Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessing the environmental management efficiency of

manufacturing sectors: evidence from emerging economies
X.M. Xie a, Z.P. Zang b, *, G.Y. Qi c
a
School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China
b
Humanities School, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 200042, China
c
School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmental management in the Chinese manufacturing industry has attracted global attention. Using
Received 18 July 2013 environmental indicator data from 2001 to 2010 for this industry, we empirically examine its environ-
Received in revised form mental management efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Hierarchical Clustering
13 February 2015
methods. Our findings reveal that the environmental management of the Chinese manufacturing in-
Accepted 3 August 2015
Available online 11 August 2015
dustry has more DEA inefficiency than efficiency. Environmental management efficiency showed a sig-
nificant decline before 2004, but rapid growth since 2007. Our findings also indicate that there is input
redundancy and output insufficiency in the manufacturing industry's environmental management from
Keywords:
Environmental management
2002 to 2004. In addition, we found that most manufacturing sectors in China had consistently ineffi-
Manufacturing sectors cient environmental management over the 10 years under study. Overall, our findings reveal that effi-
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) ciency remains low. Thus, the manufacturing industry's environmental management needs to improve
from the perspective of enterprises and government. We hope that our study paves the way for future
research into improving the manufacturing industry's environmental management in emerging
countries.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental health and well-being (Baird, 2005), but also

We face increasingly serious global environmental crises, and
countries are taking measures to address them. Over the past 10
years, there has been a significant growth in environmental man-
agement reporting, evaluation of contamination levels and their
effects on the environment being one of the most pressing prob-
lems this century (Burger et al., 2007; Crowley and Ahearne, 2002;
Qu et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2007a). China, as a developing country,
has also increased its emphasis on economic development while
seeking to maintain a balance with environmental protection (Zhu
et al., 2007b). However, a combination of serious environmental
pollution and ineffective governance makes it difficult to move
effective environmental management forward. Therefore, envi-
ronmental management requires not only baseline information,
and temporal and spatial patterns to evaluate the status of
* Corresponding author. Humanities School, East China University of Political
Science and Law, Shanghai 200042, China. Tel.: þ86 13918729618; fax: þ86 021
67790096.
E-mail address: xxm@shu.edu.cn (Z.P. Zang).
compliance with regulations and active participation by businesses.
Evaluating, improving, and managing the environment are long-
standing concerns are now attracting a broader audience (Burger,
2008). One goal of environmental evaluation is to assess environ-
mental management efficiency in order to enhance environmental
sustainability. Generally, environmental management is a political
ecology or environmental policy concept related to defining the
elements needed to achieve sustainability, including not only
government, but also business and civil society, and emphasizes
whole system management (Brandes and Brooks, 2005). Manage-
ment efficiency is one of the crucial indicators that can reflect the
performance of environmental management in manufacturing.
What is more, the quality of environmental management de-
termines the potential for sustainable development in
manufacturing and can provide environmental safeguards while
enhancing management efficiency.
Since 1979, China has maintained a high economic growth rate
by adopting economic reform policies, increasing international
trade, and transitioning to a market economy (Zhang et al., 2008).
Because the manufacturing industry is the driving force behind
China's economic growth, the manufacturing industry has

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.006
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431
experienced rapid growth over many years of market-oriented re-
form (Zeng et al., 2010). However, China's scale-driven economic
development has led to inefficient natural resource and energy use
in the production process, and high pollution levels (Zhang et al.,
2008). The Chinese manufacturing industry had experienced
increasing ecological pressures from a variety of institutional
players, including the market, the government, and competitive
sources (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). To be sure, environmental pollution
in China is becoming increasingly serious. Industrial pollution has
been the greatest obstacle to China's sustainable development (Liu
and Ma, 2010). For example, according to statistical data in China,1
in 2006, manufacturing wastewater reached 16.67 billion tons,
wasted gas 21.7626 trillion standard cubic meters, and solid waste
580 million tons. Even more serious is the fact that China's sulphur
dioxide emissions are the highest in the world. Moreover, less than
20% of urban garbage was taken to landfills, and only 32% of in-
dustrial hazardous waste disposal.
These numbers highlight the environmental management in-
efficiencies of the Chinese manufacturing industry. Although many
Chinese manufacturers have implemented organizational ap-
proaches, such as cleaner production and environmental manage-
ment systems to improve their environmental performance (Zhu
and Sarkis, 2007), and successive Chinese governments have
established and enforced additional laws and regulations to control
pollution (Zhu et al., 2007b), China's environmental management
has not improved substantially in the past 20 years. What is the
major reason for this? On one hand, as Hussey and Eagan (2007)
have revealed, the low environmental management efficiency in
business derived from the fact that businesses did not comply with
the regulations. On the other, insufficient resources were allocated
to the Environmental Management Unit (Rodriguez et al., 2011).
Evaluating the manufacturing industry's environmental manage-
ment efficiency for China is therefore important.
We undertook our study in this context. First, we evaluated the
manufacturing industry's overall environmental management ef-
ficiency. Second, because environmental management efficiency
varies between manufacturing sectors, we designed this study to
examine the environmental management efficiency of sub-sectors.
Third, we attempted to locate the manufacturing industry's envi-
ronmental management efficiency input redundancy and output
insufficiency, in order to effectively reduce the input and improve
the output of environmental management. We hope that our
findings pave the way to improving the environmental manage-
ment efficiency of the manufacturing industry in emerging
countries.
2. Literature review
In recent years, evaluating environmental management effi-
ciency as a means of sustainable development has attracted a
broader audience and dominated much debate (Burger, 2008). The
United States' National Research Council (NRC) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have paid close attention to the quanti-
tative measures and evaluation methods for environmental man-
agement efficiency. For instance, the EPA issued a “Framework of
Environmental Risk Evaluation” in 1992 and “Guidelines of Envi-
ronmental Risk Evaluation” in 1998. In the late 1990s, the Organi-
zation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued
a “Pressure-State-Response” model. The model describes clearly
the close interaction between human activities and environment,
which lays a solid foundation for environmental evaluation.
1
News.xinhuanet. China Environmental Data [EB/OL] http://news.xinhuanet.
com/banyt//content_2713384.htm.
1423
Recent studies have explored environmental evaluations for a
variety of ecosystems, including forests, rivers, and lakes (Amores
et al., 2013; Burger, 2008; Lee et al., 2007; Rodriguez et al., 2011;
Vrscaj et al., 2008). Costanza (1992) proposed a way to measure
ecosystem health and ecological security that promoted the
development of environmental evaluation. Schulze and Frosch
(1999) conducted ecosystem analyses using ecological indicators
such as water pH, air temperature, solid element, and the number
of biological species. Rees (1992) proposed an ecological footprint
(EF) method that compared human resource consumption to
environmental carrying capacities in order to evaluate the envi-
ronmental security. Vrscaj et al. (2008) developed an evaluation
method for measuring the urban soil quality for different land uses
within one particular system and applied it to two areas: urban soil
quality control and soil evaluation for urban planning. Overall, the
EF method has become the main means by which a large number of
organizations and research scholars evaluate sustainable develop-
ment capacity.
Indicators imprint quantifiable trends in observable phenomena
and can be characterized as signs or signals that relay a complex
message from potentially numerous sources in a simple and useful
manner (Kurtz et al., 2001; Peris-Mora et al., 2005). Environmental
indicators are expected to provide an early warning to help prevent
environmental, social, and economic damage (Huang et al., 2010).
The changing and complex global environment requires the inte-
gration of diverse environmental management disciplines and
techniques (Burger, 2008). Thus, in recent years, many scholars
have begun using multi-indicator methodologies to evaluate the
environment. Vencheh et al. (2005) developed a DEA-based model
for efficiency evaluation simultaneously incorporating undesirable
inputs and outputs. Hermann et al. (2007) presented a new
analytical tool called COMPLIMENT, which provides detailed in-
formation on a business's overall environmental sustainability and
can integrate tools such as life cycle assessment, multi-criteria
analysis, and environmental performance indicators. He et al.
(2007) carried out a multi-indicator assessment on government
auditing of water protection programmes to evaluate the perfor-
mance of national environmental protection programmes and
provide technical support for environmental auditors. Similarly,
Fang et al. (2011) provided a risk management methodology aimed
at process control for land settlement in China. Liu et al. (2010)
proposed an evaluation criterion that incorporated a technolog-
ical index of whether businesses utilized obsolete technologies.
These safety controls, incorporated into designing these standards
and the measures taken in their construction, can serve as a prac-
tical reference for other similar studies or projects.
Previous studies have explored environmental evaluation and
developed a few indicators for urban and regional sustainability,
e.g. for cities in China (Li et al., 2009; Yuan et al., 2003) and in
developed western countries (Scipioni et al., 2009; Tanguay et al.,
2010). The use of urban sustainability indicators constitutes an
important international tool for assessing urban status (economic,
social, and environmental) and monitoring the progress achieved
towards sustainable development (Graymore et al., 2009; Valentin
and Spangenberg, 2000). Moussiopoulos et al. (2010) studied the
development and utilization of a system of indicators as a dynamic
tool for the management of environmental, social, and economic
information in order to evaluate sustainability in urban areas.
Huang et al. (2010) developed a two-layered DSS for rural sus-
tainable development (DRSD) for comprehensive planning of so-
cioeconomic development and environmental protection in
Yongxin County, Jiangxi Province, China. They analysed the re-
lationships between rapid economic development, ecological
destruction, and environmental deterioration within the region.
Overall, urban indicators can provide crucial guidance for
1424 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431
environmental management decision-making (Moussiopoulos
et al., 2010).
Some studies have also explored the relationship between
environmental management and performance (Klang et al., 2003;
Peiro-Signes et al., 2013). Hughey et al. (2005) found that while
each system appeared to have its own strengths, no one environ-
mental management system was better than another. Zeng et al.
(2011) suggested that small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) with different pollution levels present significant differ-
ences in the relationship between driving forces and performance.
Liu et al. (2010) suggested that enterprises that often arranged in-
ternal environmental training were more likely to adopt proactive
environmental activities and address more concerns from the
public and mass media in order to enhance normative power to
improve the environmental management level in China in the
future. Montabon et al. (2007) used a more comprehensive set of
practices than prior studies to test the relationships between
environmental management practices and firm performance. Their
results supported previously posited relationships based on tradi-
tional data and indicated that environmental management prac-
tices are associated with firm performance. Hussey and Eagan
(2007) evaluated the development of an environmental perfor-
mance model for SMEs, and concluded that it was critical to better
define environmental results and that SMEs should be educated on
the benefits of improved environmental performance. Thus, envi-
ronmental evaluations form the basis for all methods of environ-
mental management, including conducting environmental impact
assessments, managing the environment, and assessing the efficacy
of long-term stewardship (Burger, 2003).
Overall, previous work has explored environmental evaluations,
environmental indicators, and the relationship between environ-
mental management and performance, providing a comprehensive
review of environmental management efficiency. However, previ-
ous work has explored environmental evaluation from the point of
view of the country, region, city, or ecosystem, ignoring that of the
manufacturing industry. In addition, although there have been
some studies on environmental indicators, they have not taken
account of the perspective of environmental management effi-
ciency and the input redundancy and output insufficiency of the
manufacturing industry. Therefore, it is necessary and valuable to
carry out this research to evaluate environmental management
efficiency from the manufacturing industry's viewpoint. First, this
study aims to assess the environmental management efficiency of
the manufacturing industry in order to examine its causes and in-
ternal mechanism. Second, as the environmental management ef-
ficiency of various manufacturing sectors is quite different, this
paper examines various manufacturing sectors.
3. Methodology
3.1. Method
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), first proposed by Charnes,
Cooper, and Rhodes in 1978 (Charnes et al., 1978), is commonly
used to evaluate the efficiency of a number of “units”, such as a
group of producers or hospitals, characterized by multiple inputs
and outputs (Zhang et al., 2008). Today, researchers recognize DEA
as a decision aid in multi-criteria analyses of discrete alternatives
(Srdjevic et al., 2005). Given that DEA is the most widely used
method in multi-indicator analysis, we used it to evaluate the
environmental management efficiency of the manufacturing in-
dustry. At present, however, most top managers of manufacturing
enterprises view the input of pollution control as a cost of con-
sumption. They are therefore bound to reduce environmental
management input as much as possible in operating management,
and its returns to scale are changing constantly. Thus, we chose the
input-oriented BCC model of DEA to evaluate the environmental
management efficiency of the manufacturing industry, using DEAP
2.1 software.
The formula of the BCC model is expressed in Equation (1).
!
X
m X
s
Minhj ¼ q  ε s
þ
ij sþ
rj
8 m i¼1 r¼1
>
> P 
>
> lj xij  qxij þ sij ¼ 0
>
>
>
>
i¼1
>P
> s
< lj yrj  sþ
rj ¼ yrj
s:t: r¼1
>
> Pn
>
>
>
> lj ¼ 1
>
>
>
>
j¼1
: l ; s ; sþ  0; i ¼ 1; 2; /; m; r ¼ 1; 2; /; s; j ¼ 1; 2; /; n
j ij rj
(1)
where s þ
ij and srj are the slack variables, n is the number of decision-
making units (DMU), m and s are the input and output of DMU
respectively, xij depicts the input i of the DMUj, yrj depicts the
output r of the DMUj, q is the objective function value, and ε is a
very small positive number (generally set as 106).
3.2. Measures
Environmental management efficiency refers to the management
performance resulting from environmental management and recy-
cling. The environmental management efficiency level actually re-
flects the manufacturing industry's capacity for environmental
management under the same input conditions. One important
process of environmental evaluation is the selection of indicators
(Burger, 2008). Most environmental evaluations involve two-level
indicators of input and output (e.g., Mickwitz et al., 2006; Zhang
et al., 2008). As the efficiency of environmental management ex-
amines the management performance level based on certain inputs,
it needs to select indicators from both the input of environmental
management and the output of management performance. Usually,
to carry out environmental management activities, enterprises
require three inputs: capital, personnel, and facilities.
We regarded annual expenditure of facilities for treatment
(including annual expenditure for facilities for treatment of waste
gas, wastewater, and solid wastes) as an indicator of capital input.
Given the difference of the scale and input, we used the indicator
‘Expenditure of facilities for treatment per unit of output’ to mea-
sure the capital input for environmental governance. For environ-
mental personal input, we used the indicator ‘Ratio of
environmental personal’. We used the indicator ‘Quantity of facil-
ities for treatment per unit of output’ for facilities input.
In selecting indicators for the output of management perfor-
mance, and because our research focuses on the environmental
management of the manufacturing industry, we used three in-
dicators: ‘Ratio of industrial wastewater utilized’, ‘Ratio of industrial
waste gas utilized’, and ‘Ratio of industrial solid wastes utilized’. In
addition, the output value of products made from waste gas,
wastewater, and solid wastes indicator can reflect more compre-
hensively the utilization capacity of major environmental pollutants
in manufacturing industry, and is thus an important indicator of
management performance. In order to eliminate the impact of in-
dustry, we divided the indicator above by the output value of
manufacturing sectors, thus obtaining the output value of products
made from the three wastes. We can see from the indicators above
that our evaluation of environmental management efficiency in-
volves the multi-index evaluation of three input indicators and four
output indicators. We list those indicators in Table 1.
 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431 1425

Table 1
Evaluation indicators of the environmental management efficiency of manufacturing sectors.

Item Indicator Explanation Measurement Data source

Output Output Ratio of The proportion of the volume of Volume of industrial wastewater utilized CESY (2002e2011)
volume of industrial industrial wastewater utilized accounted for each manufacturing sector/Volume
wastewater wastewater for the discharged volume of industrial of industrial wastewater discharged for
utilized wastewater for each manufacturing sector each manufacturing sector
Output Ratio of The proportion of the volume of sulphur Volume of sulphur dioxide, smoke, and CESY (2002e2011)
volume of industrial dioxide, smoke, and dust utilized accounted dust utilized for each manufacturing
waste gas waste gas for the discharged volume of sulphur sector/Volume of sulphur dioxide, smoke,
utilized dioxide, smoke, and dust for each and dust discharged for each
manufacturing sector manufacturing sector
Output Ratio of The proportion of the volume of industrial Volume of industrial solid wastes utilized CESY (2002e2011)
volume of industrial solid wastes utilized accounted for the for each manufacturing sector/Volume
solid wastes solid wastes volume of industrial solid wastes generated of industrial solid wastes generated for
utilized for each manufacturing sector each manufacturing sector
Output Output The value of products made from waste gas, Output value of products made from CESY (2002e2011);
value of value of wastewater, and solid wastes per unit of waste gas, wastewater, and solid wastes CSY (2002e2011)
three wastes products output for each manufacturing sector/Output value
made from of each manufacturing sector
the three
wastes
Input Capital input Expenditure Annual expenditure of facilities for treatment Annual expenditure of facilities for CESY (2002e2011);
of facilities for of waste gas, wastewater, and solid wastes treatment of waste gas, wastewater, and CSY (2002e2011)
treatment per solid wastes for each manufacturing
unit of output sector/Output value of each
manufacturing sector
Personnel input Ratio of The proportion of environmental personnel Quantity of environmental personnel CESY (2002e2011);
environmental accounted for by the total employees for each for each manufacturing sector/Quantity CSY (2002e2011).
personnel manufacturing sector of annual average employees of each
manufacturing sector
Facilities input Quantity of Quantity of facilities for treatment of waste Quantity of facilities for treatment of CESY (2002e2011);
facilities for gas, wastewater, and solid wastes per unit of waste gas, wastewater, and solid wastes CSY (2002e2011)
treatment per output for each manufacturing sector for each manufacturing sector/Output
unit of output value of each manufacturing sector

Note: CESY ¼ China Environmental Statistical Yearbook; CSY ¼ China Statistical Yearbook.

3.3. Data
The data were drawn from the China Environmental Statistical
Yearbook (2002e2011) and the China Statistical Yearbook
(2002e2011) (retrieval dates Jan. 2013 to Mar. 2013). The China
Statistical Yearbook is published by the National Bureau of Statistics
of China, while the China Environmental Statistical Yearbook is
jointly published by the National Bureau of Statistics of China and
the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. The Statistical
Yearbook for each year reports the industry-level environmental
data of the previous year. In accordance with China's
Manufacturing Classified Standards, the sample consists of 29
manufacturing sectors (data from one industry, ‘Recycling and
Disposal of Waste’, are partially missing, and so the sector is
excluded from the study) and data were collected for the period
2001e2010.
(technical efficiency), which was 0.792 in 2001. The main reason
for such low numbers may be the lack of environmental aware-
ness on the part of manufacturing management in China. It is also
the case that many manufacturing enterprises did not comply
with the environmental regulations (Hussey and Eagan, 2007),
and that the government does not enforce manufacturing in-
dustry pollution controls, resulting in inefficient environmental
management.
Our results also indicate that the environmental management
efficiency of the manufacturing industry improved rapidly from
2007, with a 0.118 increase over 2006, to reach the DEA efficient 1.0
mark.
Table 2
Environmental management efficiency of the whole manufacturing industry for
2001e2010.

Year TEa PTEb SEc RTSd

4. Results 2001 0.872 1.000 0.872 drse
2002 0.792 1.000 0.792 drs
4.1. Analysis for the whole manufacturing industry 2003 0.794 0.913 0.870 drs
2004 0.821 0.930 0.882 drs
2005 0.971 1.000 0.971 drs
Analysing the data using the DEAP 2.1 software, we obtained the 2006 0.882 1.000 0.882 drs
environmental management efficiency of China's whole 2007 1.000 1.000 1.000 ef
manufacturing industry from 2001 to 2010, shown in Table 2 and 2008 1.000 1.000 1.000 e
Fig. 1. 2009 1.000 1.000 1.000 e
2010 1.000 1.000 1.000
The results in Table 2 reveal that the manufacturing industry's e
Mean 0.913 0.984 0.927 e
environmental management efficiency for this 10-year period is
a
largely low. They show that only four years (2007e2010) were TE ¼ Technical Efficiency.
b
DEA efficient. Five years rate below the average DEA efficiency PTE ¼ Pure Technology Efficiency.
c
SE ¼ Scale Sufficiency.
level. Additionally, environmental management efficiency d
RTS ¼ Returns to Scale.
decreased significantly from 2001 to 2004, far below the average e
drs ¼ Diminishing Returns to Scale.
f
value of the decade under study, particularly the value of TE e ¼ Constant Returns to Scale.
1426 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431

1 The MTE values shown in Table 4 reveal that the environmental

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
TE
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 DEA efficiency for the duration of the study period. Manufacturing
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fig. 1. Environmental management efficiency (TE) of the whole manufacturing in-
dustry for 2001e2010.
Table 3 shows the input and output results from our DEAP 2.1
data analysis for the 10-year period 2001e2010.
The results in Table 3 reveal input redundancy. For example, we
found an input redundancy in the facilities' expenditure on treat-
ment per unit of output of 360 Yuan and 180 Yuan respectively for
manufacturing output per billion Yuan in 2002 and 2003. We also
found output insufficiency. For example, for 2003e2004 we iden-
tified output insufficiency reductions in the ratio of industrial
wastewater meeting discharge standards, from 2.6% (2003) to 0.9%
(2004), and in the ratio of industrial solid wastes utilized, from 3.4%
(2003) to 0.9% (2004). Moreover, we noted output insufficiency in
the output level of utilization of the three wastes, from 260 Yuan
RMB to 90 Yuan RMB for manufacturing output per billion Yuan
RMB in 2003e2004. These results show that, although it is
improving, the environmental management efficiency of the Chi-
nese manufacturing industry still needs to improve.
4.2. Analysis for manufacturing sectors
Using the DEA multi-stage analysis and DEAP 2.1 software, we
obtained the environmental management efficiency for 29
manufacturing sectors, as well as the input and output of envi-
ronmental management efficiency for 29 manufacturing sectors, as
shown in Tables 4 and 5.
The results in Table 4 report two important and interesting
findings: the mean technical efficiency (MTE) for each
manufacturing sector for the 10-year study period and the mean TE
for all manufacturing sectors for each year. The former can reveal
the average environmental management efficiency of each
manufacturing sector for each year between 2001 and 2010, while
the latter can reveal the environmental management efficiency of
all manufacturing sectors.
management of most manufacturing sectors for the 10-year period
under study was largely inefficient. However, the environmental
management efficiency for some high-energy consumption and
high-pollution sectors was relatively high. For example, the envi-
ronmental management of the electrical equipment and machinery
and cultural, educational, and sporting goods sectors maintained
sectors such as garments and other fibre products and petroleum
processing and coking maintained DEA efficiency for nine years out
of 10. The smelting and pressing of ferrous metals and the elec-
tronic and telecommunications equipment sectors maintained DEA
efficiency for eight years. In addition, environmental management
efficiency was also high in printing and record medium reproduc-
tion (MTE ¼ 0.947), transport equipment (MTE ¼ 0.916), and plastic
products (MTE ¼ 0.913).
However, some high-pollution manufacturing sectors had low
environmental management efficiency. The medical and pharma-
ceutical products, textile manufacturing, food manufacturing, and
beverage manufacturing sectors failed to achieve DEA efficiency in
nine of 10 years. Chemical materials and products and leather, furs,
down, and related products failed to achieve DEA efficiency in eight
years. The MTE value of nine manufacturing sectors (textile
manufacturing; metal products; medical and pharmaceutical
products; food; leather, furs, down, and related products; chemical
materials and products; beverages; papermaking and paper prod-
ucts; and rubber products) was lower than the average MTE for the
whole manufacturing sector over the 10-year period.
The mean results shown in Table 4 reveal the environmental
management efficiency of the whole manufacturing sector for the
years under study. These show that the environmental manage-
ment of all manufacturing sectors maintained DEA efficiency for
the year 2008. Environmental management efficiency was also high
in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Overall, however, the findings reveal that
the environmental management of all manufacturing sectors for
most years between 2001 and 2010 was largely inefficient.
Our results also indicate that the environmental management
efficiency of most sectors was in a state of oscillation during the
study period (see Fig. 2). The oscillation amplitude for food
manufacturing, metal products and textile manufacturing is rela-
tively large. The food processing, food manufacturing, beverages,
leather, furs, down, and related products, timber processing,
bamboo and straw products, chemical materials and products,
rubber products, and metal products sectors show downward
trends in the last two years. As the environmental management
efficiency of all 29 manufacturing sectors in 2008 was 1.000,

Table 3
Input and output of the environmental management efficiency of the manufacturing industry for 2001e2010.

Year Output insufficiency Input redundancy

Ratio of industrial Ratio of industrial Ratio of industrial Output level of Expenditure of facilities Ratio of Quantity of facilities
wastewater waste gas utilized solid wastes utilization of the for treatment per environmental for treatment per
utilized utilized three wastes unit of output personal unit of output
2001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000
2003 0.026 0.000 0.034 0.026 0.018 0.000 0.000
2004 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000
2005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Mean 0.003 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.000

If the shaded value is greater than 0.000, there is the output insufficiency or input redundancy.
 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431 1427

Table 4
Environmental management efficiency (TE) of 29 manufacturing sectors for 2001e2010.

Manufacturing sectors 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 MTEa
Food processing 0.606 0.484 1.000 0.967 0.600 0.872 0.572 1.000 0.574 0.424 0.710
Food manufacturing 0.321 0.379 0.506 0.571 0.416 0.542 0.404 1.000 0.418 0.262 0.482
Beverage manufacturing 0.430 0.490 0.933 1.000 0.469 0.689 0.340 1.000 0.697 0.347 0.640
Tobacco manufacturing 0.790 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.569 1.000 0.618 0.645 0.862
Textile manufacturing 0.319 0.275 0.241 0.240 0.247 0.216 0.299 1.000 0.249 0.201 0.329
Garments and other fibre products 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.782 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.978
Leather, furs, down, and related products 0.575 0.500 0.583 0.748 1.000 0.284 0.297 1.000 0.347 0.332 0.567
Timber processing, bamboo and straw products 0.485 0.537 0.900 1.000 1.000 0.607 0.678 1.000 0.966 0.477 0.765
Furniture manufacturing 0.679 0.656 0.741 0.775 0.935 0.507 0.681 1.000 0.684 1.000 0.766
Papermaking and paper products 0.212 0.315 0.491 0.390 0.277 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.669
Printing and record medium reproduction 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.924 0.653 1.000 0.894 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.947
Cultural, educational, and sports goods 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Petroleum processing and coking 0.766 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.977
Chemical materials and chemical products 0.481 0.410 0.733 0.686 0.442 0.606 0.372 1.000 1.000 0.267 0.600
Medical and pharmaceutical products 0.329 0.406 0.514 0.502 0.356 0.409 0.225 1.000 0.271 0.231 0.424
Chemical fibre 1.000 1.000 0.877 1.000 0.833 0.820 0.777 1.000 0.568 0.531 0.841
Rubber products 0.749 0.833 0.780 0.610 0.768 0.692 0.415 1.000 0.547 0.320 0.671
Plastic products 0.689 0.733 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.703 0.913
Nonmetal mineral products 0.581 0.446 1.000 1.000 0.792 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.590 0.841
Smelting and pressing of ferrous metals 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.800 0.738 0.954
Smelting and pressing of nonferrous metals 0.655 0.674 0.792 0.975 0.856 0.858 1.000 1.000 0.802 0.664 0.828
Metal products 0.359 0.331 0.329 0.284 1.000 0.253 0.198 1.000 0.255 0.215 0.422
Ordinary machinery 0.857 0.383 1.000 0.803 1.000 1.000 0.656 1.000 1.000 0.699 0.840
Special equipment 1.000 0.796 0.652 0.969 0.995 1.000 0.727 1.000 0.843 0.828 0.881
Transport equipment 1.000 0.887 1.000 0.859 1.000 0.734 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.677 0.916
Electrical equipment and machinery 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Electronic and telecommunications equipment 0.923 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.983 0.991
Instruments, meters, cultural, and office machinery 1.000 0.879 0.503 0.676 1.000 0.974 0.631 1.000 0.668 0.761 0.809
Crafts and other industries 1.000 0.697 0.824 0.983 1.000 0.612 0.792 1.000 0.709 1.000 0.862
Mean 0.717 0.693 0.807 0.826 0.815 0.774 0.708 1.000 0.759 0.652 0.775
a
MTE ¼ Mean of Technical Efficiency.

revealing that all manufacturing sectors maintained DEA efficiency,
the figure is in a steady state. The results also show that the envi-
ronmental management efficiency in the year 2010 was trending
down (mean ¼ 0.652). The possible reason for this is as follows.
Affected by the global financial crisis in 2008, the development
speed of the Chinese manufacturing industry slowed down. In 2009
in particular, the output value of the manufacturing industry fell
rapidly. As a result, many firms reduced the input for environ-
mental management in order to survive, which resulted in the
lower environmental management efficiency for 2010.
The results in Table 5 report two important findings: the mean
of four indicators of output insufficiency and the mean of three
indicators of input redundancy for all manufacturing sectors. The
output insufficiency in the ratio of industrial wastewater utilized,
the ratio of industrial waste gas utilized, and the ratio of industrial
solid wastes utilized in the 29 manufacturing sectors is alarming
and fell by an average of 92.4%, 80.2%, and 85.5% respectively. The
results reveal input redundancy and output insufficiency in all 29
manufacturing sectors over the 10-year study period. In addition,
Table 5 shows similarly disturbing results for the output insuffi-
ciency in the ratio of industrial wastewater utilized for textile
manufacturing, petroleum processing and coking, and electronic
and telecommunications equipment, and the output insufficiency
in the ratio of industrial waste gas utilized for smelting and
pressing of both ferrous and nonferrous metals. In addition, the
output insufficiency in the ratio of industrial solid wastes utilized
for metal products, rubber products, timber processing, bamboo
and straw products is also a concern.
Moreover, all 29 manufacturing sectors exhibit input redun-
dancy in facilities' expenditure on treatment per unit of output, 30
Yuan for manufacturing output per billion Yuan. Additionally, they
all have input redundancy in the ratio of 40 environmental
personnel per million employees. No input redundancy exists for
the quantity of facilities for treatment per unit of output. This
suggests that the current ratio of facilities for treatment of envi-
ronmental management for these 29 sectors is relatively
reasonable.
To examine the specific environmental management efficiency
categories of the 29 manufacturing sectors more closely, the Hier-
archical Clustering method is used. The results are shown in Fig. 3.
The 29 manufacturing sectors are divided into four categories, each
containing a relatively uniform number of sectors. The sectors are
divided according to their average environmental management
efficiency for the period 2001e2010.
The results indicate that the environmental management effi-
ciency of nine manufacturing sectors e garments and other fibre
products (MTE ¼ 0.978), printing and record medium reproduction
(MTE ¼ 0.947), cultural, educational, and sporting goods
(MTE ¼ 1.000), petroleum processing and coking (MTE ¼ 0.977),
transport equipment (MTE ¼ 0.916), electrical equipment and
machinery (MTE ¼ 1.000), electronic and telecommunications
equipment (MTE ¼ 0.991), plastic products (MTE ¼ 0.913), and
smelting and pressing of ferrous metals (MTE ¼ 0.954) e is very
high.
Moreover, the environmental management efficiency is rela-
tively high in tobacco manufacturing (MTE ¼ 0.862), timber pro-
cessing, bamboo and straw products (MTE ¼ 0.765), furniture
manufacturing (MTE ¼ 0.766), ordinary machinery (MTE ¼ 0.840),
special equipment (MTE ¼ 0.881), instruments, meters, cultural,
and office machinery (MTE ¼ 0.809), crafts and other industries
(MTE ¼ 0.862), chemical fibre (MTE ¼ 0.841), nonmetal mineral
products (MTE ¼ 0.841), and smelting and pressing of nonferrous
metals (MTE ¼ 0.828).
However, the environmental management efficiency of six
manufacturing sectors is relatively low: food processing
(MTE ¼ 0.710), beverages (MTE ¼ 0.640), leather, furs, down, and
1428 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431

Table 5
Input and output of environmental management efficiency of 29 manufacturing sectors for 2001e2010.

Manufacturing sectors Output insufficiency Input redundancy

Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Output level of Expenditure of Ratio of Quantity of

industrial industrial industrial utilization of the facilities for treatment environmental facilities for
wastewater waste gas solid wastes three wastes per unit of output personal treatment per
utilized utilized utilized unit of output
Food processing 0.835 0.771 0.948 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.000
Food manufacturing 0.872 0.792 0.915 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.000
Beverage manufacturing 0.876 0.711 0.970 0.005 0.004 0.007 0.000
Tobacco manufacturing 0.892 0.811 0.777 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000
Textile manufacturing 0.942 0.804 0.925 0.001 0.007 0.006 0.000
Garments and other fibre products 0.961 0.821 0.876 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.000
Leather, furs, down, and related products 0.891 0.736 0.795 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.000
Timber processing, bamboo and straw products 0.854 0.752 0.963 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.000
Furniture manufacturing 0.950 0.858 0.894 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000
Papermaking and paper products 0.923 0.831 0.874 0.017 0.013 0.019 0.000
Printing and record medium reproduction 0.937 0.773 0.828 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000
Cultural, educational, and sports goods 0.895 0.801 0.864 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
Petroleum processing and coking 0.966 0.782 0.793 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.000
Chemical materials and chemical products 0.920 0.843 0.694 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.000
Medical and pharmaceutical products 0.931 0.813 0.910 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.000
Chemical fibre 0.933 0.905 0.919 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.000
Rubber products 0.973 0.856 0.963 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.000
Plastic products 0.909 0.771 0.918 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000
Nonmetal mineral products 0.921 0.786 0.972 0.028 0.008 0.009 0.001
Smelting and pressing of ferrous metals 0.958 0.898 0.774 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.000
Smelting and pressing of nonferrous metals 0.883 0.888 0.394 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.000
Metal products 0.942 0.740 1.003 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.000
Ordinary machinery 0.937 0.743 0.847 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000
Special equipment 0.937 0.809 0.790 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
Transport equipment 0.954 0.865 0.846 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
Electrical equipment and machinery 0.945 0.786 0.854 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000
Electronic and telecommunications equipment 0.965 0.849 0.798 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
Instruments, meters, cultural, and office machinery 0.957 0.758 0.782 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000
Crafts and other industries 0.946 0.699 0.923 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
Mean 0.924 0.802 0.855 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.000

related products (MTE ¼ 0.567), papermaking and paper products
(MTE ¼ 0.669), chemical materials and products (MTE ¼ 0.600),
and rubber products (MTE ¼ 0.671).
For four manufacturing sectors, food manufacturing
(MTE ¼ 0.482), textile manufacturing (MTE ¼ 0.329), medical and
pharmaceutical products (MTE ¼ 0.424), and metal products
(MTE ¼ 0.422), the environmental management efficiency is very
low.
The results of these categories for environmental management
efficiency reveal that each category has a different level of envi-
ronmental management efficiency. Thus, distinguishing policies are
required for different categories to assist with improvement to
environmental management efficiency and sustainable develop-
ment. Some manufacturing sectors have more advanced technol-
ogy, higher management levels, and higher quality human
resources, which undoubtedly use resources more efficiently and
discharge fewer pollutants. Thus, the central government should
provide more technical and financial resources and assistance to
the manufacturing sectors with inefficient environmental
management.
5. Discussions and conclusions
Environmental management has attracted global attention in
recent years. Environmental management of the Chinese
manufacturing industry is becoming more and more urgent. Using
real Chinese manufacturing industry data from the period
2001e2010, our study has explored the environmental manage-
ment efficiency of Chinese manufacturing sectors by taking various
outputs and inputs into account to develop a DEA-based model. We
found that the environmental management of Chinese
manufacturing sectors exhibits more DEA inefficiency than effi-
ciency. Environmental management efficiency showed a significant
decline before 2004, but rapid growth from 2007. There was also
input redundancy and output insufficiency in the period
2002e2004. The results for 29 manufacturing sectors show that the
environmental management of most manufacturing sectors was
largely inefficient over the 10-year period under study. However,
there are some counterintuitive findings which indicate that the
environmental management efficiency of some high-energy con-
sumption and high-pollution manufacturing sectors is relatively
high. The reason may be that these high-energy consumption and
high-pollution manufacturing sectors are usually the key industries
monitored by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the
People's Republic of China (usually involving 24-h environmental
monitoring by the National Monitoring Centre of Environment), so
the environmental management efficiency of these industries is
usually high. Conversely, the environmental management effi-
ciency of the food manufacturing, textile manufacturing, medical
and pharmaceutical products, and metal products sectors is very
low. This suggests that reducing raw material inputs and pollution
emissions is the most urgent task facing China in its efforts to
promote environmental management (Zhang et al., 2008).
Overall, we found that the environmental management effi-
ciency of the Chinese manufacturing industry is low.
Manufacturing enterprises are the main targets of environmental
management in China. Generally, manufacturing enterprises have
two ways to participate in environmental management: active and
passive. Passive participation means that they solve environmental
problems to comply with government regulations and avoid fines
or other repercussions, such as repeated media exposure. This is the
most common approach taken by Chinese manufacturing firms,
 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004
Food Processing
Beverage Manufacturing
Textile Manufacturing
Leather, Furs, Down and Related Products
Furniture Manufacturing
Printing and Record Medium Reproduction
Petroleum Processing and Coking
Medical and Pharmaceutical Products
Rubber Products
Nonmetal Mineral Products
Smelting and Pressing of Nonferrous Metals
Ordinary Machinery
Transport Equipment
Electronic and Telecommunications Equipment
Crafts and other industries
Fig. 2. Environmental management efficiency for 29 manufacturing sectors for 2001e2010.
especially SMEs. As Hussey and Eagan (2007) indicated, the main
reason for the low environmental management efficiency of global
SMEs is noncompliance with environment regulations. Environ-
mental protection and restoration also require all mitigation efforts
to be aimed at sustainability (Moussiopoulos et al., 2010).
5.1. Contributions and managerial implications
This study explored the environmental management efficiency of
the Chinese manufacturing industry from the perspective of the
inputs and outputs of environmental management and offers three
theoretical insights. First, compared with similar studies in devel-
oped countries, which mainly analyse the relationships between
environmental pollution and economic performance (Hughey et al.,
2005; Montabon et al., 2007), this study contributes to the envi-
ronmental management literature by evaluating the environmental
management efficiency of the manufacturing industry and providing
empirical data. Second, this study shows how a focus on environ-
mental indicators of input and output might significantly advance
our understanding of how to improve the environmental manage-
ment efficiency of the manufacturing industry. The study extends
knowledge by identifying input redundancy and output insuffi-
ciency, contributing to the literature by providing deeper insights
into the causes and the input and output allocation mechanism of
environmental management efficiency, which could inform policy-
1429
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Food Manufacturing
Tobacco Manufacturing
Garments and Other Fiber Products
Timber Processing, Bamboo and Straw Products
Papermaking and Paper Products
Cultural, Educational and Sports Goods
Chemical Materials and Chemical Products
Chemical Fiber
Plastic Products
Smelting and Pressing of Ferrous Metals
Metal Products
Special Equipment
Electric Equipment and Machinery
Instruments, Meters, Cultural and Office Machinery
making for environmental management in China. Third, some pre-
vious work focused on environmental management from the point
of view of country, region, or city (Moussiopoulos et al., 2010; Huang
et al., 2010). This study extends previous studies by taking the
perspective of the manufacturing industry. Fourth, some previous
work focused on environmental management in developed coun-
tries (Hughey et al., 2005; Montabon et al., 2007; Rodriguez et al.,
2011). This study explored the environmental management effi-
ciency of manufacturing based on Chinese data, and thus provides
some new findings for emerging economies.
This study also highlights important implications and makes
recommendations for policy-makers and practitioners concerned
about environmental management. First, the government needs to
strengthen its role in the environmental management of the
manufacturing industry. On one hand, the government should
increase environmental protection and management awareness.
On the other, as policy proves to be conducive to sustainable
development within the industry (Liu et al., 2010), the govern-
ment could introduce policies that encourage capital investment
in low-carbon environmental industries. In addition, an inde-
pendent monitoring information system could be set up to
monitor key industries closely and provide early warning of po-
tential problems (Burger, 2008; Leitao and Ahern, 2002). Second,
manufacturing enterprises need to enhance their environmental
management by taking the initiative to develop environmental
1430 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431

Fig. 3. Dendrogram of hierarchical clustering for the environmental management efficiency of manufacturing sectors.

security technology and environmentally friendly products. Third,
industry associations could provide environmental management
leadership by guiding and regulating enterprise behaviour, and
coordinating relationships between government and enterprises.
The Chinese industry associations differ from those in western
countries in that they are set up under government intervention.
This means that the functional position of Chinese industry as-
sociations is quite different from that of western equivalents.
Therefore, it is necessary to give industry associations the freedom
to support manufacturing enterprises with environmental
management. Thus, industry associations should coordinate
actively with government departments, news media, and the
public to provide appropriate guidance and help to enterprises.
For instance, training activities on environmental security can be
coordinated to increase the acceptance of environmental man-
agement. At the same time, industry associations also need to
assist government in monitoring and inspecting the environ-
mental security of enterprises.
Theoretical implications and managerial implications are listed
in Table 6.

Table 6
Theoretical and managerial implications.

Theoretical implications Managerial implications

Perspectives Implications Perspectives Implications

Explored environmental
management efficiency
Identified the causes
and mechanism
Perspective of
manufacturing industry
Data from emerging economies
 Evaluated the environmental management
efficiency of the manufacturing industry
 Provided empirical validation for the
environmental management efficiency of the
manufacturing industry
 Identified input redundancy and output
insufficiency
 Gained deeper insights into the causes and
mechanism of environmental management
efficiency
 Extended previous studies with the perspective
of the manufacturing industry
 Provided new findings for emerging economies
Government  Increase environmental protection and management
awareness
 Introduce policies that encourage capital investment
in low-carbon industries
 Set up an independent monitoring information
system to monitor key industries closely
 Guide enterprise behaviour, and coordinate
relationships between government and enterprises
Industry  Provide training activities on environmental security
associations
 Assist government in monitoring and inspecting
the environmental security of enterprises
Manufacturing  Develop environmental security technology and
enterprises environmentally friendly products
 X.M. Xie et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 1422e1431
5.2. Limitations and future research
There are several limitations to this study that may inspire
future research. Most notably, our findings are derived from data
for Chinese manufacturing sectors, making them industry-specific.
Future studies may use data from other industries and explore their
impact on the Chinese economy with more demographic infor-
mation to test and extend the generalizations we have found. Next,
due to a lack of available data from the China Environmental Sta-
tistics Yearbook, we utilized only seven indicators to evaluate the
environmental management efficiency of China's manufacturing
industry. As a result, we ignored some environmental management
factors. Third, future research should explore some interesting is-
sues, such as exploring the relationship between environmental
management and economic output of the manufacturing industry,
or using the environmental DEA technology to explore environ-
mental management more accurately.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number: 71002053, 71472118,
71472063), the Shanghai Planning Fund of Philosophy and Social
Sciences (Grant number: 2014BGL011), and “Shu Guang” project of
Shanghai Municipal Education Commission and Shanghai Educa-
tion Development Foundation (Grant number: 13SG41).
References
Amores, M.J., Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., Anto  n, A., Castells, F., 2013. Environmental
assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 43, 84e92.
Baird, R.C., 2005. On sustainability, estuaries, and ecosystem restoration: the art of
the practical. Restor. Ecol. 13 (1), 154e158.
Brandes, O.M., Brooks, D.B., 2005. The Soft Path in a Nutshell. University of Victoria,
Victoria, BC, p. 8.
Burger, J., 2008. Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation,
remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term
stewardship on contaminated lands. Sci. Total Environ. 400 (1), 6e19.
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C.W., 2007. Integrating long-term stewardship goals
into the remediation process: natural resource damages and the department of
energy. J. Environ. Manag. 82 (2), 189e199.
Burger, J., Leschine, T.M., Greenberg, M., Karr, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C.W., 2003.
Shifting priorities at the department of energy's bomb factories: protecting
human and ecological health. Environ. Manag. 31 (2), 157e167.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring efficiency of decision making
units. Eur. J. Operational Res. 2, 429e444.
Costanza, R., 1992. Toward an operational definition of health. In: Costanza, R. (Ed.),
Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press,
Washington DC, pp. 239e256.
Crowley, K.D., Ahearne, J.F., 2002. Managing the environmental legacy of U.S.
nuclear-weapons production. Am. Sci. 90 (6), 514e523.
Fang, Q., Zhang, D.L., Wong, L.N.Y., 2011. Environmental risk management for a cross
interchange subway station construction in China. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech-
nol. 34 (3), 1e14.
Graymore, M., Wallis, A., Richards, A., 2009. An index of regional sustainability: a
GIS-based multiple criteria analysis decision support system for progressing
sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 6 (4), 453e462.
He, G.Z., Lu, Y.L., Ma, H., Wang, X.L., 2007. Multi-indicator assessment of water
environment in government environmental auditing. J. Environ. Sci. 19,
494e501.
Hermann, B.G., Kroeze, C., Jawjit, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance
by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental
performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1787e1796.
Huang, G.H., Sun, W., Nie, X.H., Qin, X.S., Zhang, X.D., 2010. Development of a
decision-support system for rural eco-environmental management in Yongxin
County, Jiangxi Province, China. Environ. Model. Softw. 25 (1), 24e42.
Hughey, K.F.D., Tait, S.V., Connell, M.J.O., 2005. Qualitative evaluation of three
‘environmental management systems’ in the New Zealand wine industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 13 (12), 1175e1187.
Hussey, D.M., Eagan, P.D., 2007. Using structural equation modeling to test envi-
ronmental performance in small and medium-sized manufacturers: can SEM
help SMEs? J. Clean. Prod. 15 (4), 303e312.
1431
Klang, A., Vikmana, P.A., Brattebø, H., 2003. Sustainable management of demolition
wastedan integrated model for the evaluation of environmental, economic and
social aspects. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 38, 317e334.
Kurtz, J., Jackson, L., Fisher, W., 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based on
guidelines from the environmental protection agency's office of research and
development. Ecol. Indic. 1 (1), 49e60.
Lee, S.-H., Choi, K.I., Osako, M., Dong, J.I., 2007. Evaluation of environmental burdens
caused by changes of food waste management systems in Seoul, Korea. Sci.
Total Environ. 387 (1), 42e53.
Leitao, A.B., Ahern, J., 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in
sustainable landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (2), 65e93.
Li, F., Liu, X., Hu, D., Wang, R., Yang, W., Li, D., Zhao, D., 2009. Measurement in-
dicators and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable develop-
ment: a case study for China's Jining City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 90 (3e4),
134e142.
Liu, L., Ma, X.M., 2010. Technology-based industrial environmental management: a
case study of electroplating in Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (18),
1731e1739.
Liu, X.B., Liu, B.B., Shishime, T., Yu, Q.Q., Bi, J., Fujitsuka, T., 2010. An empirical study
on the driving mechanism of proactive corporate environmental management
in China. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (8), 1707e1717.
Mickwitz, P., Melanen, M., Rosenstro €m, U., Sepp€ al€a, J., 2006. Regional eco-efficiency
indicators: a participatory approach. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 1603e1611.
Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 2007. An examination of corporate
reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance.
J. Operations Manag. 25 (5), 998e1014.
Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Spyridi, D., Nikolaou, K., 2010.
Environmental, social and economic information management for the evalua-
tion of sustainability in urban areas: a system of indicators for Thessaloniki,
Greece. Cities 27 (5), 377e384.
Peiro-Signes, A., Segarra-Ona, M., Mondejar-Jimenez, J., et al., 2013. Influence of the
environmental, social and corporate governance ratings on the economic per-
formance of companies: an overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. 7 (1), 105e112.
Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas, J.M., Subirats, A., Iba n~ ez, S., Alvarez, P., 2005. Develop-
ment of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 50 (12), 1649e1660.
Qu, Y., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., Zhong, Y., 2013. A review of developing an e-
wastes collection system in Dalian, China. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 176e184.
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what
urban economics leaves out. Environ. Urbanization 4 (2), 121e130.
Rodriguez, G., Alegre, F.J., Martinez, G., 2011. Evaluation of environmental man-
agement resources (ISO 14001) at civil engineering construction worksites: a
case study of the community of Madrid. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (7), 1858e1866.
Schulze, P.C., Frosch, R.A., 1999. Overview: Measures of Environmental Performance
and Ecosystem Condition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Mason, M., Manzardo, A., 2009. The dashboard of sustain-
ability to measure the local urban sustainable development: the case study of
padua Municipality. Ecol. Indic. 9 (2), 364e380.
Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y.D.P., Porto, R.L.L., 2005. Data envelopment analysis of
reservoir system performance. Comput. Operations Res. 32, 3209e3266.
Tanguay, G., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.-F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the sustain-
ability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 10 (2),
407e418.
Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J., 2000. A guide to community sustainability indicators.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20 (3), 381e392.
Vencheh, A.H., Matin, R.K., Kajani, M.T., 2005. Undesirable factors in efficiency
measurement. Appl. Math. Comput. 163, 547e552.
Vrscaj, B., Poggio, L., Marsan, F.A., 2008. A method for soil environmental quality
evaluation for management and planning in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 88
(4), 81e94.
Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S.M., Shi, C., 2003. Development of
sustainability indicators by communities in China: a case study of Chongming
County, Shanghai. J. Environ. Manag. 68 (3), 253e261.
Zeng, S.X., Meng, X.H., Zeng, R.C., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Jin, T., 2011. How envi-
ronmental management driving forces affect environmental and economic
performance of SMEs: a study in the Northern China district. J. Clean. Prod. 19
(13), 1426e1437.
Zeng, S.X., Xie, X.M., Tam, C.M., 2010. Relationship between cooperation networks
and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation 30 (3), 181e194.
Zhang, B., Bi, J., Fan, Z.Y., Yuan, Z.W., Ge, J.J., 2008. Eco-efficiency analysis of in-
dustrial system in China: a data envelopment analysis approach. Ecol. Econ. 68,
306e316.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45
(18e19), 4333e4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2007a. Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain
management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. J. Environ. Manag. 85,
179e189.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2007b. Green supply chain management: pressures,
practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 15 (11e12), 1041e1052.