squeezing strategy into a small organisation

SQUEEZING STRATEGY INTO ASMALL ORGANISATION

Lisa Andrews, Brunel University, Uxbridge, and Jason Palmer, Eclipse ResearchConsultants, Cambridge, UK

Small organizations face enormouspressures on their time and money. Thisoften shuts doors of opportunity andconfines them to a small space: thinkingonly about day to day operations andmissing the wider (more long-term)picture. Yet to address environmentalissues coherently, an organization needs tostep back from fire-fighting; to thinkstrategically. Here, a method that succeededin helping a small organization to lose itsmyopia and draw up a strategy isdescribed. The fruits of the process are alsopresented in terms of the definition of acorporate environmental strategy,summarizing this as a mission statementbefore clarifying specific areas for actionwithin a written set of aims as anenvironmental policy.

OVERVIEW

Asmall Warwickshire company employing22 people operates in the field of environ-mental technology, manufacturing clean=-

clean-up technology widgets that reduce andrecover water-borne pollutants. It did not have awritten environmental strategy or policy.

Two facilitators ran a tightly structured work-shop aimed at: (i) defining a corporate environ-mental strategy; (ii) summarizing this as a missionstatement; and (iii) clarifying specific areas foraction within a written set of aims as an environ-mental policy.

The workshop lasted two and a half hours (fur-ther details in Appendix 1: Programme and Run-ning the Workshop). Four company employeeswere involved: one senior management and threewith operational responsibility (one from theworkshop floor, the factory chemist and the salesmanager). The participants were asked to completea preparatory questionnaire before coming to theworkshop (Appendix 2). The questionnaire aimedto get them thinking about strategy and to helpthem consider their own motivation for having anenvironmental strategy.

INTRODUCTION

Many small organizations fail to spend time con-sidering their impact on the environment, and donot have a clear strategy for improving theirenvironmental performance (Hillary, 1995). Thereare three main reasons for this: intense pressure onresources, a lack of technical expertise and a lack ofawareness of environmental issues. This researchaimed to test the hypothesis that an external in-

CCC 0968-9427/97/010015–07 $17.50# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Eco-Management and Auditing, Vol. 4, 15–21 (1997)

ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDITING

fluence can prompt an organization into actionby drawing up—and implementing—an environ-mental strategy. We drew up an eight-point actionplan to achieve our aim (Table 1).

THE COMPANY

The company selected was attuned to environ-mental issues. Indeed, it designs and manufacturesequipment that minimizes the environmentalimpact of specific waste streams and recovers somewastes for potential recycling.

Thus there is a broad awareness among man-agers of the emerging ‘green’ agenda, and a will-ingness to improve environmental performancewhere practicable—as long as it does not take uptoo much time or involve financial investments. Asfor the majority of small and medium-sized enter-prises (SMEs) (Palmer, 1996), pressure on resourcesis very intense, and cash flow can be problematic.

Company management

The company proved to be run mainly informally,with a lot of ad hoc, devolved decision-making. Theoperational employees appeared to have the con-fidence to operate autonomously and to takeimportant decisions without referring to seniormanagement. Only when their decisions have aneffect on the whole company—or cost implica-tions—do individuals approach the MD. In these

situations, they seem to go armed with a plan forchange for the MD to accept or reject. Most deci-sions and proposals are completely unwritten.

Two exceptions to the rule of informal decision-making are the health and safety procedures—aimed at meeting COSHH legislation—and thenew procedure for expense claims. The health andsafety procedures are clearly documented, asrequired by law. However, the procedures are stillgenerated from the bottom up: the chemist—whohas no line management authority—writes theprocedures and has them checked by the personwith responsibility for health and safety manage-ment. The expense claim procedure, on the otherhand, was generated top-down. Here, seniormanagement drew up a written guideline formaking claims without consulting those whowould be affected. It was not well received andprovoked suspicion and ill-feeling.

Current environmental action

The company is acutely aware of the risk fromchemicals being released into the environment.Most employees are aware that they cannot simplypour their liquid wastes down the drain. They arelooking at the possibilities for technology thatcould reduce airborne emissions, particularly sol-vents.

Partly motivated through thrift, employees areencouraged to remove components from equip-ment that is no longer in use and reuse them. Ofcourse, this reduces the quantity of waste andconservesthe raw materials that went into the old equipment.The company also reuses packaging as much aspossible.

The factory floor has improved energy efficiencyby making use of natural light: there is a skylight inthe roof. Unfortunately, however, the roof is notwell insulated and the loss of heat probably offsetsany gains from the use of natural light. Finally, thecompany has chosen an efficient fuel for transport:diesel.

Scope for improvement

The employees identified three areas where theyfelt that their environmental management could beimproved. Firstly, they felt that tightening up thedefinitions of lines of responsibility and jobdescriptions would be beneficial. Secondly, andclosely related, the need for additional commu-nication is specifically identified. Most of the gen-eral staff lack an understanding of environmentalissues. Some form of education and training wouldbe useful in introducing them to the issues. In

Table 1. Eight-point action plan.

1 Identify ‘prime movers’, people with influencewho can act as change agents—not necessarilyfrom top management

2 Test prime movers’ response to idea of having anenvironmental strategy

3 Invite the six most enthusiastic (or least reluc-tant) to a half-day forum=workshop

4 Prepare the structure for workshop; aim atensuring consensus and ownership

5 Send short preparatory questionnaire (seeAppendix 2: Questionnaire) to participants:four or five questions on one page to find outprecisely what they want from an environmentalstrategy

6 Collate and analyse results from the preparatorysheets

7 Run workshop—which will include decisionson, and writing of (a) the environmental mission,an over-arching statement of intent (Crosbie andKnight, 1995)(b) a policy, including a set of broad aims(c) more specific objectives over a defined timeperiod; perhaps over the next 12 months

8 Write up the results for the company: their ownenvironmental strategy, policy and specific objec-tives

STRATEGY IN SMALL ORGANIZATIONS

16 ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDITING

addition, this would help to motivate them to actmore responsibly. The group was unsure aboutnew legislation and how it affects them—and thiswas true of the company as a whole. They felt thatthis was something that should be addressed, butdid not mention it in their policy.

CORE BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

After a brief introduction explaining what anenvironmental strategy is and its role in an orga-nization, the group spent some time consideringthe company’s core business objectives. The parti-cipants were asked to brainstorm the main objec-tives for the business as a whole: what the realpriorities are for the decision-makers. This wasintended to help them take a step back from theirday to day responsibilities and adopt a long termperspective.

There was a split between the perspectives ofthose with operational responsibility and thosewith strategic responsibility. The three from theoper-ational side were initially unsure about thecompany’s core objectives. They appeared not tohave covered this ground before. They even arguedthat it was not their place to try to define thesestrategic objectives—this being the role of seniormanagement. In contrast, the representative fromsenior management had evidently rehearsed thebusiness’s real objectives before. He drew up a (lessdetailed) set of objectives without hesitation; his setappeared to be more coherent than the list hiscolleagues had sketched out. None of the peopleworking on the operational side objected to any ofhis points.

Although technology was obviously importantto the three with operational responsibility, theyfound it difficult to translate this into a businessobjective. The senior manager had no such pro-blem.

Operational employees’ set of core businessobjectives

The employees working outside of senior man-agement produced the set of objectives shown inTable 2.

Senior manager’s set of core business objectives

The senior manager generated a different set ofcore business objectives. (Table 3). He also recog-nized that the company would always operate inniche markets. The group was unanimous thateconomic viability is the objective assigned mostweight in decision-making.

Legislation also emerged as a major concern. Theemployees were aware of the shortfalls in theirknowledge base and that they were not familiarwith all aspects of legislation that affect the com-pany. Yet staying within the boundaries of what isdefined by law as acceptable practice was veryimportant to them for two reasons: (i) becauseinfringements of environmental legislation couldresult in fines and direct impacts on the bottomline; and (ii) because the adverse publicity putssales at risk—especially for a company offeringproducts aimed at environmental protection.

Equally important was a concern for the well-being of the staff. They were clear that threats to thehealth of the employees should be kept to a mini-mum—this concern came out implicitly as a higherpriority than good environmental performance.However, at least one participant recognized thatthere are links between environmental manage-ment and health and safety inasmuch as that thesame substances can prove dangerous to bothpeople working inside the factory and the widerenvironment outside.

Perceived ability to influence change

There was disagreement among the participantsabout how the company could influence theenvironmental performance of their suppliers.

Table 2. Core business objectives: operational employees.

1 Generating profits and maintaining a healthybusiness. This in turn provides security for bothstaff and shareholders

2 Designing and manufacturing a product for themarket

3 Identifying niche markets for diversification andexpansion

4 Developing innovative technologies with aproactive approach towards research and devel-opment

5 Maintaining and expanding the company’s mar-ket share

6 Position of leadership in the markets of interest:providing the best available service, or, failingthis, to co-operate and establish a working rela-tionship with the market leader

Table 3. Core business objectives: senior manager.

1 To ensure long-term profitability and security foremployees and shareholders

2 To continue as the market leader in sectorswhere the company is established, and tobecome the leader in new sectors

3 To look actively for new market opportunities4 To continue the company’s innovative thinking

and research and development

L. ANDREWS AND J. PALMER

ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDITING 17

Some thought that their small size—and smallpurchasing power—meant that there was very littlescope for applying pressure. However, oneemployee cited examples of how he had persuadedthe suppliers he dealt with to change, albeit not forenvironmental reasons.

DISCUSSING THE STRATEGY

A key point for the first part of the discussion waswhether the organization should adopt a strategyof simply ‘seen to be green’, or whether it shouldgo beyond that and change its practices. The groupelected for the latter: they are not concerned aboutthe environment for PR=marketing reasons aloneand they recognize that there are other (business)advantages that result from good environmentalmanagement, e.g. cost reductions and good healthand safety.

The group made a conscious decision for theirenvironmental policy to be an internal document. Itwould not be broadcast beyond the factory gatesother than in exceptional circumstances—forexample, in response to specific queries from cli-ents. As such it would only address internal issuesand thus it would not engage with many of thepoints that came up in the list of core businessobjectives; these are externally focused.

A consensus emerged that the participantswanted the strategy to address two issues: toensure that the company meets existing legal andvoluntary conditions; and to ensure that the com-pany meets legal and voluntary conditions of thefuture. By ‘voluntary conditions’, the group meantall those things that can be done to reduce theenvironmental impact, but where there is no cur-rent legislation. It was not referring to voluntarystandards or charters for environmental manage-ment. When prompted, the group acknowledgedthat there were some opportunities for improvingenvironmental performance that they could nottake up. An example was the potential forimproving the energy efficiency of heating andlighting. The main reason for inaction was thefinancial constraint—accentuated by extremereluctance from the top management to make anyinvestment. This was not likely to change andshould therefore also be reflected in thestrategy.

So the strategy conceived by the group could becharacterized as ‘compliance plus’ (Crosbie andKnight, 1996): making sure that the company doesnot get its fingers burnt by breaking the law, safe-guarding the health of employees, while also tak-ing other simple (no cost) steps aimed at improving

performance where there is a clear incentive fordoing so.

The facilitators explained the value of integratingthe environmental strategy and policy with the corebusiness objectives. In spite of this advice the par-ticipants made a conscious decision to separate thetwo. Further, in the policy they chose not to includehooks that could link it to the business objectives.Their rationale was that the strategy should main-tain its internal focus—something they deemedimpossible if it were to draw on other, broader,objectives. However, the participants agreed that itwas necessary to avoid any conflict between thebusiness and the environmental strategy. Returningto the results from the brainstorming session andcomparing them closely with the strategy andpolicy showed that there was a good match: nochanges were required. Moreover, the references towaste minimization and improving efficiency pro-vide a link between the two.

The comparison iteration proved to be useful foranother reason: the group decided to refer to theenvironmental strategy within their core businessobjectives. In this way they could bring theirenvironmental position to those outside the com-pany.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

The facilitators guided the group towards crystal-lizing their strategy as a written mission statementand set of aims—this was to be compiled into anenvironmental policy. Firstly, they were asked toconsider precisely what environmental issues wereimportant to the company. Next, they boiled downtheir broad aims to encapsulate them in just one ortwo sentences. Then we encouraged them to think

Table 4. Environmental policy

The company takes a stance to meet all legal andvoluntary conditions relating to environmental con-trol and is seen to do so. The company will aim to:

� reduce liquid waste to a minimum where possi-ble, with alternative responsible disposal inaccordance with the Duty of Care

� reuse=recycle solid waste wherever opportu-nities afford themselves

� quantify environmental emissions across allmedia and improve where necessary

� minimize energy and water consumption� comply with relevant future environmental leg-

islation� develop comprehensive and effective communi-

cation channels and procedures via ongoingtraining and staff awareness of environmentalissues



about how they might address the issues: theiraims for environmental management.

The group identified its key aims as: reducingwater pollution; reusing and recycling solid waste;reducing air pollution; improving energy effi-ciency; improving health; improving safety, andemployee awareness of the environment. Buildingon the list, the group formulated their environ-mental policy in the mission statement and aims asshown in Table 4.

WORKSHOP DYNAMICS

The workshop itself was split into two partsbecause the senior management representative wasdelayed. The group’s dynamics changed when thesenior manager arrived: although at first theoperational employees had been comfortable talk-ing about the business’s objectives, they werereticent to do so in his presence.

When the senior manager entered, two of thethree operational managers continued with thesame level of input to the discussion, but the thirdclammed up a little, presumably put off by thepresence of the senior manager. The senior man-ager also snatched control of the workshop’sstructure from the facilitators at one point. He alsoquestioned some of the work completed in hisabsence—though he let it stand unaltered.

The senior manager disagreed with his collea-gues about the role of the staff on the workshopfloor and how much they needed to know toaddress environmental issues. He thought that theywould not be interested in an environmentalstrategy and that a set of rules was appropriate as amechanism for them to act responsibly. In contrast,the others thought that the general staff should betrained in the environmental aspects of their work,and that once they understood the issues, theywould act without coercion. The conflicting view-points were not resolved.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE WORKSHOPAND QUESTIONNAIRE

The workshop was successful insofar as it focusedthe minds of the participants on the corporatestance they wanted to take. They managed to dis-tance themselves from their day to day activitiesand look to longer time horizons. The workshopalso delivered two fundamental written compo-nents of an environmental strategy: a missionstatement and a policy. The participants appearedto be positive about the outcomes, one describing

the morning as ‘useful’. In addition, those withoutstrategic responsibility seemed to learn from, andappreciate, the opportunity to take on a new per-spective. One of them also intimated that he plan-ned to use the written policy as an internal lever toapply pressure on senior management—as arepresentative from senior management wasendorsing it, he hoped that it would prove to be apersuasive reminder about commitment.

We felt very positive about the level of commit-ment from those with operational responsibilities:they were enthusiastic and took the workshopseriously. However, we were slightly disappointedabout the content of the strategy: it was not asdemanding or innovative as we had hoped. Fur-ther, the defensive strategy drawn up really onlyformalizes what is happening already.

This apart, the workshop was successful for us asfacilitators. We saw the textbook formulae beingapplied in a practical business context, togetherwith how constraints on finances and time limit theoptions open to a small business.

The questionnaire was heavily criticized by theparticipants. They described it as being unclear,and found some vocabulary to be ambiguous—additional guidance was needed. That said, theyfelt that they handled it and understood it betterthan another company might because they areinvolved in environmental technology and so arefamiliar with the concepts. They also disliked theuse of open questions, preferring instead morebullets. However, this would have reduced theoptions for information that they could haveincluded in their answers. It would also haveresulted in more leading questions which wouldultimately devalue the responses. Admittedly, itwould have made the questionnaire easier andquicker to complete; it would have required lessthought. However, making the participants thinkwas one of the main goals of the questionnaire. Avisible statement explaining that their answerswould be kept in confidence was also requested.

NEXT STEPS

At the end of the workshop, the facilitators tried toprompt the group into making a decision aboutwhat they would do next. We tried to steer theminto drawing up targets or actions of some kind.They were very reluctant to do so in our presence.The representative from senior management saidthat they would set a single target for action, butthat they would do so alone. He said that any morethan one was out of the question because of theircurrent workload and financial implications.Apparently they normally try to tackle one target at



a time, the environment was no different fromother issues, and they would have set one targeteven without our prompting.

The group agreed to us contacting them again innine months to establish what had happened as aresult of the workshop, and to provide assistance inrefining or advancing the environmental strategy.

The group agreed that the policy would be dis-played on the workshop floor, but they doubtedthat this would have any impact on the generalstaff: the health and safety legislation is displayedfor all to see, but general staff rarely look at it.

CONCLUSIONS

The workshop provided an opportunity for mem-bers of the company to solidify their fairly neb-ulous thoughts on the business’s relationship withthe environment. They focused on realistic optionsfor change within the framework of their corebusiness objectives. This allowed them to agree on,and write down, an environmental strategy com-prising a mission statement and a policy. Despitethe outside influences from facilitators, the policywas entirely self-generated; the facilitators limitedtheir input as far as possible and concentrated onproviding a structure for discussion. This meansthat the strategy should be accepted (at least by thissub-group of employees) in the company assomething they own. This will make it more likelyto have an effect on action.

Although we have reservations about the qualityof the mission statement and policy, they representa valuable first step in defining the strategy. Theydo not reveal the much wider considerations thegroup went through before reaching the point atwhich they could commit pen to paper. They donot show how the workshop highlighted the needfor better communication, and a better under-standing of legislation. It remains to be seen whe-ther the company will address these issues whichare not captured in the written strategy.

The informal nature of the workshop meant thatthe participants found it easy to contribute. Thefocused structure made them feel positive aboutthe workshop and strategy and helped some ofthem to extend their time horizons. The positivefeeling and new longer term perspective may haveknock-on effects that help to drive forward thecompany’s environmental initiative.

This research has shown our original hypothesisto be true: in this case an outside influence didprompt a small organization into drawing up anenvironmental strategy.

REFERENCES

Crosbie, L. and Knight, K. (1995) Strategy for SustainableBusiness: Environmental Opportunity and StrategicChoice, McGraw-Hill, London.

Hillary, R. (1995) Small Firms and the Environment: aGroundwork Status Report, Groundwork, Birmingham.

Palmer, J. (1996) Angling for Green Firms: An Assessment ofAction and Attitudes Among SMEs in East Anglia,Eclipse Research Consultants Internal Working Paper,ERC, Cambridge.

BIOGRAPHY

Lisa Andrews, Department of Chemistry, Brunel Uni-versity, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK. Tel.: 0189527400, ext. 2481. Fax.: 01895 256844.Jason Palmer, Eclipse Research Consultants, Cambridge,UK. Tel.: 01223 351485. Fax.: 01223 351487.

APPENDIX 1: RUNNING THE WORKSHOP

Session 1: strategic aims

The first half of the workshop used the ques-tionnaire responses to build consensus about thecorrect direction for the company’s environmentalstrategy. It also aimed to transform these responsesinto a coherent set of aims.

1 Introduction: the role of an environmental strat-egy

2 Outline (or brainstorm) of core business objectives3 Present results of preparatory questionnaire: sum-

marize all responses from four sections andemphasize most frequent references

4 Consider core business objectives alongside theenvironmental policy references to identify com-mon ground and areas of disagreement. Focus onthe common ground and try to reach con-sensus—this will define direction for the envir-onmental strategy

5 Attempt to tease a set of aims from the statedconsensus

6 Coffee—meanwhile facilitators clarify and displaythe aims so that participants can comment.

Session 2: mission and policy

The second half of the workshop remodelled theresults of the first session into a draft Environ-mental Mission and Policy. It also gave participantsthe chance to revise the draft and to decide what todo next.

1 Boil down and simplify the aims into one sen-tence that encapsulates the organization’s Envir-onmental Mission



2 Check that the Environmental Mission is compat-ible with core business objectives and the set ofaims

3 Compile the Environmental Mission and set ofaims as a draft policy and display it clearly forcomment

4 Discuss and revise the draft Environmental Mis-sion and Policy

5 Final assessment: check that Mission and Policymatch the core business objectives; check con-sensus is positive about each of the above; anddecide on next steps, allocate responsibility andset deadlines

6 Facilitators’ conclusion and assessment of themorning. [Explaining that an environmentalstrategy is incomplete without translating aimsinto action by setting specific targets, withdeadlines. If the participants feel that this is in-appropriate for them, set up an opportunity todiscuss target setting

7 Participants’ feedback and assessment of themorning.

APPENDIX 2: STRATEGY WORKSHOPPREPARATORY QUESTIONNAIRE

This sheet is designed to make the forthcomingpolicy writing workshop as productive as possible–and to ensure that the workshop meets your needsand expectations. We would like you to answer thefollowing questions—they will take less than fiveminutes. Please provide as much detail as you can.Write on the reverse if you need to.

1 What exactly do you want from your environ-mental policy? (Please circle)� to find ways of cutting costs

� to reduce your environmental impact� to show a responsible corporate stance� to win support for greening from the whole

firm

Is there anything else you would like it to achieve?Please explain your answer(s)

2 What format will it take? (Please circle)� use it only in-house� send it to existing=potential customers� distribute it wider, to any interested parties

Other commentsPlease explain your answer(s)

3 How is your policy usually formulated? (Pleasecircle)� top-down—from the MD, with a specific

manager authorized to formulate and oversee� it grows from the roots; emerging from con-

sensus built through all-inclusive discussion

Other commentsPlease explain your answer(s)

4 What are the key environmental issues for theorganization? (Please circle)� packaging� water consumption� raw material inputs� energy efficiency� water pollution� solid waste� transport� air pollution� other (please state)

What other issues do you want the policy toaddress?Please explain your answer(s)



squeezing strategy into a small organisation

Documents