Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
32
Proposition 2.
The degree of integration of environmental protection objective in
manufacturing strategy and, therefore, the ability to comply with preventive command-
and-control regulation, depends on the level of environmental development in the
automotive sector.
Defining the environmental performance is not a simple task. CEDASA and Valeo have
systems for measuring their environmental activity. CEDASA try to evaluate the level of
compliance with regulation. Valeo, on the other hand, focuses more on the preventive
aspects of environmental management. Peugeot has systematic measurement about its
environmental performance. Peugeot is audited annually by an external body about said
indicators. Previous research considers this situation as an environmental development
indicator (Brío and Junquera 2003). Then, we can draw the following hypothesis:
Proposition 3.
Indicators for measuring the environmental performance at automotive
companies depend on their degree of development in this area. Compliance with
preventive command-and-control regulation requires the definition of ad hoc ways to
measure the environmental performance.
We have discovered that the external pressure felt by the companies, conditions, to a
fair degree, the development of their environmental strategy. Peugeot has acknowledged
that it cannot allow public repercussions over any environmental irregularity, while
CEDASA recognizes that it does not suffer from any strong external pressure in
environmental terms, while at Valeo the situation is not as easy. Other studies
(Henriques and Sadorsky 1999) have already analysed external influence on companies’
environmental responses, but none of them have focused on the automotive industry.
We can therefore arrive at the following proposition from that set out above:
Proposition 4.
The greater the external environmental pressure felt by the component
supplier companies and by the manufacturers, the more they will develop an
environmental strategy, and, therefore, the greater will be their ability to comply with
preventive command-and-control regulation.
The introduction of the most preventive environmental policies has resulted in greater
formalisation of some procedures. Said issues have been seen by Kitazawa and Sarkis
(2000) in their case studies. CEDASA and Valeo show the new environmental
requirements have led to an increased formalisation of procedures to begin the process
of raising employees’ awareness. Likewise, Peugeot points out the high level of process
formalisation because of the new environmental requirements. From this, we can draw a
further conclusion:
Proposition 5.
A greater difficulty of the production planning is a characteristic of the
introduction of environmental preventive approaches in automotive sector where the new
preventive command-and-control regulation is mandatory.
Generally, this kind of environmental regulation is acknowledged important competitive
effects in the short term. In order to adapt a company’s activity to the new regulations, it
implements technical and organisational actions, whose combination is very useful
(Angell and Klassen 1999). In this sense, CEDASA and Valeo have carried out technical
and organisational changes. Peugeot was committed, together with other European
automobile manufacturers, to controlling greenhouse gases. This challenge was and is a
corporative priority and is being carried out through innovative technology in its diesel
and petrol engines. From the aforementioned we can conclude that only a combination
