중소기업의 녹색경영 평가관리모형 연구 : G-BSC 접근법

Abstract

As the green environment becomes a major concern to the business world as well as society in general, this study takes green management issues for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The green management concepts have been applied (or enforced) mostly to large firms by constituencies such as monitoring and evaluation agencies. Even though the SMEs' costs associated with the green management remain critical, the SMEs need to develop an effective evaluation mechanism for the implementation of green management. In this regard, the present study applies the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach to SMEs' green management, investigating the relevance of the BSC approach to the evaluation of SMEs' green management. This study develops the green management balanced scorecard (G-BSC) model based on the Korean government's evaluation index for green management. To apply the G-BSC model to SMEs, this study classifies the evaluation index into four critical components: G-management system, G-savings/reductions, G-social responsibility, and G-performance. The categorization based on the BSC concept is expected to provide an efficient tool for managers or evaluation agencies to assess firm's green management. The G-management system assesses a firm's strategies and visions' for green management, and the G-savings/reductions assesses the firm's saving activities on resources and energy and reducing activities on greenhouse gasses and pollutions. Also, the G-social responsibility assesses information disclosure and regulation compliance related to the firm's green management, and the G-performance assesses the firm's financial and non-financial performance on the firm's green management. To assess SMEs' green management, this study hypothesizes that SMEs' green management affects SMEs' performance. Specifically, SMEs' performance is expected to have positive correlations with the G-management system, G-savings/reductions, and G-social responsibility. In addition to the direct effect of the three critical components on a firm's performance, this study examines whether each critical component plays a role in intermediating variables in the correlations with the firm's performance. To hypothesize and analyze the indirect effect, this study uses the AMOS program, which identifies interrelationships among variables through structural equation modelling. This study surveys SMEs' managers by constructing a survey instrument based on eight factors of the four critical components. Specifically, the survey questionnaire consists of 46 items. Each item is measured using 5 point Likert scale. A total of 279 usable samples were collected from SMEs' managers over a one month sample period. By analyzing the survey results, this study evaluates the effectiveness of SMEs' green management. Exploratory factor analysis indicates that the eight factors explains 77.5% of total variate, confirming the appropriateness of construct validity. Also, using confirmatory factor analysis, two question items were eliminated from the components. The two items were investment and usage of newly-recycled energy, requiring a relatively large capital investment by SMEs. The regression analysis indicates that G-performance has a significant correlation with G-management system and G-social responsibility, adopting the hypothesis of direct relationships. The positive correlations are supported by both univariate and multivariate regressions. However, regulation compliance and complaints resolution in G-social responsibility have negative correlations with G-performance, implying the related activities impose significant financial burdens on SMEs. Furthermore, the multivariate analysis indicates that G-savings/reductions have no significant correlations with G-performance, conforming SMEs' relative ineffectiveness compared to large firms' G-savings/reductions in terms of green management costs. Even though the low explanation power of path analysis limits the generalization of findings, there exist mediating effects among the variables. Specifically, the path analysis indicates that G-social responsibility through G-management and G-savings/reductions explains 35% of the relationship with G-performance. This result suggests that SMEs' social responsibility can have a maximum effect when it is supported by systematic G-management and implementation of G-savings/reductions. Also, the G-management system's path through G-social responsibility explains 34% of the relationship with G-performance, reflecting that the development of efficient management system has cost constraints in most SMEs. Consistent with the findings, the G-BSC value diagram shows that SMEs have relatively higher balanced scores in G-social responsibility and lower balanced scores in G-savings/reductions and G-performance compared to large firms. Factor analysis and path analysis indicate that G-BSC approach can be fit to SMEs without great difficulty. However, some of the measurement variables in the green management index do not only disregard characteristics of SMEs, but also contribute to the partial imbalance in the balanced scorecard, consequently warranting the elimination of these variables in the G-BSC for SMEs. Although the concepts and implementation of green management are relatively new to most SMEs, the empirical results imply that the evaluation mechanism applied to large firms should be adopted by SMEs with some modifications. Based on this study's framework, future research can either develop the weights practically applicable to individual firms across various types, or construct new measurement variables for SMEs' green management.