Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Implementation of International Standards for Environmental Management in Visegrad Countries: a Comparative Analysis



The paper aims at identifying the importance and relevant practices related to international standards for environmental management system (EMS) in the countries of the Visegrad Group (including Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary).

A review of mainstream literature on EMS will be conducted followed by document-based research as well as statistics database used as the methodological approach. Data will be gathered through the evaluation of Eurostat database and ISO Surveys.

The international comparison facilitates the evaluation of current implementation of EMS as well as contributes to the identification of the main possibilities and limitations for its development. The implementation of EMS according to the ISO 14000 and EMAS can help companies to find solutions that support processes of environmental changes with the purpose to improve corporate innovativeness and competitiveness.

This work is limited to the evaluation of statistical data. Further, the detailed empirical research based on case study approach and indepth semi-structured interviews is needed to explain the difficulties experienced and benefits accrued during implementation of EMS.

This article contributes to existing literature on corporate sustainable development by applying environmental management systems to the practices of entrepreneurs that have a goal of environmental sustainability.


L15, L21, Q56


Author Biography

Maria Urbaniec

PhD in economics, assistant professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Cracow University of Economics (Poland).


  1. Brauweiler, J. (2010). Umweltmanagementsysteme nach ISO 14001 und EMAS. In M. Kramer (Ed.), Integratives Umweltmanagement (pp. 279-299). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
  2. Chen, Y.-S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 531-543.
  3. DG Environment of the European Commission (2009). Study on the Costs and Benefits of EMAS to Registered Organisations, Final Report Study Contract No. 07.0307/2008/517800/ETU/G.2, Milieu Ltd and Risk and Policy Analysis Ltd, Brussels.
  4. Delmas, M., & Toffel, M.W. (2004). Stakeholder and environmental management practices: an institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209-222.
  5. European Commission (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels.
  6. European Commission (2011). EMAS and ISO 14001: complementarities and differences, European Commission, Brussels. European Commission (2012). 2012 Environmental Statement - 2011 Results, Brussels.
  7. European Commission (2014). Organisations and sites with EMAS registration, DG Environment (online data code: tsdpc410). Retrieved on March 11, 2014, from page/portal/environment/data/main_tables.
  8. Fura, B. (2013). Improving ISO 14001 Environmental management systems. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 22(6), 1711-1721.
  9. International Organization for Standardization (2009). Environmental management: The ISO 14000 family of International Standards, ISO Central Secretariat, Geneve.
  10. International Organization for Standardization (2012). The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications – 2012, Geneve. Retrieved on March 11, 2014, from [15 January 2014].
  11. Jenkis, H. (2009). A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), 21-36.
  12. Matuszak-Flejszman, A. (2009). Benefits of environmental management system in polish companies compliant with ISO 14001. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 18(3), 411- 419.
  13. Nawrocka, D. & Parker, T. (2009). Finding the connection: Environmental management systems and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 601-607.
  14. OECD (2014). An Overview of Corporate Environmental Management Practices, Joint Study by the OECD Secretariat and EIRIS, Retrieved on January 15, 2014, from inv/corporateresponsibility/18269204.pdf.
  15. Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(4), 187-199.
  16. Regulation EC No. 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001.
  17. Regulation EC No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC.
  18. Urbaniec, M. (2008). Umweltinnovationen durch Kooperationen - am Beispiel einer freiwilligen Branchenvereinbarung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
  19. Urbaniec, M. & Kramer, M. (2003). Rolle strategischer Anspruchsgruppen für eine umweltorientierte Unternehmensführung. In M. Kramer, M. Urbaniec & L. Möller (Eds.), Internationales Umweltmanagement, Band I: Interdisziplinäre Rahmenbedingungen einer Unternehmensführung (pp. 97-114). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
  20. Valentine, S.V. (2010). The green onion: a corporate environmental strategy framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(5), 284-298.
  21. Wagner, M. (2009). Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects with social and environmental management in European firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 291-306.
  22. Whitelaw, K. (2003). ISO 14001 Environmental Systems Handbook. 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Elsevier.


Download data is not yet available.