۱٫ Introduction

۲٫ Background

۳٫ Method

۴٫ Findings and discussion

۵٫ Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

This paper systematically reviews the drivers, implementation processes and performance outcomes of environmental management systems (EMS) in small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from a management accounting and control (MAC) stance. It finds that there are various contextual, control and performance themes which require research attention. Regarding context, there is the need to: a) explore the relationship between firm size and the development of sustainability tools; b) assess the impact of context for better environmental performance and c) on adoption motivations; and d) explore how EMS affect corporate and individual accountability. Regarding control, there is the need to: a) theoretically explore the control typologies for SMEs; b) better understand the type (i.e. formal or informal) and nature (i.e. tight or flexible) of this control; and c) develop understandings of socio-ideological controls for improved sustainability. Finally, regarding performance, there is the need to: a) understand how environmental performance is defined and the interaction between its dimensions; and b) explore the relationship between EMS and environmental performance in SMEs. The paper serves as a first step to understanding MAC in SMEs, highlighting contemporary issues that are relevant for academic and professional sustainability practice.

Introduction

Over recent years, much research has been conducted on the adoption and implementation of environmental management systems (EMS) in small to mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). Regarded as ‘voluntary’ certification schemes, EMS support the integration of sustainability into corporate policy (Hahn et al., 2015). In the management accounting and control (MAC) literature, EMS are seen as part of a broader framework of accounting tools to strategically improve both financial and nonfinancial performance outcomes (see Guenther et al., 2016) or as “management controls that arise from compliance frameworks” (Ahrens and Khalifa, 2015, p. 15). Nevertheless, research into EMS rarely features in the MAC stream (see HerasSaizarbitoria et al., 2011), even though EMS are increasingly adopted by firms – big and small – to demonstrate environment management in particular and sustainable development in general (see Aragón-Correa et al., 2008).

Defined in Europe as companies with less than 250 employees or a turnover of ≤ €۵۰m (2003/361/EC), SMEs are important to the world economically, ecologically and socially (Stubblefield Loucks et al., 2010). SMEs constitute around 99% of Europe’s businesses, employ two-thirds of its citizens (Airaksinen et al., 2015) and, more crucially, generate most of its environmental pollution (ECAP; Kearins et al., 2010). Nevertheless, research into environmental management in SMEs is lacking from a MAC stance (Lavia López and Hiebl, 2015; Ghosh et al., 2019). Particularly, sustainability MAC research tends to focus on large firms with established control systems or fails to differentiate between firm size (e.g. Henri and Journeault, 2010; Pondeville, Swaen and De Rongé, ۲۰۱۳; Crutzen, Zvezdov and Schaltegger, 2017). However, SMEs are characteristically distinct from larger firms in terms of size, ownership, strategy, structure, resources, internal systems (Hillary, 2004; Stubblefield Loucks et al., 2010), and – as some argue – attitudes towards environmental issues (Perez‐Sanchez, Barton and Bower, 2003). Consequently, the tools developed for larger firms are often difficult for SMEs to operationalise (Jenkins, 2004) and downscale to their needs (Stubblefield Loucks et al., 2010; Lavia López and Hiebl 2015).