Given that the aim of the article is to better understand why companies drop out from a standardized EMS, in this paragraph, results from studies investigating critical aspects of ISO 14001 and EMAS EMSs are summarized.
Scholars also analyzed differences in the impact of the two EMS certifications. Generally, the adoption of the two standards is motivated by different factors. ISO 14001 is mainly motivated by external factors, such as industry associations and client pressures. On the other hand, EMAS is more internally driven, and it can be considered a premium standard [
11]. Moreover, according to Heras-Saizarbitoria
et al. (2015), EMAS is more internally focused. Firms aim to obtain positive outcomes from improved internal processes [
19]. Generally, a firm’s size influences the internalization of proactive environmental practices. Small firms and micro-firms tend to adopt proactive measures mainly driven by external pressures and may be driven by clients’ requirements and competitors’ choices [
20].
The main goal of EMSs is the improvement of environmental performances. Daddi
et al. (2014) investigated the effect of ISO 14001 and EMAS in terms of the reduction of environmental impacts. Both systems have a positive impact in energy-intensive industries. Nevertheless, ISO 14001 is more effective in the short term, while EMAS firms obtain better results in the long run [
21].
2.1. ISO 14001: Firms’ Constraints and Difficulties
ISO 14001 is the most common EMS certification. Worldwide, over 300,000 companies are certified with this standard in over 170 countries [
22]. The rate of growth of the certification has constantly increased since its came into being and, together with ISO 9001, it is the main global management standard [
23]. Recently, the growth has been faster in developing countries and in the Far East, which started to promote the standard to increase firms’ competitiveness and, thus, exports [
24].
Concerning different sectors, the standard’s diffusion is quite homogeneous worldwide. Moreover, there is no imbalance among activities over time. However, sectors with a higher spread of certification are “basic metal and fabricated metal products”, “electrical and optical equipment”, the “food industry” and “machinery and transport” [
25].
Many surveys have been conducted to investigate firms’ perceptions of the certification. The results of these studies vary significantly in relation to a company’s sector, dimension and national context [
14,
26,
27].
Some studies, described in the next paragraph, focus on specific countries, while others contain an international sample of organizations. Moreover, the aspects investigated may differ between drivers, benefits and critical aspects of ISO 14001 certification. The literature review performed on the certification did not identify any study that focused on the analysis of reasons and motivations behind a firm’s decision to drop out of ISO 14001.
The application of the standard is not necessarily followed by net benefits for companies. In some cases a negative outcome was reported due to the non-realization of expected benefits [
18,
28]. One of the main constraints in evaluating the certification concerns the uncertainty of the benefits generated [
29]. The EMS brings some long-term and immaterial benefits that seem difficult to estimate, such as company reputation and avoidance of accidents [
30,
31,
32]. He
et al. (2015), analyzing the financial performances of firms adopting ISO 14001, state that it is still unclear whether its adoption determines a net economic value [
33]. Moreover, it is quite complicated to calculate the environmental improvements directly linked to the system’s implementation [
14,
34,
35]. According to Arena, Azzone and Platti (2012), the standard seems to be particularly ineffective in response to clients’ requests, implementation of a green marketing strategy and cost reductions [
36]. In addition, companies encounter several difficulties when implementing the EMSs. First, costs of implementation and maintenance are often higher than expected, especially for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) [
28,
31,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41]. Another barrier is the complexity of operations and methodologies required to implement the EMS, especially when there is a lack of internal staff expertise [
18,
30,
37,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44]. Also, the necessary compliance with legislation is a significant barrier to implementation [
32]. Other difficulties concern organizational structure and culture as well as low commitment of management [
18,
28,
31,
45,
46,
47]. Disadvantages of certification also concern a lack of market recognition, difficulties in meeting stakeholders’ and consumers’ demands, and inefficient external communication activities [
18,
41]. Some surveys pointed out that companies often remark on the lack of governmental and institutional support [
18,
30,
42,
47,
48].
Another interesting aspect to consider is the case of the abandonment of Integrated Management Systems (IMS). The main difficulties in implementing IMS are the complexity of organizational systems, organizational problems, overabundant documentation, and the initial cost [
49]. Moreover, critical issues are the lack of integration guidelines, lack of expertise, lack of management commitment, and difficulty in assigning the correct level of importance to all management system dimensions [
50,
51]. Gianni and Gotzamani (2015) investigated the case of an IMS’s failure. The authors found out that the main reason for dropping out of the system was the missing and/or unevaluated strategic perception of it, showed by the top management [
52].
2.2. EMAS: Firms’ Constraints and Difficulties
In 2012, Heras-Saizarbitoria
et al. (2015) obtained 361 responses from Spanish EMAS organizations through a survey (with a response rate of 26.66%). The goal was to analyze the intention of Spanish organizations to renew EMAS registration, analyzing motivations, obstacles and benefits of the regulation. Over 11% of respondents affirmed that they will not renew the registration, while 45% expressed doubts on the future renewal. The authors found out that the renewal rate is positively correlated with significant internal reasons to improve organizations’ environmental performances. On the other hand, the costs sustained to obtain EMAS are not significant in terms of the decision to maintain it in the future. Moreover, EMAS adoption seems to be mainly driven by public incentives: firms that received incentives have a higher likelihood to not renew it [
53].
In the EVER (Evaluation of EMAS and Eco-label for their Revision) study, some organizations that dropped out of EMAS were interviewed. One of the main reasons to not renew the EMS was that there is no perceived added value with respect to ISO 14001 (which is more often required by clients) [
54].
Specifically considering the analysis of the reasons for dropping out of EMAS, Ahsen, Von Lange and Pianovski conducted telephone interviews with organizations that did not renewed the scheme in Northrhine-Westfalia [
55]. The most frequent reason for dropping out of EMAS was that “the public does not care about environmental statements”. Secondly, companies are “disappointed about the low degree of regulatory relief” offered to EMAS-registered companies. Lastly, nearly half of the interviewees stressed that they have certified their environmental management systems according to ISO 14001 [
55].
In 2009, Vernon
et al. used a questionnaire to interview 25 European organizations that withdrew from EMAS. The most important reason to leave the scheme was the unclear or insufficient benefits to justify registration, followed by the preference for other types of EMSs and a lack of internal management culture. Other important elements identified are the lack of incentives from member states and the cost of implementation and registration. The respondents also pointed out that supply customers no longer require EMAS registration [
56].