Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Published Paper No. 3 - JMRA15March (1) 19-1134 PDF
Published Paper No. 3 - JMRA15March (1) 19-1134 PDF
Mitra et al. (2008)[17] pointed that Indian companies have not yet developed a holistic and consistent
approach to environmental reporting, as there is lack of environmental reporting guidelines which may be a reason
for lack of structured research in analyzing the motivations and barriers to implementation of EMS by Indian firms
and the results of the perceived versus actual benefits of the same.
Zampos et al. (2008)[20] aims to present a framework of barriers to implementation of environmental
management systems. The article presents a structure in sections that were also used in designing a questionnaire
applied to identify the main barriers to implementing an EMS in Brazilian and Slovenian companies in the
construction sector.
Zutshi and Sohal (2002)[21] highlights that organizations are facing pressure from a number of sources to
become ‘environment friendly’. These sources can be broadly classified under four main categories: the market
(mainly the external forces directly impacting the competitiveness of the companies), social (which includes pressure
from various groups, the public and the community at large), financial (this broadly encompasses pressure from the
financial institutions and insurance companies, not forgetting the fines and legal liabilities resulting from non-
compliance) and regulatory (pressure from the guidelines and regulations at both national/international levels to
continue working of the organizations).
Brandi (2013) [22] in their study for adoption of sustainability certifications for palm oil sector in Indonesia
highlighted that challenges for certification is technical and operational challenges for actual implementation of the
standard requirements on ground and also capability, financial, flow of information and lack of motivational
incentives impede adoption.
Sommer (2017) [23] in a discussion paper on drivers and constraints for sustainability certifications for small
and medium scale enterprises pointed that in India the major challenges for non-adoption of certification is lack human
resources, costs and risk aversion, access to finance, access to markets without certification.
As per University of Colorado [24], the major challenges for adoption of sustainability certifications are
engaging top management and employees as well as developing metrics to assess initiatives and making the
certification a business case for the management to enthuse adoption.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
Based on literature review and personal experience of the researcher obtained through interviews with
various stakeholders in the tea industries, twenty (20) variables were identified which were put to test to understand
whether they act as challenges for adoption of sustainability certifications. Quantitative research method using
questionnaire survey was deployed. The target respondents for the questionnaire were Senior Management of Tea
Estates who has direct control in decision making about adoption of sustainable certifications. The lists of tea estates
were obtained from the Directory of Tea Board of India 2007.
The questionnaire was circulated electronically to almost 300 Tea Estates located in Darjeeling, Upper
Assam, Lower Assam, Dooars and Cachar areas of eastern India. The questionnaire consists of two parts: 1)
Demographic background of the Tea Estate; 2) Response on various driving forces for adoption. Before the actual
survey were conducted, the questionnaires were pre-tested and reviewed for structure, readability, ambiguity and
completeness, and the survey instrument was refined in light of comments from the respondents.
The respondents were asked to rate the answer of each question on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to what extent the statement fits the situation in their organization.
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the questions to test the reliability of the questionnaire and value obtained was
more than 0.7 which confirmed that the questionnaire is fit to be used for data collection. The twenty (20) variables
which were tested are given as follows:
Table 1: Variables affecting non-adoption of Sustainable Certifications
Sl. ID. Variables
1 S1. Requirements not tuned to local needs.
2 S2. Traditional manufacturing techniques impede implementation
3 S3. Requirements are in contradiction to productivity initiatives.
4 S4. Lack of automation in documentation
5 K1. Lack of technical know-how.
6 K2. Need for investment of additional work time
7 K3. Implementation leads to reworking
8 K4. Need to hire external consultant
9 R1. Engagement of Key Managerial Persons
10 R2. Establishment of separate department
11 R3. Increase in paper work.
12 R4. Demand for more financial resource allocation
13 E1. No peer support available
14 E2. Audits for sustainability certifications are more of inspections
15 E3. Lack of research data enabling implementation
Most of the non-adopters for sustainability certifications who responded to this survey operated in Domestic
Market (81%) which may signify that there exists a stronger market demand for adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices. The same is depicted in Figure No. 2.
Figure No. 2 – Non-Adopters as per Markets Operated
Out of all the non-adopters operating in Domestic Market, the majority (94%) belong to Assam regions and
only a handful (4%) belongs to Darjeeling regions. This is depicted in Figure No. 3. This concludes that tea estates
operating both in international and domestic market and located in Darjeeling regions have a stronger affinity to adopt
for sustainability certifications.
Figure No. 2 – Non-adopters in Domestic Market as per Region
Majority of the adopters who responded manufacturers different types of teas i.e. Orthodox, CTC, Green and
Specialty Teas. This is depicted in Figure No. 4.
Figure No. 04: Percentage wise distribution of type of tea manufactured by Adopters
Post data collection, statistical analysis of the data was done by using open source software package named
PSPP. In order to identify the most probable factors that would affect the decision of adoption of certification, Factor
Analysis was conducted using PSPP Software.
Total twenty (20) variables were subjected to the principal component analysis with varimax rotations and
two (02) factors were achieved with the variance information of 90.12%. The rotated component matrix describing
the number of statements with factor loadings in each factor is mentioned in Table 5.1. The factor scores were also
shown for each two (02) factors obtained from principal component analysis.
Table No. 2 – Rotated Factor Scores
Variable 1 2
S1 0.54 0.77
S2 1.02 0.45
S3 0.67 0.92
S4 1.21 0.41
K1 1.00 0.29
K2 0.84 0.36
K3 0.33 0.86
K4 1.36 0.18
R1 0.93 0.46
R2 0.72 0.97
R3 0.31 0.95
R4 0.77 0.50
E1 1.00 0.49
E2 0.43 1.05
E3 0.95 0.48
E4 0.16 0.82
C1 0.90 0.44
C2 1.02 0.42
C3 0.33 0.99
C4 1.09 0.52
Based on the factor analysis, two (02) factors were summated and they are renamed as given in Table No. 3.
Only the most probable variables having a factor loading above 0.76 was retained.
Table No. 3 – Challenging Factors selected for Testing
Sl. Factor Name Variables
1 Factor 1 – Resource & Knowledge Constraint S2, S4, K1,K2, K4,R1, R4, E1, E3, C1, C2, C4
2 Factor 2 – Practical & Operational Constraints S1, S3, K3, R2, R3, E2, E4, C3
Based on Table No. 3, the following null hypotheses were formulated:
H1: There exists no significant relationship between Resource & Knowledge Constraint and non-adoption of
Sustainability Certifications in the tea estates of eastern regions of India.
H2: There exists no significant relationship between Practical & Operational Constraints and non-adoption of
Sustainability Certifications in the tea estates of eastern regions of India.
Independent sample t-tests were conducted to test the hypotheses. For H1, the t-test results are given in Table
No. 4.
Table No. 4: ‘t-test’ results for Resource & Knowledge Constraints
t-test Value p-Value Status Mean Std. Dev
Adopter 4.8 0.4
S2 15.77 0.000
Non Adopter 2.91 0.92
Adopter 4.72 0.45
S4 19.32 0.000
Non Adopter 2.44 0.86
Adopter 4.03 0.76
K1 13.41 0.000
Non Adopter 2.24 0.73
Adopter 4.65 0.48
K2 10.59 0.000
Non Adopter 3.3 0.94
Adopter 4.12 0.76
K4 19.67 0.000
Non Adopter 1.65 0.62
Adopter 4.61 0.49
R1 11.49 0.000
Non Adopter 3.04 1.03
Adopter 4.35 0.48
R4 9.04 0.000
Non Adopter 3.07 1.08
Adopter 4.43 0.5
E1 12.97 0.000
Non Adopter 2.65 1.03
Adopter 4.84 0.37
E3 15.1 0.000
Non Adopter 3.04 0.93
Adopter 4.69 0.47
C1 10.61 0.000
Non Adopter 3.22 1.06
Adopter 4.74 0.44
C2 15.3 0.000
Non Adopter 2.91 0.9
Adopter 4.64 0.48
C4 13.42 0.000
Non Adopter 2.72 1.09
Since for the above variables under the factor Resource & Knowledge Constraint shows a low p-value
(<0.05) at 95% confidence limit hence the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there exists a significant
relationship between Resource & Knowledge Constraints and non-adoption of Sustainability Certifications in the tea
estates of eastern regions of India.
For H2, the t-test results are given in Table No. 5
Table No. 5: ‘t-test’ for Practical & Operational Constraints
t-Test Value p-Value Status Mean Std. Dev
Adopter 4.24 0.43
S1 10.79 0.000
Non Adopter 2.83 1.00
Adopter 4.70 0.46
S3 8.72 0.000
Non Adopter 3.20 1.38
Adopter 4.16 0.37
K3 4.34 0.000
Non Adopter 3.43 1.40
Adopter 4.55 0.50
R2 9.62 0.000
Non Adopter 2.85 1.41
Adopter 4.49 0.50
R3 3.69 0.000
Non Adopter 3.80 1.50
[16] S.M.S. Senarath and A.M.T.P. Athauda (2010) “Adoption of Fairtrade Quality Standard in the Corporate Tea
Sector in Sri Lanka” Proceedings of 10th Agricultural Research Symposium (2010) 353-357
[17] Sarbani Mitra (2008). “Environment and Business Strategies: An Assessment of Corporate Environmental
Management & Business Practices of Selected Units in West Bengal.” PhD Thesis, University of Kalyani.
[18] Stephen W. Maina (2016) “Relevance of Sustainable Agricultural Network Standards and Rainforest Alliance
Certification in Promoting Governance and Achieving National Policy Recommendations in Kenya’s Tea Sector”
The International Journal Of Science & Technoledge (ISSN 2321 – 919X), Vol 4, Issue 4, April 2016
[19] Suhaiza Zailani, Razuan Zainol, Roaimah Omar, Walter Leal Filho (2003) “Determinants of EMS ISO 14001
adoptions in Malaysia”, International Journal of Environmental Engineering (IJEE), Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009
[20] Zampos, L.M.S., Trierweiller, A.C., Nunes De Carvalho, D., Šelih. J., Environmental Management Systems in
the Construction Industry: a review, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol.16, No.2, pp.453-
460, 2016
[21] Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A. (2004). “Environmental Management System adoption by Australasian organizations,
Reasons, benefits and impediments.” Technovation, Vol 24, Page 335-357.
[22] Brandi, Clara & Cabani, Tobias & Hosang, Christoph & Schirmbeck, Sonja & Westermann, Lotte. (2013).
Sustainability certification in the Indonesian palm oil sector: benefits and challenges for
smallholders.DIE/Studies.
[23] Christoph Sommer (2013, Drivers and Constraints for Adopting Sustainability Standards in Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises (SMEs). Discussion Paper / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, ISSN 1860-0441
[24] Souvik Banerjee (2019) "Why Sustainable Agriculture Management System may sometimes become weak or
fail in a Tea Estate in India?", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research Vol.6,
Issue 3, page no. pp221-224, March-2019, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1903A32.pdf
[25] Souvik Banerjee, "Can Adoption Of Sustainability Standards Be A Strategy For Survival of Tea Gardens Of
North Bengal? A Case Study of Tumsong Tea Estate", IJRAR - International Journal of Research and Analytical
Reviews (IJRAR), E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138, Volume.6, Issue 1, Page No pp.107-115, March
2019, Available at :http://www.ijrar.org/IJRAR19J3956.pdf
[26] Top 3 Sustainability Challenges in Business , University of Colorado,
https://www.colorado.edu/sustainablepractices/2015/12/17/top-3-sustainability-challenges-business