001.

F4 F5
Variables Mean Value Ecological Benefits Production Benefits
Energy saving 4.43 0.749
Improve environmental performance 4.02 0.917
Improve environmental impact 3.83 0.892
Increase of environmental awareness 3.55 0.784
Increase plant safety 2.47 0.628
Increase overall productivity 3.04 0.776
Process optimization 3.49 0.712
Improve product performance 2.38 0.782
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 9 of 15

Table 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 9 of 15

F4 F5
Improve product quality 2.43 0.793
Variables Mean Value Ecological Benefits Production Benefits
Model information
Improve product quality Eigenvalue 2.43 4.520 0.793
1.825
Model information Cronbach’s alpha 0.895 0.858
Eigenvalue 4.520 1.825
Composite reliability (CR)
Cronbach’s alpha
0.962
0.895
0.858
0.858
Average variance
Composite extracted
reliability (AVE)
(CR) 0.561
0.962 0.549
0.858
Average variance extracted
Mean(AVE)
value a 0.561
3.958 0.549
2.762
Mean value a 3.958 2.762
a Mean value range: 1 represents “no effect” to 5 represents “totally important”.
a Mean value range: 1 represents “no effect” to 5 represents “totally important”.

The
The mean
mean value
value of
of ecological
ecological benefits scored quite
benefits scored quite high
high in
in terms
terms of
of importance
importance (3.958),
(3.958), while
while the
the
production benefits scored a lower significance (2.762 out of 5). Therefore, the adoption of ISO
production benefits scored a lower significance (2.762 out of 5). Therefore, the adoption of ISO 50001 50001
is quite successful
is quite successful in
in granting
granting ecological
ecological benefits
benefits for
for the
the organizations
organizations adopting
adopting it.
it. However,
However, it is
it is
possibly due to the immature age of ISO 50001, which gives the euphoria sensation of a new
possibly due to the immature age of ISO 50001, which gives the euphoria sensation of a new standard standard
adoption; this was
adoption; this was the
the case
case for
for ISO
ISO 9001,
9001, the
the benefits
benefits of
of which
which have
have actually
actually fallen
fallen over
over time
time [41].
[41].

4.5.
4.5. Path
Path Analysis
Analysis
The three previous
The three previous exploratory
exploratory factor
factor analyses
analyses identified
identified three
three dimensions
dimensions ofof motivations,
motivations,
explaining
explaining two dimensions of difficulties which in turn explain two dimensions of benefits. From
two dimensions of difficulties which in turn explain two dimensions of benefits. From the
the
obtained
obtained latent constructs, an
latent constructs, exploratory path
an exploratory analysis was
path analysis was conducted
conducted correlating
correlating all
all motivation
motivation
with difficulties
with difficulties and
and all
all difficulties
difficulties with
with benefits,
benefits, as
as shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 2.
2. The
The path
path analysis
analysis model
model was
was
estimated by using the maximum likelihood method from the asymptotic variance–covariance
estimated by using the maximum likelihood method from the asymptotic variance–covariance matrix.
matrix. EQS Version
EQS Version 6.1 was
6.1 was the the software
software used to compute
used to compute the empirical
the empirical work. work.

Figure 2.
Figure Exploratory path
2. Exploratory path analysis
analysis graphical
graphical representation.
representation.

The model
modelobtained
obtained waswas
thenthen improved
improved by adding
by adding parameters
parameters suggested suggested
by Lagrangeby Multiplier
Lagrange
Multiplier Test until it reached the required fit indices parameter. The selected fit indices
Test until it reached the required fit indices parameter. The selected fit indices parameter was parameter
was Comparative
Comparative Fit Indices
Fit Indices (CFI)
(CFI) since
since thisthis parameter
parameter performs
performs welleven
well evenwhen
whenthethesample
sample size
size is
small [42]. The final model and results obtained are shown in Figure Figure 3.
3.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 10 of 15
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 10 of 15

Figure 3. Final path analysis graphical representation. Note: standardized solution paths in the arrows.
Figure 3. Final path analysis graphical representation. Note: standardized solution paths in the
arrows.
Before analyzing the relation further, the discriminant validity was assessed by linear correlations
or standardized covariances
Before analyzing betweenfurther,
the relation latent factors by examiningvalidity
the discriminant whetherwasinter-factor
assessedcorrelations
by linear
were less than the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE). Table 6 shows the square
correlations or standardized covariances between latent factors by examining whether inter-factor roots
of each AVE were greater
correlations less thanthan
thethe off-diagonal
square elements.
root of the average variance extracted (AVE). Table 6 shows
the square roots of each AVE were greater than the off-diagonal elements.
Table 6. Correlation matrix of latent factors.
Table 6. Correlation matrix of latent factors.
Correlation Matrix of Latent Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
Correlation Matrix of Latent Factors
F1. Social requirements F1
0.702 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
F1.F2.
Social requirements
Ecology drivers 0.702
0.099 0.822
F2.F3. Competitive
Ecology advantage
drivers 0.438 0.822
0.099 0.007 0.708
F4. Ecological benefits
F3. Competitive advantage ´0.099
0.438 ´0.160
0.007 0.708 0.749
´0.234
F5. Operational benefits 0.034 ´0.016 ´0.025 0.426 0.628
F4.F6.
Ecological benefits
Operational difficulties −0.099
´0.141 −0.160 −0.234 0.354
0.034 ´0.418 0.749 0.149 0.849
F5.F7.
Operational benefits
Organizational difficulties 0.034
´0.022 −0.016 −0.025 0.169
0.000 ´0.275 0.426 0.098
0.628 0.735 0.661
F6. Operational difficulties −0.141 0.034 −0.418 0.354 0.149 0.849
The diagonal elements, in italics, are the square roots of average variance extracted (AVE).
F7. Organizational difficulties −0.022 0.000 −0.275 0.169 0.098 0.735 0.661
The The
measurement modelinwas
diagonal elements, estimated
italics, by using
are the square theaverage
roots of robustvariance
maximum likelihood
extracted (AVE). method.
Th fit indices obtained in the measurement model estimation showed that the variables converged
(see Table 7). The x2 Satorra–Bentler
The measurement model was estimated
was 358 by using
with 294 the robust
degrees of maximum
freedom, the likelihood
p-value method. The
was 0.00613,
fit indices
the obtained
Root Mean in Error
Square the measurement model(RMSEA)
of Approximation estimation showed
was that the
0.065, and the CFI
variables converged
was 0.907. Taking(see
the
ଶ
Table 7). Theof‫ ݔ‬the
significance 2
Satorra–Bentler waswith
robust x statistic 358 with 294 degrees
caution, of freedom,
and noting the globaltheindicators,
p-value wasthe0.00613,
globalthe
fit
Rootacceptable.
was Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.065, and the CFI was 0.907. Taking the
significance of the robust ‫ ݔ‬ଶ statistic with caution, and noting the global indicators, the global fit was
acceptable. Table 7. Standardized solution of the causal model.

causal model. t-Value

Table 7. Standardized solution of theCoefficient Sig. Level
Path F1 Social requirements–F5 Operational benefits 0.487 2.998 5%
F1 Social requirements–F6 Operational difficulties 0.149 Coefficient
1.003 t-Value 10%Sig. Level
F2 Ecology drivers–F4 Ecological benefits 1.623 5.503 5%
Path F1 Social requirements–F5
F6 Operational Operational
difficulties–F4 Ecological benefits
benefits 0.234 0.487 2.101 2.998 5% 5%
F1 Social requirements–F6
F6 Operational Operational
difficulties–F5 Operationaldifficulties
benefits 0.356 0.149 2.367 1.003 5% 10%
F7 Organizational
F2 Ecology drivers–F4 difficulties–F4
EcologicalEcological
benefits benefits ´0.284 1.623´1.751 5.503 10% 5%
F7 Organizational difficulties–F5 Operational benefits ´0.396 ´2.001 5%
F6 Operational difficulties–F4 Ecological benefits
F7 Organizational difficulties–F6 Operational difficulties 1.004
0.234 1.725
2.101 10% 5%
F6 Operational difficulties–F5 Operational benefits 0.356 2.367 5%
Correlation F1 Social requirements–F2 Ecology drivers 0.570 2.035 5%
F7 Organizational difficulties–F4
F1 Social requirements–F3 Ecological
Competitive benefits
advantage 0.456 −0.2842.581 −1.751 5% 10%
F7 Organizational difficulties–F5 Operational benefits −0.396 −2.001 5%
Fit statistics: x2 Satorra–Bentler (df = 294) = 358 (p-value = 0.00613); RMSEA = 0.065; CFI = 0.907; BB-NFI = 0.656; BB-NNFI = 0.889
F7 Organizational difficulties–F6 Operational difficulties 1.004 1.725 10%
Correlation F1 Social requirements–F2 Ecology drivers 0.570 2.035 5%
F1 Social requirements–F3 Competitive advantage 0.456 2.581 5%
Fit statistics: x2 Satorra–Bentler (df = 294) = 358 (p-value = 0.00613); RMSEA = 0.065; CFI = 0.907; BB-NFI = 0.656; BB-NNFI = 0.889
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 11 of 15

The social requirements (consisting of incentive given by public administration and professional
associations) cause the operational difficulties, which arise during the implementation process. On the
other hand, the ecology drivers cause ecological benefits. In other words, without ecology drivers,
“only” operational benefits would be attained. The incentive and pressure received from public
administration and professional associations enable the organizations to perform on a superficial level
resulting in operational benefits such as safety, productivity, optimization, performance, and quality,
but not ecological benefits.
The ecology drivers are directly related to ecological benefits. This finding is logical since
the organizations obtain ecological benefits by having ecology motives in mind before adopting
ISO 50001. Regarding the relations between motivations and benefits, there is a positive relationship
between the level of internal motivation of Spanish companies when adopting the ISO 14001 standard
and the internal benefits obtained from that process [2,43]. This finding is also in line with that
of Gavronski et al. [26] on ISO 14001 adoption in Brazilian companies, where internal motivations
presented a strong relationship to the perceived internal benefits and legal motivations.
The organizational difficulty has an inverse relationship with the operational and ecological
benefits. This is logical since change management is initiated first on organizational and
managerial activities, and afterwards continues to technical activities. Therefore, organizational
difficulties—ranging from changing mindset, internal communication, lack of leadership commitment,
and benefits uncertainty—restrain operational and ecological benefits. With a reduction of
organizational difficulty, an organization is more agile and able to work faster and, as a result, achieve
higher operational and ecological benefits.
The last finding is that operational difficulties, which comprise the necessity of continuous
measurement tools, data complexity, lack of economic resources, and norm complexity, are related to
operational benefits and ecological benefits. ISO 50001 requires the organization to develop a policy for
more efficient use of energy, fix targets and objectives to meet the policy, manage energy data, measure
the results, and so on. These activities inevitably cause operational difficulties and, although it may
sound counterintuitive, the more seriously an organization takes the implementation of ISO 50001,
the more ecological benefits gained due to the effort required to face these difficulties. In other words,
these operational difficulties cause operational and ecological benefits; it is a challenge which the
organization needs to overcome to win the energy challenge and gain benefits.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This research gives an initial view of the relationships between motivations, difficulties,
and benefits in ISO 50001 adoption, which is especially of great interest for the managers, engineers,
consultants, certified bodies, and policy makers.
Two dimensions characterize the difficulties of an ISO 50001 adoption: operational difficulties
and organizational difficulties. There are also two types of benefits: ecological benefits and operational
benefits. An exploratory factor analysis identified three sources of motivation: social requirements;
ecology drivers; and competitive advantage. The analysis also showed that social requirements
explain operational difficulties and result in operational benefits. Ecology drivers are directly related
to ecological benefits. Organizational difficulties have an inverse relationship with operational and
ecological benefits. Operational difficulties are related to operational benefits and ecological benefits.
Findings show that for gaining ecological benefits, firstly, it could be necessary to detect and
internalize ecology motivations. Organizations must also realize that social requirements only bring
them as far as operational benefits, but not as far as ecological benefits. Organizational difficulty,
such as changing mindset, should be minimized in order to obtain operational and ecological benefits,
whereas it may be necessary to face and overcome operational difficulties in order to gain operational
and ecological benefits.
Thus, the first lesson extracted is that social requirements are the antecedents of operational
benefits, both directly and indirectly through the mediation of operational difficulties. Moreover, social
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 12 of 15

requirements impact indirectly on ecological benefits. Consequently, these social requirements are
relevant in order to achieve a good performance in terms of both ecological and operational benefits.
On the other hand, the ecology drivers only impact on ecological benefits, not operational. This issue
gives rise to a question that managers must face: whether to invest in social requirements or in ecology
drivers. If operational benefits are prioritized, managers should invest in social requirements, to the
detriment of ecological benefits; on the other hand, if ecological benefits are the main goal, managers
should invest in ecology drivers, neglecting operational benefits. There is a tradeoff between both
types of benefits. This is the dilemma that the current research model helps to solve.
These results might also be useful to the “makers” of the next version of the standard. The standard
is still in its starting phase, with respect to the diffusion phenomenon and regarding the maturation
of the standard in itself. These findings will provide insights in order to improve the next release of
the standard.
The efficiency of energy use enables organizations to save money, as well as helping to conserve
resources; consequently, this is also a factor that helps to prevent damage to natural resources. Due to
the extent to which an Energy Management System (and particularly ISO 50001) contributes to saving
the use of natural resources, the standard will also contribute to the stabilization of climate parameters,
and will therefore be of interest to the national governmental institutions and international associations
that are dealing with environmental issues. Hence, the findings of this paper and, in general, research
which investigates energy efficiency will be more and more relevant for these institutions.
On the other hand, taking into account that ISO 50001 is based on the management system model
of continual improvement (also used for other well-known standards such as ISO 9001 or ISO 14001),
the organizations will have an extra incentive to integrate this standard with the previous standards.
Both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 have been very successful and have gained great popularity. Both are
well diffused among countries and economic activities. Marimon et al. [27,44] and Llach et al. [45]
have analyzed the diffusion phenomenon of both standards. Shortly after the publication of the
ISO 9001 standard, Casadesus and Karapetrovic [46] studied the causes that lead organizations to
certify under the ISO 9001 standard. In most cases, the main motivation was external. In other
words, the organizations were not motivated by a potential improvement in economic or efficiency
performance. The main reason to adopt was explained in terms of image and prestige. The subsequent
editions of the standard were more focused on customer satisfaction, and the reasons that lead
organizations to certify evolved into seeking customer satisfaction [47]. This case demonstrates how
the standard adapts to the necessities and requirements of the organizations. Something similar
happened with the evolution of ISO 14001, and we foresee that the ISO 50001 standard will also have a
process to fit with the real necessities of the organizations. The recent new standard versions ISO 14001:
2015 and 9001: 2015 enable the process and integration with other international standards, which will
impact on the diffusion of the ISO 50001 standard.
The ISO 50001 standard provides a framework of requirements for organizations regarding
some different issues. Internally, it is intended to help develop a policy for more efficient use of
energy, but also to fix targets and objectives to meet this policy. To the extent that organizations are
measuring results in terms of efficiency energy, the standard will help them to continually improve
energy management. If organizations do not find it useful, the standard will decrease its diffusion,
and it might even trigger a decertification process. Hence, the ISO organization has an interest in
understanding the motivations that organizations might have to certify, and also those reasons that
might lead them to decertify.
Some empirical papers have analyzed how the improvement in energy management can be
measured through some indicators. Each industry and each country requires different indicators to
show its evolution and how different management decisions impact on the overall energy efficiency [48].
However, this paper contributes to the understanding of the motivations in deciding to adopt an EnMS
based on ISO 50001 and the expected benefits. Wulandari [15] analyzed it from a purely descriptive
point of view, without finding any relationship between motivations, difficulties, and benefits.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 13 of 15

Moreover, the particular case of the ISO 50001 standard has some particular features, which need
special attention. Unlike the ISO 9001 standard case, where the only interested party in the adoption
process is the organization, the adoption of ISO 50001 affects third parties. Governments have to
attain a certain level of emissions in accordance with international agreements. There are also other
stakeholders that are demanding sustainable processes and products. Consumers are more and more
interested in products that are manufactured according to sustainable requirements [49]. Sustainable
consumption is gaining impetus as a new environmental policy objective. Like other ISO management
system standards, certification to ISO 50001 is not obligatory. The organizations might decide to
implement the standard solely for the benefits it provides or also to show external parties (customers,
government regulatory bodies, etc.) that they have implemented an Energy Management System.
Obviously, the fact that the survey was carried out within a single country gives rise to a limitation,
since specific conditions in other countries and regions may alter the findings [2]. It will also be
interesting to collect data through several years in order to assess evolution and trends, enabling a
longitudinal analysis.
Some future research lines arise from the findings of this paper. Once the standard is well
established and diffused, among different activity sectors and geographical areas, it will be necessary
to analyze differences between adopters and non-adopters. This will shed light on the contribution
of the standard to the adopting organizations. Along this line, an analysis of the diffusion will also
be needed, in order to understand the phenomenon. The Rogers’ typology [50] for adopters will
provide specific characteristics for organizations in each phase for the innovation adoption group
(innovators, early adopters, and laggards). This will allow forecast behavior of new adopters, which
will be of interest not only for managers, but all institutions and organizations involved with this type
of certification—including accreditation organizations, certifying bodies, and business consultants
specializing in the implementation of the ISO 50001 standard.

Author Contributions: This research was designed, carried out and written principally by Frederic Marimon and
Martí Casadesús. Frederic Marimon contributed mainly to the methodology and data section. Both authors were
involved in the review and finalization of the paper. All authors read and approved the final paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Marimon, F.; Llach, J.; Bernardo, M. Comparative analysis of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard by sector of
activity. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1734–1744. [CrossRef]
2. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Boiral, O. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management
System Standards. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 47–65. [CrossRef]
3. Arana-Landin, G.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Paving the way for the ISO 14006 ecodesign standard:
An exploratory study in Spanish companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1007–1015. [CrossRef]
4. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Win the Energy Challenge with ISO 50001; ISO Central
Secretariat: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
5. Dobes, V. New tool for promotion of energy management and cleaner production on no cure, no pay basis.
J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 255–264. [CrossRef]
6. Lee, D.; Cheng, C.C. Energy savings by energy management systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 56, 760–777. [CrossRef]
7. May, G.; Taisch, M.; Stahl, B.; Sadr, V. Toward energy efficient manufacturing: A study on practices and
viewpoint of the industry. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems;
Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–8.
8. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Ippolito, C. Promoting Sustainability through EMS Application: A Survey Examining
the Critical Factors about EMAS Registration in Italian Organizations. Sustainability 2016, 8, 197. [CrossRef]
9. Tourais, P.; Videira, N. Why, How and What do Organizations Achieve with the Implementation of
Environmental Management Systems?—Lessons from a Comprehensive Review on the Eco-Management
and Audit Scheme. Sustainability 2016, 8, 283. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 14 of 15

10. Chiu, T.Y.; Lo, S.L. Establishing an integration-energy-practice model to improve energy efficiency in ISO
50001 energy management systems: A case study for a networking products company. J. Qual. 2015, 22,
15–28.
11. Karcher, P.; Jochem, R. Success factors and organizational approaches for the implementation of energy
management systems according to ISO 50001. TQM J. 2015, 27, 361–381. [CrossRef]
12. Cholette, S.; Venkat, K. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution: A study of logistical options
for delivering wine to consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1401–1413. [CrossRef]
13. Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S.; Verderio, J.S.A.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Leal, F.W.; Souza, L.C.; Castro, R. Toward greener supply
chains: Is there a role for the new ISO 50001 approach to energy and carbon management? Energy Effic. 2017,
10, 777–785. [CrossRef]
14. McKane, A.; Therkelsen, P.; Scodel, A.; Rao, P.; Aghajanzadeh, A.; Hirzel, S.; Matteini, M. Predicting the
quantifiable impacts of ISO 50001 on climate change mitigation. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 278–288. [CrossRef]
15. Wulandari, M.; Laskurain, I.; Casadesús, M.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Early Adoption of ISO 50001
Standard: An Empirical Study. In Sustainable Operations Management; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 183–202.
16. Eccleston, C.; March, F.; Cohen, T. Inside Energy: Developing and Managing and ISO 50001 Energy Management
System; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
17. Anisimova, T.Y. Analysis of Standards in Energy Management. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 13, 654–657.
18. Duglio, S. Energy Management Systems: From EN 16001 to ISO 50001. J. Manag. 2011, 4, 1.
19. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). The ISO Survey-2012; ISO Central Secretariat:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/
iso-survey.htm (accessed on 10 October 2013).
20. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO 50001 Energy Management Systems—Requirements
with Guidance for Use; ISO Central Secretariat: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
21. Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43,
717–736. [CrossRef]
22. Neumayer, E.; Perkins, R. Uneven Geographies of Organizational Practice: Explaining the Cross-National
Transfer and Diffusion of ISO 9000. Econ. Geogr. 2005, 81, 237–259. [CrossRef]
23. Pan, J.-N. A comparative study on motivation for and experience with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification
among Far Eastern countries. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2003, 103, 564–578. [CrossRef]
24. Psomas, E.L.; Fotopoulos, C.V.; Kafetzopoulos, D.P. Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the
ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2011, 22, 502–521. [CrossRef]
25. González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, O. An analysis of the relationship between environmental motivations
and ISO 14001 certification. Br. J. Manag. 2005, 16, 133–148. [CrossRef]
26. Gavronski, I.; Ferrer, G.; Paiva, E.L. ISO 14001 certification in Brazil: Motivations and benefits. J. Clean. Prod.
2008, 16, 87–94. [CrossRef]
27. Marimon, F.; Alonso-Almeida, M.; Rodríguez, M.; Alejandro, K. The worldwide diffusion of the global
reporting initiative: What is the point? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 33, 132–144. [CrossRef]
28. Wessels, A. Energy Management System Adoption at Toyota SA. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on
the Industrial and Commercial Use of Energy, Cape Town, South Africa, 16–17 August 2011.
29. Babakri, K.A.; Bennet, R.A.; Franchetti, M. Critical factors for implementing ISO 14001 standard in United
States industrial companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 749–754. [CrossRef]
30. Velázquez, D.; González-Falcón, R.; Pérez-Lombard, L.; Marina Gallego, L.; Monedero, I.; Biscarri, F.
Development of an energy management system for a naphtha reforming plant: A data mining approach.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 67, 217–225. [CrossRef]
31. Liyin, S.; Hong, Y.; Griffith, A. Improving environmental performance by means of empowerment of
contractors. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2006, 17, 242–257. [CrossRef]
32. Lambert, G. Never Tire of Saving Energy! ISO 50001 Is a Win-Win for Bridgestone; ISO Central Secretariat:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/
news.htm?refid=Ref1723 (accessed on 2 June 2013).
33. Straughan, M. Bentley First with ISO 50001 Car Maker Implements Energy Management Standard; ISO Central
Secretariat: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/
news_archive/news.htm?Refid=Ref1523 (accessed on 2 June 2013).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1740 15 of 15

34. Chiu, T.Y.; Lo, S.L.; Tsai, Y.Y. Establishing an integration-energy-practice model for improving energy
performance indicators in ISO 50001 energy management systems. Energies 2012, 5, 5324–5339. [CrossRef]
35. Perez, O.; Amichai-Hamburger, Y.; Shterental, T. The Dynamic of Corporate Self-Regulation: ISO 14001,
Environmental Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Law Soc. Rev. 2009, 43, 593–630.
[CrossRef]
36. Radonjič, G.; Tominc, P. The role of environmental management system on introduction of new technologies
in the metal and chemical/paper/plastics industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1482–1493. [CrossRef]
37. Tan, L.P. Implementing ISO 14001: Is it beneficial for firms in newly industrialized Malaysia? J. Clean. Prod.
2005, 13, 397–404. [CrossRef]
38. Zeng, S.X.; Tam, C.M.; Tam, V.W.; Deng, Z.M. Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental
management systems in selected industries in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 645–656. [CrossRef]
39. Chavan, M. An appraisal of environment management systems: A competitive advantage for small
businesses. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2005, 16, 444–463. [CrossRef]
40. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.;
Pearson Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005.
41. Casadesus, M.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Karapetrovic, S. The 9000 with 9000: An Analysis of the Impact of the ISO
9000 Standard in Catalonia; Center for Innovation and Business Development: Passeig de Gràcia, Barcelona,
2008.
42. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Allyn and Bacon: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
43. Boiral, O.; Marie-Josée, R. ISO 9000: Integration rationales and organizational impacts. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 226–247. [CrossRef]
44. Marimon Viadiu, F.; Casadesús Fa, M. Heras Saizarbitoria, I. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards:
An international diffusion model. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 141–165. [CrossRef]
45. Llach, J.; Marimon, F.; Bernardo, M. ISO 9001 diffusion analysis according to activity sectors. Ind. Manag.
Data Syst. 2011, 111, 298–316. [CrossRef]
46. Casadesús, M.; Karapetrovic, S. An empirical study of the benefits and costs of ISO 9001: 2000 compared to
ISO 9001/2/3: 1994. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2005, 16, 105–120. [CrossRef]
47. Allur, E.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Casadesús, M. Internalization of ISO 9001: A longitudinal survey. Ind. Manag.
Data Syst. 2014, 114, 872–885. [CrossRef]
48. Bunse, K.; Vodicka, M.; Schönsleben, P.; Brülhart, M.; Ernst, F.O. Integrating energy efficiency performance
in production management–Gap analysis between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod.
2011, 19, 667–679. [CrossRef]
49. Seyfang, G. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks.
J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 383–395. [CrossRef]
50. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).