and certification according to a quality standard.
Quality standards certification? n/a no yes Total
n/a 27,78% 6,14% 13,64% 9,74%
No 5,56% 29,82% 9,09% 24,03%
Yes 66,67% 64,04% 77,27% 66,23%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=154
Table 6: Certification of environmental management system by industry EMS certification? Assembly and plastic
products
Chemicals Metals and machinery Misc. Electronics Total
n/a 8,33% 5,08% 15,79% 21,43% 16,67% 11,69%
No 87,50% 84,75% 52,63% 67,86% 58,33% 74,03%
Yes 4,17% 10,17% 31,58% 10,71% 25,00% 14,29%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=154
Table 7: Principal motivating factor behind actual or considered certification, by host country If, for what reasons did the company invest in certification CHINA MALAYSIA Total
HQ polices and programmes 51,85% 54,29% 53,23%
Consumer image 7,41% 17,14% 12,90%
Pressure from industrial buyers 11,11% 8,57% 9,68%
Government pressure 14,81% 2,86% 8,06%
Prevent accidents 7,41% 2,86% 4,84%
Enhance employee awareness 3,70% 5,71% 4,84%
Investor image 3,70% 2,86% 3,23%
Cost reduction 0,00% 5,71% 3,23%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=62
Table 8: Principal motivating factor behind actual or considered certification, by investment motive If, for what reasons did the company invest in certification? Production base Market access Total
HQ polices and programmes 35,29% 59,46% 51,85%
Consumer image 23,53% 10,81% 14,81%
Pressure from industrial buyers 23,53% 5,41% 11,11%
Government pressure 11,76% 8,11% 9,26%
Investor image 5,88% 2,70% 3,70%
Enhance employee awareness 0,00% 5,41% 3,70%
Cost reduction 0,00% 5,41% 3,70%
Prevent accidents 0,00% 2,70% 1,85%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=55
Table 9: Main barrier to improved environmental performance among Indian affiliates, by ownership share
Barriers to improved env. performance? Less than 50% 50-60% 60-99% 100% Total Economic/ financial constraints 50,00% 47,37% 25,00% 42,86% 42,11%
Lack of effective enforcement 25,00% 15,79% 12,50% 14,29% 15,79%
Lack of environmental infrastructures 25,00% 5,26% 0,00% 0,00% 5,26%
Weak/ non-existent regulations 0,00% 15,79% 12,50% 14,29% 13,16%
Cultural factors 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 28,57% 7,89%
Lack of qualified staff 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 0,00% 2,63%
Problems with JV partner 0,00% 15,79% 25,00% 0,00% 13,16%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=38
Table 10: Proportion of affiliates with an environmental policy formulated by headquarters, by parent country
If yes, formulated by HQ? Europe Asia US Total
n/a 4,00% 10,53% 6,67% 5,50%
no 24,00% 47,37% 26,67% 28,44%
yes 72,00% 42,11% 66,67% 66,06%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=109
Table 11: HQ setting environmental standards for affiliate, by parent country HQ set env standards for affliate? Europe Asia US Total
n/a 17,65% 31,25% 6,25% 19,33%
no 45,10% 50,00% 31,25% 44,67%
yes 37,25% 18,75% 62,50% 36,00%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=150
Table 12: HQ setting environmental standards for affiliate, by industry HQ set env
standards for affliate?
Assembly and plastic products
Pharmaceu-ticals
Bulk chemicals
Fine chemicals
Paints and dyestuff
Metals and machinery
Miscellenous Electronics Total
n/a 25,00% 7,69% 28,57% 0,00% 7,14% 26,32% 19,23% 21,74% 19,33%
No 66,67% 23,08% 28,57% 60,00% 35,71% 42,11% 38,46% 56,52% 44,67%
Yes 8,33% 69,23% 42,86% 40,00% 57,14% 31,58% 42,31% 21,74% 36,00%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=150
Table 13: HQ sets specific targets for EH&S improvements at affiliate, by host country HQ set targest for improvement? CHINA INDIA MALAYSIA Total
n/a 45,24% 1,96% 20,69% 21,19%
No 23,81% 50,98% 51,72% 43,71%
Yes 30,95% 47,06% 27,59% 35,10%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=151
Table 14: HQ sets specific targets for EH&S improvements at affiliate, by parent country HQ set targest for improvement? Europe Asia US Total
n/a 23,08% 25,00% 0,00% 21,19%
no 43,27% 43,75% 46,67% 43,71%
yes 33,65% 31,25% 53,33% 35,10%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=151
Table 15: HQ sets specific targets for EH&S improvements at affiliate, by industry HQ set targest for
improvement?
Assembly and plastic products
Chemicals Metals and machinery Miscellenous Electronics Total
n/a 16,67% 22,41% 26,32% 26,92% 12,50% 21,19%
no 66,67% 32,76% 36,84% 38,46% 58,33% 43,71%
yes 16,67% 44,83% 36,84% 34,62% 29,17% 35,10%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=151
Table 16: Pre-acquisition assessments, by nature of investment
HQ env assessment before acq? Greenfield investment Take over of existing facility Total
n/a 51,92% 23,53% 44,93%
No 16,35% 17,65% 16,67%
Yes 31,73% 58,82% 38,41%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=146
Table 17: Pre-aquisition assessments, by host country HQ env assessment before acq? CHINA INDIA MALAYSIA Total
n/a 40,54% 48,94% 44,44% 44,93%
No 2,70% 14,89% 27,78% 16,67%
Yes 56,76% 36,17% 27,78% 38,41%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=152
Table 18: Environmental performance as described by respondents, by industry Characterize env
performance2
Assembly and plastic products
Pharmaceuticals Chemicals other than
pharmaceuticals
Metals and machinery
Miscellenous Electronics Total
Similar to local companies
34,78% 0,00% 16,28% 5,26% 22,22% 38,10% 20,41%
Above local companies
47,83% 57,14% 46,51% 57,89% 48,15% 47,62% 49,66%
Similar to home counrty
17,39% 42,86% 37,21% 36,84% 29,63% 14,29% 29,93%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=147
Table 19: Environmental performance as described by respondents, by parent country Characterize env performance Rest Europe UK Denmark Asia US Total
Similar to local companies 14,52% 13,64% 11,76% 48,28% 11,76% 20,41%
Above local companies 54,84% 40,91% 47,06% 41,38% 58,82% 49,66%
Similar to home counrty 30,65% 45,45% 41,18% 10,34% 29,41% 29,93%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=147
Table 20: Main motivating factor behind environmental improvements, by host country Ranking of motivating factors China India Malaysia Total
HQ policies, procedures and standards 30,95% 50,00% 44,44% 42,36%
Current regulatory pressures 33,33% 16,67% 20,37% 22,92%
Local management leadership 4,76% 12,50% 18,52% 12,50%
Anticipation of future regulatory pressures 19,05% 6,25% 9,26% 11,11%
Consumer pressure 0,00% 6,25% 5,56% 4,17%
Pressures from NGOs and media 7,14% 6,25% 1,85% 4,86%
Fear of accident 4,76% 2,08% 0,00% 2,08%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=144
Table 21: Main motivating factors behind environmental improvements, by size of affiliate meassured in terms of number of employees
Ranking of motivating factors Less than 150 150-500 More than 500 Total HQ policies, procedures and standards 30,23% 47,73% 44,19% 40,77%
Current and future regulation 41,86% 29,55% 32,56% 34,62%
Local management leadership 9,30% 11,36% 16,28% 12,31%
Consumer pressure 2,33% 6,82% 4,65% 4,62%
Pressures from NGOs and media 11,63% 2,27% 2,33% 5,38%
Fear of accident 4,65% 2,27% 0,00% 2,31%
Total 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
N=130
I. GENERAL DECRIPTION OF FACILITY Please use right hand field for comments and elaborations 1. Name of company:
--- 2. Address:
--- 3. Telephone:
--- 4. Position of respondent:
--- 5. Main activities/production of subsidiary:
---
6. Share of production being exported: __________%
--- 7. Turnover of entire corporation:
Turnover of subsidiary:
___________
___________ --- 8 Number of employees in entire corporation
Employees at subsidiary:
___________
___________ --- 9. Location of corporate headquarters:
---
10. Number of foreign subsidiaries of corporation ___________
---
11. Year of establishment/acquisition of facility: ___________
--- 12. Nature of facility
a. Green field investment
b. Take over of existing facility {
{
---
13. From your perspective, what motivated the parent company to invest in China? (Please mark at least one)
a. Production for domestic market b. Production for exports c. Access to raw materials d. Savings on labor cost e. Labor flexibility f. Political stability
g. Financial incentives (tax exemption) h. Good supplier networks
i. Administrative efficiency (customs controls, processing of applications, infrastructural support)
j. Lack of environmental control/standards k. Other
{ { { { { { { { { { {
---
14. What percentage of ownership is foreign? (Please provide
a breakdown of ownership, local/foreign) ___________% ---
II. ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY (EH&S) MANAGEMENT AT COMPANY 15. EH&S Organization
a. Does the subsidiary have a designated EH&S officer?
b. Does the subsidiary have a safety committee?
Yes No N/A { { {
Yes No N/A { { {
---
16. Does the subsidiary have an environmental policy? Yes No N/A
{ { { --- 17. If the subsidiary have an environmental policy, is this
environmental policy formulated by headquarters?
Yes No N/A
{ { { --- 18. Would you characterize the environmental performance of the
subsidiary as (mark one)
a. Equivalent to other comparable companies in Malaysia b. Above average industry standard in Malaysia c. More similar to parent home country standards than to Malaysian standards
d. Other
{ { { {
---
19. Is the company subscribing to any national or international environmental guidelines?
If yes, please specify guideline
Yes No N/A { { {
--- 20.1 Certification
a. Is the company certified according to a quality standard?
b. Is the company certified according to an environmental management standard?
If yes, please specify standard
c. Does the company consider certification according to an environmental standard?
20.2. If environmental certification, for what reasons did the company invest in environmental management certification?
(Please rank the most important factors) a. Government pressure/incentive
b. Headquarters policies, procedures and standards c. Pressure from industrial buyers
d. Improved market image among consumers e. Improved image with investors
f. Enhance environmental education and awareness among employees
g. Improved capacity to prevent accidents/risks h. Cost reduction/productivity improvement i. Other
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
{ { { { { { { { {
---
21. Specific EH&S management activities
a. Does the company have specific EH&S training programmes for employees?
b. Does the company prepare separate environmental accounts?
c. Does the company have specific policies and programmes for improving EH&S performance?
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
---
III. ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY CO-OPERATION WITH THE PARENT COMPANY 22. Did the parent conduct an environmental assessment of the
site/ facility before acquisition ?
Yes No N/A
{ { {
---
23. Does the parent conduct regular on site environmental auditing of the affiliate?
If yes, specify frequency
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
24.Are there formalized environmental reporting procedures between the parent and the affiliate?
If yes, specify nature and frequency of these reporting procedures
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
25. Does the parent have an explicit policy of operating with the same environmental standards regardless of location?
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
26. Does headquarters set specific environmental standards for the performance of the affiliate?
If yes, specify areas:
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
27. Does headquarters set specific targets for EH&S improvements at affiliate (e.g. targets for waste reduction or energy conservation)?
If yes, specify areas:
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES, SUPPLIERS AND NGOs 28. How does the company evaluate the relationship to
environmental authorities?
a. Very good b. Good c. Problematic
{ { {
---
29. Co-operation with local authorities
a. Has the company been in dialogue with local environmental authorities (DOE, state DOE) in the process of designing environmental regulation ?
b. Has the company been used as an example by local authorities on how to solve specific environmental problems?
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
---
30. Shared facilities
a. Has the company developed any environmental
infrastructure which is used by other companies besides itself (common effluent treatment plants, waste management facilities, incinerators, etc.?)
b. Has the company collaborated with other firms in setting up common effluent treatment plants?
Does the company contract out its waste management activities?
Does the company outsource other environmentally sensitive operations and processes?
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
---
31. Does the company co-operate with or support local environmental NGOs?
If yes, specify the nature of the co-operation
Yes No N/A
{ { { ---
32. Co-operation with suppliers and subcontractors a. Does the company conduct environmental screening of processes of local subcontractors/ suppliers?
b. Does the company conduct environmental screening of products of local subcontractors/ suppliers?
c. Does the company have minimum environmental requirements for suppliers and subcontractors d. If minimum requirement, is it with respect to Products
Processes
Waste management
e. Does the company offer technical assistance for
environmental improvements at suppliers and subcontractors?
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
{ { {
Yes No N/A
{ { {
---
V. FACTORS AFFECTING COMPANY’S ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE 33. Do you feel that your company, having foreign equity, is
subject to significantly stricter enforcement of environmental rules than Malaysian companies?
Yes No N/A
{ { { --- 34. Factors that have motivated/ encouraged the company to
improved environmental performance (‘Please rank the most important factors’)
a. Current regulatory pressures in Malaysia b. The anticipation of future regulation in Malaysia c. Local management leadership
d. Headquarters policies, procedures and standards e. Pressure from NGOs and media in Malaysia f. Pressure from NGOs/media in parent home country g. Consumer pressure in Malaysia
h. Consumer pressure in OECD markets i. Experiences with accidents
j. Rule making of international organizations k. Other
{ { { { { { { { { { {
---
31. Major barriers to improved environmental performance at company (Please rank the most important factors’)
a. Economic/ financial constraints
b. Weak or non-existent environmental regulations c. Lack of enforcement of environmental rules d. Lack of environmental infrastructures e. Cultural factors in the staff
f. Lack of qualified staff
g. Relation to joint venture partner h. Other
{ { { { { { { {
---