Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

The integration of environmental practices and tools in the Portuguese

local public administration
Luís Nogueiro, Tomás B. Ramos*
CENSE e Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Departamento de Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus da Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal

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

Article history: The adoption of environmental practices and tools in overall management is an increasing occurrence in
Received 19 December 2011 local public organisations. These institutions are shifting their management towards sustainability,
Received in revised form although local governments are moving faster than other public sector levels regarding the integration of
31 December 2013
environmental and sustainability aspects in operations and strategies. The main goal of this research was
Accepted 30 March 2014
Available online 12 April 2014
to identify the environmental profile of local public administration using Portuguese municipalities as a
case-study. This paper assesses how environmental and sustainability practices and tools have been
adopted in this sector based on self-assessment by the local public services. To accomplish this aim, a
Keywords:
Local public administration
questionnaire survey was forwarded to all of the municipalities in the country in order to identify and
Environmental practices and tools analyse the environmental practices in the local public sector. An aggregate evaluation of the degree of
Sustainable development implementation of certain environmental practices was also produced based on an index that was
Portuguese municipalities developed based on the data obtained from ten selected environmental practices variables in the na-
tional survey. The overall results demonstrate a low adoption level of environmental practices and tools,
concluding that new practices and public policies need to be adopted to invert the current trend.
Nevertheless, there are positive signs of rising environmental integration and awareness, although many
of the processes are in the early stages of implementation or changing. This research can support mu-
nicipalities in reviewing and analysing their environmental management, assessment and communica-
tion practices to improve their environmental performance.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction efficiency and effectiveness, as endorsed by several authors (e.g.,

The public administration faces multiple challenges that compel
it to continually make an effort to adapt to new organisational
forms capable of responding to the constant requirements of so-
ciety. Curristine et al. (2007) state that governments of the Orga-
nisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries are under pressure to improve public sector performance,
while at the same time contain expenditure growth. Although the
majority of OECD countries have engaged in some institutional
reforms through the adoption of several good practices and new
approaches, the demonstration of their results remains unclear.
Public sector performance could include several dimensions
beyond the economic, financial and human resources aspects,
including the environmental pillar, improving the public sector
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ351 212948397; fax: þ351 212948554.
E-mail addresses: luisnogueiro@hotmail.com (L. Nogueiro), tabr@fct.unl.pt (T.
B. Ramos).
GRI, 2004, 2010; PMSGO, 1999; Burritt and Welch, 1997). However,
as demonstrated by Ramos et al. (2007a) and further discussed by
Lundberg et al. (2009), environmental assessment and manage-
ment practices have most often been applied to manufacturing
industries and tangible products, while public organisations usu-
ally neglect and/or omit their own environmental problems,
excluding themselves from environmental integration in their own
activities. Overall, the public sector has frequently been left out in
research on the environmental and sustainability performance
follow-up of their different activities and operations, despite few
attempts, such as the one conducted by Lundberg (2011). These few
studies can be justified in part by the natural attention that is given
to sectors with a longer/greater history of environmental impacts,
e.g., industry, agriculture and transport and with more pressure
from stakeholders, customers in particular. However, the overall
impacts of government operations can exceed those of individual
industry sectors in a national context, as public agencies are major
employers, providers of services and consumers of resources, as
argued by GRI (2004).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.096
0959-6526/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
However, despite the abovementioned reality on environmental
and sustainability research initiatives in the public sector, local
government is part of a wider sustainability culture change
movement and is becoming widely recognised as an environmental
leader, advocating to other levels of government (Strengers, 2004).
Local public institutions could play a central role in adopting sus-
tainable initiatives, as discussed by Williams et al. (2011). Local
governments are realising that they need to be part of the change
towards sustainability and integrate good practices to improve
their own performance and inform stakeholders. Nevertheless, as
also indicated by Strengers (2004), the reasons justifying these
changes are less clear, as well as the ways and means in which these
changes are occurring and the permanency of these changes.
The relevant amount of work conducted in the area of envi-
ronmental and sustainability practices and tools being imple-
mented by local governments (e.g., Dumay et al., 2010; Michelsen
and de Boer, 2009; Lozano and Vallés, 2007) contains many expe-
riences and case studies, demonstrating that many local public
administrations worldwide already provide good examples for
integrating environmental initiatives into their operational activ-
ities and strategic instruments. Despite the numerous theoretical
and empirical research initiatives discussing new approaches,
methods or case study applications, the majority primarily focus on
only one main practice or issue (e.g., Environmental Management
System e EMS; sustainability reporting; Local Agenda 21 e LA21)
(see chapter 2). Therefore, there is a dearth of research on initiatives
that offer a coherent integrated environmental picture of a relevant
set of adopted practices and tools by local governments.
This dearth is even more evident within the context of the
Portuguese local government. Despite certain known initiatives
conducted by the Portuguese local administration on environ-
mental and sustainability issues, as identified by Fidélis and
Moreno-Pires (2009) or Schmidt et al. (2006), little research has
focused on the joint assessment of a set of significant practices and
tools adopted or lead by the local governments of this Southern
European country. To fill this research gap, a tailored local public
administration assessment was conducted in this research, trying
to assess the extent to which Portuguese municipalities are
adopting key environmental actions and procedures.
The main goal of this research was to identify the environmental
profile of local public administration through an analysis of the
environmental practices and tools in Portuguese municipalities
based on a self-assessment. To accomplish this aim, a national
survey of all of the Portuguese municipalities was performed spe-
cifically to ascertain the following research questions: What is the
general state of environmental integration and engagement in the
Portuguese municipalities? What is the extent of implementation
for a set of specific environmental practices and tools in the Por-
tuguese municipalities? These practices include the appointment of
a designated environmental professional responsible for environ-
mental issues, the environmental training of personnel, EMS
implementation, environmental and sustainability indicators and
reporting, environmental standards for suppliers and LA21 imple-
mentation, among others.
2. Overview of environmental practices and tools in the local
public administration
As introduced in the previous section, public institutions are
moving towards to the integration of environmental and sustain-
ability issues in their management (GRI, 2004; Ramos et al., 2007a,
b). An important turning point was the recommendation of OECD
(1996), stating that governments should develop and apply stra-
tegies to continually improve environmental performance, inte-
grating environmental considerations into all government
21
operations and facilities, including related decision-making pro-
cesses. This recommendation was followed by other OECD initia-
tives, such as the Workshop on Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) for Government Agencies (OECD, 1998), the
Recommendation of the Council on Improving the Environmental
Performance of Public Procurement (OECD, 2002) and the Recom-
mendation of the Council on Good Practices for Public Environ-
mental Expenditure Management (OECD, 2006). It was understood
that, like any other organisation, public services should have
environmental objectives, goals and targets.
Local governments are responsible for providing a large number
of services to their populations, independent of organisation size,
territory location and social-cultural factors (USEPA, 1999). As
focused on in this work of the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, a main issue when analysing local public admin-
istration is the different types of local authority, the scope of their
activities and operations, the related environmental aspects and
impacts (many of them are indirectly associated) and the regulatory
requirements. These organisations face different roles beyond the
usual specific daily activities of their facilities, which take place
within each of these organisations. These organisations usually
participate in many other tasks, e.g., local planning, regulation,
surveillance and monitoring in the respective environmental, so-
cial/cultural, economic and institutional systems operating within
their jurisdiction. As highlighted by GRI (2004), indirect impacts
can result from policies, plans and programs implemented by local
authorities that can have major strategic effects on society and the
environment.
Various studies have surveyed and identified the adoption of
environmental practices and management/assessment tools by
companies, especially addressing EMSs, eco-design, sustainability
performance indicators, reporting practices and other corporate
responsibility-related research issues (e.g., Comoglio and Botta,
2012; Lozano, 2012). Following the rising private sector trend,
similar studies have been conducted for local public organisations,
and several cases provide examples of these practices, many
voluntary, where local governments are becoming aware and/or
research is being produced (Table 1).
Despite being quantitatively less representative, other research
attempts to produce wider integrated analyses, not focussing only
one single practice or tool, such as those previously mentioned
(e.g., EMS), cover a broader scope. For example, Montesinos and
Brusca (2009) surveyed Spanish local governments aiming to
identify which options are being used to improve local manage-
ment in terms of financial and economic quality and environmental
management. Enticott and Walker (2008) conducted a survey to
analyse the association between sustainable management and
performance in local English governments. Furthermore, the survey
that traced the environmental profile of the local government op-
erations in the United States (USEPA, 1999) was presented earlier in
this chapter.
Other integrated approaches attempt to analyse the integration
of environmental or sustainability practices by local public
administration using an index-based approach through the aggre-
gation of different variables that provide an overall profile or pic-
ture (e.g., Wilson and Grant, 2009; Barrera-Roldan and Saldivar-
Valdes, 2002). Some authors, such as Frame and Vale (2006) and
Pulsellia et al. (2006), discussed applications of this type of
approach, stressing some known advantages and limitations.
3. The Portuguese local administration
There are three distinct layers of government within Portugal:
the national/central government; the two autonomous regions,
which have their own political and administrative systems and
22 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31

Table 1
Examples of applications in the local public administration of environmental and sustainability practices.

Type of environmental and sustainability practice Applications in local public administration

Environmental training Environmental training assessment needs initiatives to train technical and managerial staff of municipalities
(Martins et al., 2000; Demirer et al., 2003), a major practice very much related to the greening of regular jobs. There
is a growing and increasing interest in the promotion of trained jobs that add value to environmental and
sustainability organisational performance in the private and public sectors, as explored by UNEP (2008); staff
training is being assumed as a main driving force in implementing and managing environmental practices in local
public organisations.
Environmental management system (EMS) Applying EMSs at local public organisation facilities analysing the organisation scopes and management
approaches and features is one of the most studied environmental practices (e.g., Lozano and Vallés, 2007;
Abubakar and Alshuwaikhat, 2007; Malmborg and Norén, 2004; Emilsson and Hjelm, 2002, 2004), as it is
frequently assumed that the adoption of environmental practices and issues is better integrated as a result of the
presence of an EMS; some of those works analyse the use of EMSs by local authorities, studying their
implementation with case studies from European cities (Emilsson and Hjelm, 2004), or consider modified
approaches to incorporating an EMS in local public authorities. For instance, Abubakar and Alshuwaikhat (2007)
incorporated strategic environmental assessment attributes and public participation processes into a corporate
EMS.
Environmental auditing Environmental auditing conducted in local public facilities, including their infrastructures, equipment, activities
and operations (e.g., Diamantis, 1999; Aall, 1995) is also a common practice for this type of organisation, outlining
procedures by which environmental auditing can be used and adopting municipal approaches of eco-auditing that
were tried in cities; this practice is also frequently discussed in the context of EMS operation, as regular audits,
external and internal, are part of the system.
Sustainable public procurement There are several sustainable public procurement initiatives and approaches developed for the local public
administration context (e.g., Michelsen and de Boer, 2009; Jackson and Thomson, 2007; Günther and Scheibe,
2006; Ryall and Warner, 2001), stressing their practical experiences and conceptual discussions as well as the
unique role that local governments can provide as driving forces for greening consumption practices, as
emphasised by Clement et al. (2003). As stated by Jackson and Thomson (2007), the greening of public
procurement could be seen as a key initial step towards providing suppliers with a major incentive to reduce their
environmental impacts and stimulating the markets for sustainable products and services, where each local
authority has a different set of circumstances and priorities.
Environmental and sustainability reporting The practice of environmental and sustainability reporting conducted by municipalities or cities (Williams et al.,
2011; Dumay et al., 2010; Dickinson et al., 2005; Keating, 2001) has been increasingly adopted to communicate
organisational or territory performance to internal and/or external stakeholders; wide works on sustainability
reporting, such as that led by Keating (2001), stressed that a significant number of cities around the world (e.g.,
Seattle) have or are developing environmental, sustainability or quality of life reports. The Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) is the only international reporting framework for organisational sustainability performance that is
also designed to be applicable to public agencies (GRI, 2004, 2010).
Sustainability indicators There are a significant number of initiatives on the development and use of sustainability indicators at the local
scale (e.g., Petrosillo et al., 2012; Karam et al., 2008; Butelli et al., 2008; Scipioni et al., 2008; Holden, 2006;
Eckerberg and Mineur, 2003; McMahon, 2002; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000), aiming to monitor, assess and
report local environmental and sustainability performance to stakeholders and support decision making
processes; despite the complexities and criticism surrounding this tool (e.g., Holden, 2013; Moreno-Pires and
Fidélis, 2012), this is a major practice when exploring sustainability initiatives conducted by local governments,
assuming a central role in local public sector policies and activities.
Sustainable development strategies/community Some initiatives tend to provide a more general analysis of sustainability integration at the local level, with Local
processes e e.g., Local Agenda 21a Agenda 21 (LA21) being the most studied instrument (e.g., Fidélis and Moreno-Pires, 2009; Garcia-Sanchez and
Prado-Lorenzo, 2008; Braun, 2008; Aguado et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 2006; Miranda and Steinberg, 2005;
Feichtinger and Pregernig, 2005; Selman, 2000; Grochowalska, 1998; Patton and Worthington, 1996) and
frequently being assumed as the sustainable development strategy of the local governments.
a
The Local Agenda 21 is not a management practice, in the traditional sense, nor comparable to the most common practices such EMS or sustainability reporting. It is an
instrument that reflects the broad strategy of a local government to sustainable development, where usually the participation and involvement of local communities play a key
role.

governing bodies (the Atlantic islands of the Azores and Madeira);
and the local authorities.
Providing an overview of the organisation and structure of the
Portuguese local administration is a fundamental step to under-
stand the target and scope of this study. At present, there are two
levels of local government: municipalities (municípios) and par-
ishes (freguesias) (Table 2). The most basic local government unit in
Portugal is the parish, which elects a local assembly via propor-
tional representation for a four-year term. This body, in turn, elects
an executive and president from its members (the president is at
the head of the winning party list). The tier immediately above the
parish is the municipality, which is elected on the same basis as are
the parishes (with the municipal assembly electing a municipal
council and mayor).
The Portuguese municipalities were chosen for this research, as
they are the most important members of the Portuguese local
public administration. These organisations are frequently the main
employer, playing a central role in local development, regardless of
size, location or demographic characteristics. These organisations
are responsible for providing a great diversity of services, such as
educational facilities, environmental protection and management,
land use planning, transportation, cultural events and social care, to
their populations.
Portuguese municipalities have significant asymmetries in their
levels of development. Their diversity in valuable natural, social
and cultural assets, human pressures, importance for the Portu-
guese public administrative structure and, in addition, government
strategic and operational responsibilities in connection with their
advantageous position near local communities indicate how rele-
vant the environmental profile assessment is for performance
management in public services.
According to Soares et al. (2003), there are four many clusters of
municipalities in terms of similar levels of socioeconomic devel-
opment. (i) The first group is composed of mainly rural interior
municipalities in northern and central Portugal, close to the
Spanish border, as well as along the Southwest coast. This group is
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31 23

Table 2 Furthermore, this response rate is considered high for this

Summary characterization of the Portuguese sub-national authorities. method, as Garcia-Sanchez and Prado-Lorenzo (2008) report. Ac-
Municipalities Parishes cording to these authors, a response rate of approximately 11% is
Area (km2) Largest 1721 (Odemira) 373 (Penamacor)
slightly higher than usual for papers on municipalities in which the
Smallest 8 (São João da Madeira) 0.05 (Castelo) requested information can only be obtained through a tool such as
Population Largest 545 245 (Lisbon) 66 250 (Algueirão) a survey. Additionally, Montesinos and Brusca (2009) obtained a
Smallest 430 (Corvo) 46 (Bigorne) 26% response rate for a similar questionnaire and context (Spanish
Population Less then 20 000: 181 (59%)
local authorities), which they classify as a normal value for this type
range 20 000e100 000: 103 (33%)
Over 100 000: 24 (8%) of study. Nevertheless, any extrapolations of the current results to
Total (no.) 308 4259 represent all of the Portuguese municipality’s statistical population
Source: INE (2011).
should be taken with great care. The responses to the questionnaire
were mainly given by the municipality technical staff in charge of
environmental and sustainability or related matters, including
planning or engineering issues. Several respondent municipalities
characterised by low population density and a general low level of internally distributed the document to more than one department
socioeconomic development. (ii) The second group includes a large to assure a more accurate response. In many municipalities, more
number of municipalities from the northern and central regions of than one department usually covers these thematic domains.
Portugal, including some municipalities from the Alentejo and Where there were important questions, in particular requesting
Algarve regions in the South. This group is characterised by an additional explanations for the data, there were follow-up emails or
average level of socio-economic development. (iii) The third group telephone calls to respondents. Additionally, the missing cases
integrates municipalities from the coastal zone of Portugal, (non-responses) were dealt with in accordance with the recom-
including the municipalities around Lisbon and Porto. These mu- mendations of Rea and Parker (1997) by means of identification per
nicipalities have a high population density and a generally high response category and the estimation of adjusted frequencies.
level of socioeconomic development, and they also have the highest Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the results in the
value of environmental expenditures. (iv) The fourth group in- municipalities surveyed according to the recommendations of
cludes Lisbon and Porto, the most developed municipalities in Wheater and Cook (2000) and Rea and Parker (1997). Where
terms of socioeconomic indicators. appropriate, chi-square was used to test associations between fre-
quency distributions in the groups of municipalities by size, in
4. Methodology terms of the number of inhabitants and number of workers, and in

The raw data on local government environmental practices were

Table 3
obtained from a national questionnaire survey distributed among
Summary of questions to establish the Portuguese local administration sector’s
all of the Portuguese municipalities. The survey questions covered environmental profile.
several major practices that were selected and designed consid-
Category Specific issue addressed
ering the literature analysed in Sections 1 And 2. The “environ-
mental practices” definition and scope explored by several related General characterisation of  Geographic localisation; population (num
works at the organisation level, namely OECD (2003), Ramos and the municipality ber of inhabitants and population density);
land area
Melo (2005), Montabon et al. (2007) and Lozano (2012), were Environmental profile  Perception of the integration level of envi
also considered. self-assessment ronmental practices in the municipality
The questionnaire was developed and managed (design, Environmental practices  (P1) Existence of a coordinating structure for
administration and analysis) by the university research staff and and tools (Pi) in the environmental matters
municipality  (P2) Staff with environmental
was emailed in November 2007 to the 308 Portuguese municipal-
responsibilities and time allotted to these
ities. The questionnaire contained 44 questions drawn from theo- activities
retical scientific/technical literature focussing on approaches,  (P3) Staff submitted to training courses on
concepts, frameworks and case study applications. The majority are environmental practices and tools
multiple-choice closed-ended questions with only one question  (P4) EMS: current state of implementation,
driving forces and scope
designed with a ranking scale to obtain the environmental profile  (P5) Environmental audit conducted in mu
self-assessment by the municipalities. Table 3 presents a summary nicipality facilities
of the main issues addressed by the questions. A pre-test to the  (P6) Environmental and/or sustainability
questionnaire with a set of selected individuals from the local au- information communicated through formal
reports
thority and the academic sectors was administered to assess the
 (P7) Use of environmental performance in
overall quality of the draft questionnaire. The inputs received from dicators to measure, communicate and
the pre-test were analysed and weighted in the final version of the report
questionnaire.  (P8) Use of environmental and/or sustain
The statistical population represents all of the municipalities, ability criteria in local government public
purchasing
totalling 308. Altogether, 95 municipalities returned usable re-  (P9) Application submitted to the ECO XXI
sponses to the questionnaires, representing a response rate of award system
approximately 31%. To infer the significance of the respondent  (P10) Implementation of LA21 or another
municipalities for the entire surveyed population, the approach type of local sustainable development
strategya
proposed by Scheaffer et al. (1996) was conducted. According to the
confidence interval for p of finite populations, the sample size a
Despite their different scopes in relation to the traditional management prac-
n ¼ 95 provides estimates with 95% confidence and a margin error tices of an organisation, Local Agenda 21 was also included as it could play a central
role in the level of environmental and sustainability awareness and adopted man-
of approximately 8.4% in the most conservative situation. This agement practices in local public administration. Assuming that a Local Agenda 21
figure allows for a significant analysis of the main findings, can be considered the sustainable development strategy of a local government, it
assuming the identified margin error. can be the umbrella for several good environmental and sustainability practices.
24 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
the groups of municipalities by geographic location and the envi-
ronmental practice variables.
The raw data obtained in this survey are quite extensive and
diverse. To synthesise, convey and process the environmental
practice information in a simplified and useful manner, providing a
friendly picture to local policy decision-makers and the general
public, an aggregation approach was adopted. Based on the selec-
tion of a relevant set of variables from the survey questionnaire
(Table 3) related to environmental practices and tools and consid-
ering the method used by Ramos and Melo (2006),1 we adopted a
similar index named the Municipality Integration of Environmental
Practices (MIEP) index. This index measures the extent to which
these selected practices have been adopted by municipalities. It
should be highlighted that the index is mainly assumed as an
aggregated complement to the deeper analysis provided by each
individual survey variable.
Considering the theoretical background and analysis conducted
in chapters 1 and 2, the main criteria to select the index variables
cover the following: (i) to be relevant for the direct or indirect
assessment of the environmental profile of municipalities; (ii) to be
representative of known and used environmental practices by or-
ganisations, in particular for local public organisations; (iii) to be
potentially adopted by any Portuguese municipality; (iv) to be easy
to measure and integrate into an index; and (v) to be useful for
communicating with stakeholders.
After this selection, a normalisation procedure was used to
transform the original data of Pi variables into a single scale of
continual variation [0,.,1], which allowed the aggregation process.
This scale varies between 0 (the worst environmental profile) and 1
(the best environmental profile). The data manipulation of the
chosen survey variables allows for the computation of a composite
variable provided by the MIEP index, which was calculated using
the following equation:
" #
1X m
1Xn
MIEP ¼ P (1)
m j¼1 n i¼1 i
j 1973 workers. The average was 368. These figures are generally in-
where,
Pi ¼ the value of the environmental practice variable i derived
from the questionnaire;
i ¼ the total number of variables i; i ¼ 1,.,10; and
m ¼ the total number of municipalities j; j ¼ 1,.,95.
Five categories were established to classify the extent of envi-
ronmental practices supplied by the index on a scale of 0e1 (very
poor: 0e0.20; poor: 0.21e0.40; medium: 0.41e0.60; good: 0.61e
0.80; very good: 0.81e1.0). It should be stressed that the MIEP index
was not designed to evaluate the individual level of environmental
integration of each municipality, i.e., this evaluation does not rank
the respondent municipalities, and the analysis was conducted for
the entire Portuguese local administration sector as represented by
all of the survey respondents. The analyses for this index consid-
ered the geographic location and dimension of the municipalities in
terms of the number of inhabitants and workers.
To evaluate the potential differences between groups in the
MIEP index, the non-parametric KruskaleWallis test (Gibbons,
1993), a one-way analysis of variance using ranks, was used. This
1
A method developed to assess the Portuguese military sector’s environmental
performance through an index, with raw data obtained from a questionnaire. The
algorithm is composed of an average of the selected environmental variables for
one single military unit, which is followed by a second average to aggregate several
units and obtain the military sector profile.
test does not assume a normal population distribution, unlike the
analogous one-way analysis of variance. The test was applied to
different types of groups, reflecting (i) the geographical location by
the NUTS2 II region: Alentejo, Algarve, Centre, Lisbon, North, Azores
and Madeira; (ii) the number of inhabitants considering an incre-
ment of 25 000 individuals between consecutive classes (CL1 ¼ 0e
25,000 individuals, CL2 ¼ 25,001e50,000, .); and (iii) the number
of workers considering an increment of 250 individuals between
consecutive classes (CL1 ¼ 0e250 individuals, CL2 ¼ 251e500, .).
Having less than 250 employees is one of the criteria used to define
small and medium enterprises according to the European Com-
mission definition (European Commission, 2003).
Additionally, the index results and the municipalities’ self-
assessment of their environmental profile (respondent’s percep-
tion about the integration level of environmental practices in the
municipality) resulting from their answers to a particular survey
question were compared. The five categories in the MIEP index
were the same as those used in the question requesting the self-
assessment of environmental practices at the integration level us-
ing numerical values associated with the ordinal categories (1e5,
very poor to very good). The comparison was based on the trans-
formation of the metric values of the MIEP index into non-metric
ordinal values for each class, allowing for the association with the
same discrete data obtained in the related question.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. General background
The population of the respondent municipalities ranged from
2688 to 307 444 inhabitants, thus revealing great variations in size.
The average number of inhabitants for all of the respondents was
34 320. The population density ranged from 3710 inhabitants/km2
to four inhabitants/km2, with an average of 325. The majority of
respondent municipalities (58%) had less than 250 employees with
the actual figures ranging from a minimum of 73 to a maximum of
line with the average national data provided by the last census (INE,
2011).
The total physical area of each municipality also varied greatly,
indicating that these analyses focused on small, medium and large
territories ranging from an area of 8e1332 km2, with an average
value of 302 km2. The geographic distribution of the respondent
municipalities throughout the country showed a relatively repre-
sentative participation of all of the NUTS II regions. All of the re-
gions were represented, although the majority of respondents were
located in the Centre (30.5%) and North (30.5%) regions.
5.2. The aggregate environmental practices profile
The MIEP index results for the Portuguese municipalities
demonstrated that the aggregate profile of environmental practices
of respondent Portuguese municipalities is poor (0.33) (Fig. 1).
The MIEP index by geographic location (NUTS II) showed no
major differences among locations. The relative consistency among
regions was confirmed by the non-significant KruskaleWallis test
results. The Lisbon region had the highest MEPE value (0.49),
registering a small difference compared with the other regions
(Fig. 1), although the value was enough to reflect a medium level of
environmental practices integration compared with the poor level
obtained by the remaining regions.
2
European Union Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Each NUTS II
region includes a set of municipalities geographically related.
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
Fig. 1. MIEP Index by geographic location e NUTS II regions.
The aggregate environmental practices profile was higher in
large municipalities (Fig. 2a and b). In municipalities with more
than 75 000 inhabitants and 1000 workers, the environmental
performance was good (0.66 and 0.69, respectively). The differ-
ences among municipality size classes (inhabitants and workers)
were confirmed by the KruskaleWallis test (significant for
p < 0.01). Overall, this result indicates some association with the
findings of Soares et al. (2003), where the municipalities that had a
higher population density also had the highest value of environ-
mental expenditures and a generally high level of socioeconomic
development, which could be correlated with the adoption of more
environmental practices and tools.
On account of severe environmental problems and/or intense
community pressure, large municipalities tend to lead in imple-
menting environmental practices. Generally, small-sized Portu-
guese public organisations tend to have few financial and human
resources, which could limit the adoption of better environmental
practices. In addition, these results could also be explained by the
fact that some of the larger municipalities are adopting Environ-
mental Management Systems (EMSs) and have more staff trained in
environmental issues, among other practices that occur more in
large municipalities (detailed discussion for each single practice is
presented in the next section). This pattern could explain the
apparently better environmental integration of the large-sized local
authorities surveyed.
The comparison between the MIEP index and the municipalities’
self-assessment single question showed contradictory results
(Fig. 3). The results produced by the index indicate that the mu-
nicipalities’ environmental practice integration is very poor (51%)
Fig. 2. MIEP Index by municipality size: (a) inhabitants and (b) workers.
25
and poor (21%). However, the self-assessment carried out by the
municipalities reveals that they consider themselves as having a
good (47%) or medium (42%) environmental profile.
These results may be explained by various factors, particularly
the fact that many of the environmental practices considered for
this evaluation are voluntary, and local government decision-
makers will give priority to mandatory practices. However, the
optimistic self-assessment results could also be explained by the
need to report a very good level of environmental practices to
protect the authorities’ image. Additionally, as stressed by Ramos
and Melo (2006) with reference to other public sector organisa-
tions, these results may also be explained by the poor perception
and knowledge of the actual environmental profile. The MIEP index
results reflect a more robust picture of the aggregate environ-
mental practices in place, compared with an overoptimistic view
projected in the municipalities’ self-assessment.
Few similar works are available for other countries, i.e., research
work that evaluates the environmental profile of municipalities
through the integrated analysis of the different environmental
management practices implemented by their services. Therefore,
any attempts to compare other results are quite difficult. Never-
theless, some of the comparable works showed some individually
matching findings, such as the positive association between mu-
nicipality size and the adoption of environmental reporting
(Williams et al., 2011) and green public purchasing (Michelsen and
de Boer, 2009), as well as contradictory findings such as EMS and
size (Montesinos and Brusca, 2009), which can demonstrate the
existence of different patterns despite certain geographic, cultural
and socio-economic similarities.
26 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
Fig. 3. Municipality self-assessment versus the MIEP Index.
Assessments based on the MIEP index seek to aid in commu-
nication with local decision-makers and key stakeholders to un-
derstand the municipalities’ environmental profile regarding these
practices. The aggregation approach used with an index can be
useful in synthesising the surveyed information and conveying it in
an easier and more comprehensible way. A similar study was
conducted for the Portuguese military organisation, focussing on
the analysis of the environmental practices implemented in that
sector (Ramos and Melo, 2005, 2006). Although this study is also of
national scope, it does not allow for an easy comparison with the
results provided by the local public administration. However,
considering the specificities allocated to each study, it is possible to
admit that the environmental practices profile of both types of
organisations is similar. The integration of environmental practices
into these Portuguese public areas (defence and local public
administration) is quite new and is still in a development stage,
although with a positive trend when compared with other public
sector areas and levels.
Nevertheless, it should also be stressed that integrated envi-
ronmental assessment in public services is a relatively under-
explored and complex domain, as shown by Ramos et al. (2007a;
2007b; 2009) and Lundberg et al. (2009). Aggregated assessment
approaches to synthesise information, such as the MIEP index,
could be useful but should be carefully used.
5.3. Environmental practices and tools surveyed in the
municipalities
5.3.1. Coordinating structure, staff and training
The majority of the municipalities (71%) have a coordinating
structure for environmental matters with the Department/Division
being the most common administrative structure to manage this
diverse domain. It should be stressed that the departments or di-
visions that cover environmentally related matters could have
different structures and thematic scopes. Environmental domains
are quite diverse, and departments may vary from one municipality
to another. For example, waste management, water supply or green
spaces can be managed by independent departments outside of the
scope of an environment department. This wide and diverse scope
of environmental matters often leads to disaggregated solutions
that are not very efficient for the implementation of environmental
practices and tools, which usually require integrated municipal
structures. Furthermore, this limitation is even worst when the
subject is focused on sustainability.
This result also shows a significant association between the size
of the municipality (number of inhabitants and workers) and the
existence of this type of administrative structure (confirmed by the
chi-square test, p < 0.01) (Table 4). This finding seems to indicate
that larger municipalities that usually have more resources (human
and material) could have more complete and diverse organisational
structures, covering a wide scope of domains in which the envi-
ronment is almost always present, as confirmed by the re-
spondents. However, it should be stressed that this scenario could
be quite different if the question aimed at sustainability instead of
the environment. Mascarenhas et al. (2010), in the context of
southern Portuguese municipalities, state that there is a lack of
coherent municipal structures in charge of sustainability activities
and that a non-integrated vision of this intersectoral domain exists
with poor inter-departmental cooperation.
Approximately 68% of the local authorities surveyed state that
they do not have any type of employee training courses on envi-
ronmental management practices in the organisation. These results
are consistent with the main figures identified by Martins et al.
(2000) on green jobs and environmental training in Portugal,
where municipalities include some of the organisations that most
require environmental training, in particular for the personnel with
lower-medium academic skills who are responsible for many
operational activities. Thus, the local authorities in Portugal pri-
marily need environmental training, education and awareness-
raising for their staff, especially those with more operational
functions, as training is a fundamental step towards improving an
organisation’s environmental performance. Practical training pro-
jects for municipalities such the one presented by Demirer et al.
(2003) on Preventive Environmental Management Training for
Municipalities could be an example of a first step to support the
adoption of environmental practices by local governments.
The association between the trained staff and the size of the
municipality was significant for the variables of workers (signifi-
cant for p < 0.01) and inhabitants (significant for p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Therefore, it seems that larger organisations are more aware of
environmental training needs, although they are generally more
aware or have better resources to provide this service to their
employees, independent of the subject.
5.3.2. Environmental Management System (EMS)
Only 12% of municipalities have implemented or are imple-
menting an EMS (according to the ISO 14001 definition (ISO, 2004)
or to the definition of the European Regulation Eco-Management
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31 27

Table 4
Environmental practices and tools surveyed in the Portuguese municipalities: summary of questionnaire responses.

Question Category label Total

Absolute frequency (number) Relative frequency (%)

Coordinating structure for environmental matters Yes 67 70.5

No 28 29.5
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.01
Workers Significant for p < 0.01
Geographic location Non significant
Employee training courses on environmental Yes 30 31.6
management practices No 65 68.4
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.05
Workers Significant for p < 0.01
Geographic location Non significant
Environmental Management System Yes 5 5.3
Implementing 6 6.4
Intention to do 64 68.1
No intention to do 15 16.0
Do not know EMS 4 4.3
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.01
Workers Significant for p < 0.01
Geographic location Non significant
Environmental Audit Yes 18 19.8
No 60 65.9
Don’t know 13 14.3
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.01
Workers Significant for p < 0.01
Geographic location Non significant
Environmental or sustainability reports Yes 12 12.9
No 78 83.9
Don’t know 3 3.2
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.05
Workers Non significant
Geographic location Non significant
Environmental or sustainability indicators Yes 26 27.7
No 64 68.1
Don’t know 4 4.3
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.01
Workers Significant for p < 0.05
Geographic location Non significant
Green purchasing Yes 34 37.0
No 44 47.8
Don’t know 14 15.2
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.05
Workers Non significant
Geographic location Non significant
ECO XXI Award Yes 20 22.0
No 68 74.7
Don’t know 3 3.3
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Significant for p < 0.01
Workers Significant for p < 0.05
Geographic location Non significant
Local Agenda 21 Yes 3 3.2
Implementing 36 38.3
Intention to do 37 39.4
Have other plan 5 5.3
Have an EMP 4 4.3
No intention to do 6 6.4
Don’t know 3 3.2
Chi-square test:
Inhabitants Non significant
Workers Non significant
Geographic location Non significant

and Audit Scheme (EMAS), (EC, 2009)). The majority (64%) state do not know what an EMS is. Approximately half of the EMSs
their intention to do so (Table 4), indicating that EMS is apparently already implemented or now being implemented include the
a widely known or popular environmental management tool in the organisation as a whole, while the remainder include only parts of
public organisations analysed. However, 4% of the respondents still the organisation, e.g., a facility, department or operating sector.
28 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
In all, four of the respondent municipalities that have imple-
mented an EMS are certified by ISO 14001, and one municipality is
certified by EMAS. The main motivations identified by the munic-
ipalities surveyed for implementing an EMS were to improve the
overall environmental performance of the organisation, to
demonstrate local authority commitment to the environment and
to present the best possible image and reputation of the munici-
pality to local communities and all interested parties.
The degree of EMS implementation in the Portuguese munici-
palities is generally low, indicating that changing these figures will
take a long time. EMS could play a central role in the local public
organisations and in the local economic activities, as it could act as
an “umbrella” scheme and as a main driving force to implement
other practices and tools. In line with this argument, Comoglio and
Botta (2012) show that EMS implementation provides support for
the adoption of other environmental practices, increasing the
commitment towards environmental performance improvement.
As also stressed by Delmas and Toffel (2004), EMS in local gov-
ernments could play an important role in encouraging local com-
panies to implement an EMS. For example, EMS can facilitate
adoption by reducing information and search costs linked to the
adoption of the standard by providing technical assistance to po-
tential adopters. Therefore, local authorities should demonstrate
that they know this tool quite well and adopt it in their facilities,
thereby exerting significant influence on the local society and
economy.
Despite the significant differences between the public and pri-
vate sectors, the motivation drivers identified by the respondents
are very much related to some of the common identified reasons for
the implementation of EMS in private sector organisations, such as
image and marketing. As stressed by Ramos et al. (2009), one would
expect these drivers to be different, as public organisations pursue
political and social goals rather than commercial and profit objec-
tives, but the data did not confirm this assumption. Regarding the
comparative benefits of EMS in local public services, it is clear that
the economic and environmentally positive impacts derived from
the EMS go beyond the activities that the municipality is in charge
of, as stated by Lozano and Vallés (2007). These authors stressed
that these systems could have effects on all of the economic ac-
tivities settled in the municipal territory, which could be amplified
in the medium- and long-term perspectives.
The dependence/correlation between the municipality size and
EMS is confirmed (significant for p < 0.01). Montesinos and Brusca
(2009) registered the opposite trend, with no significant differ-
ences with regard to the size of the council and the adoption of
environmental international standards, such as the EMAS or ISO
14001, with only 21% of the respondent Spanish local administra-
tions confirming their implementation.
5.3.3. Environmental auditing
In the great majority of municipalities (66%), an environmental
audit (or an equivalent environmental review) of their installation
has never been conducted. The municipalities that already have
applied this practice generally use external consultants for this type
of work and in many cases use mixed teams that include internal
staff and private consultants or researchers from universities.
The association between municipality size and environmental
audits is confirmed by the chi-square test (p < 0.01). Once again,
municipality size (workers and inhabitants) seems to influence the
adoption of this environmental practice. When an EMS is in place,
environmental audits are more likely, as these two practices are
very much related. When an EMS is in operation, the municipality
must conduct periodic environmental audits. In addition, before
the EMS design and implementation, an initial review or audit of
the organisation should be accomplished.
5.3.4. Environmental and sustainability reporting
Only 13% of the municipalities surveyed stated that they pro-
duce environmental/sustainability reports that are mainly pub-
lished annually (Table 4). However, after a careful analysis of the
report titles, this result is probably overvalued: these are mainly
annual activities reports with thematic sections on environmen-
tally related issues instead of stand-alone environmental/sustain-
ability reports. Both findings are aligned with results, such as those
reported by Williams et al. (2011) for the Australian reality, in
which more than 50% of the local authorities surveyed responded
negatively on reporting sustainability information mainly due to
insufficient resources. Environmental reporting by the surveyed
Portuguese municipalities is mainly targeted at the local commu-
nity and administration and private and public organisations. Mu-
nicipalities publish their reports on paper and in electronic format
so that they are available over the intranet and Internet.
The results also show that there is a positive relationship be-
tween reporting and municipality size (significant for p < 0.05),
indicating that larger organisations have the resource availability to
adopt this environmental practice.
There is an apparent relationship between the implementation
of other environmental practices, such as EMS or Local Agenda 21
(LA21), and environmental reporting. For example, according to
GRI (2004), a number of local governments in countries such as
Italy have started to examine sustainability reporting as an
outgrowth of their LA21. This and other tools (e.g., EMS, environ-
mental audits and sustainability indicators) not only assist public
agencies in sustainability planning and goal setting but are also
used to identify and collect data/information for reporting.
Although sustainability reporting is growing, the public sector
still develops a complex mixture of disclosures and reports on
several themes, from operations, policies and strategies to the local
economic, environmental and social context of a given area. For
example, in the Australian context, Williams et al. (2011) deter-
mined that local administration reporting favours social issues over
any other theme. It seems then, as Dumay et al. (2010) and
Dickinson et al. (2005) mentioned, research on public sector
reporting is still very much in its infancy and is certainly an issue
that deserves future work.
5.3.5. Environmental and sustainability indicators
The majority of municipalities (68%) do not use environmental
or sustainability indicators, indicating that the implementation of
indicator systems is generally poor. The respondents that use in-
dicators identify the main aspects covered by them: training ini-
tiatives on environmental education and awareness, waste
management and energy consumption. Overall, indicators are
related to the goals and targets defined in the local strategic
instruments.
These findings are generally in-line with the general picture
described by Moreno-Pires and Fidélis (2012) in the Portuguese
local context, revealing a poor monitoring culture concerning local
sustainable development. These authors stressed that there are few
and relatively recent local sustainability indicator initiatives in
Portugal, indicating an early stage of development compared with
that of other realities. At the international level, there are numerous
initiatives on local sustainability indicators, most of which are
related to monitoring the reporting of LA21, as the ICLEI (2002)
stressed. The Portuguese experience also demonstrates that local
sustainability indicators are frequently related to LA21, as stressed
by Mascarenhas et al. (2010).
The survey results also show that sustainability indicator ini-
tiatives are mainly used by larger municipalities, as confirmed by
the significant results for workers (p < 0.05) and inhabitants
(p < 0.01).
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
5.3.6. Green purchasing
Overall, 36% of respondent municipalities adopt environmental/
sustainability criteria in public purchasing (Table 4). The public
services that have implemented these procedures generally state
that for purchasing certain goods they require suppliers to present
environmental criteria or certification labels as demonstrated by
the contracts. These results are far below the findings obtained in
the survey conducted by Michelsen and de Boer (2009) for the
Norwegian local administration, where 74.3% of the municipalities
on a regular basis put forward demands on environmental perfor-
mance when calls for tender were announced and/or when po-
tential vendors were contacted.
The larger municipalities are those that implement this practice
most often (significant for p < 0.05 only for the inhabitants vari-
able). Michelsen and de Boer (2009) also argue that larger munic-
ipalities may find it easier than smaller ones to obtain a certain
minimum level of knowledge on both purchasing and environ-
mental issues and on the collaboration between the environmental
and purchasing units in the municipalities.
There is a growing international interest in green purchasing in
local government. However, as demonstrated by the results, Por-
tuguese municipalities are just becoming aware of this practice,
with few exceptions (e.g., one of the respondent municipalities is a
key partner in an international project that is developing guidelines
for environmentally friendly public purchases in local government).
5.3.7. ECO XXI award
The initiative ECO XXI is an award inspired by the underlying
principles of Agenda 21. This award was developed and managed by
a Portuguese non-governmental and non-profit organisation
(Associação Bandeira Azul da Europa, a member of the Foundation
for Environmental Education) to recognise good sustainability
practices in municipalities. In this way, ECO XXI intends to raise the
importance of a set of aspects considered basic to the construction
of local sustainable development based on two pillars: education in
sustainability and environmental quality. The existence of this
award is intended to foster pedagogical activities among munici-
palities, which are considered privileged agents in the promotion of
sustainable development (ABAE, 2007).
Only 22% of the respondent municipalities participated in the
ECO XXI award (Table 4). With the implementation of this volun-
tary scheme, the NGO responsible for this initiative intends to
identify and report the sustainability measures and practices car-
ried out by the municipalities and demonstrate the good example
to other public services and the entire society. As earlier, the
respondent larger municipalities are those mainly responsible for
the positive results in the adoption of this tool (significant associ-
ation for workers, p < 0.05, and inhabitants, p < 0.01). The payment
of a registration fee could be one of the barriers to justify this
relatively small number of participating municipalities, along with
being just one more voluntary scheme in competition with other
environmental certification awards (e.g., EMS) that are more well-
known and probably have a wider impact or more visible benefits.
5.3.8. Local Agenda 21 (LA21)
Only 3% of the respondents confirm that they have implemented
an LA21. Approximately 38% state that they are in the course of
implementing this sustainability tool, and 39% report their inten-
tion to do so. Those that had or are implementing an LA21 generally
use mixed teams, including internal staff and private consultants or
researchers from universities. Approximately 44% of the LA21s that
are in place are in the phase of developing an Action Plan that will
enable practical implementation on the ground (Table 4). The great
majority of respondents (98%) involved in LA21s report that public
participation has been part of the process, which was carried out
29
mainly through collaborative workshops initiated in the early
stages of the process.
As is observed by Schmidt et al. (2006), despite the growing
interest in LA21s in almost the whole country, many of these Por-
tuguese strategic processes are in their early stages. Nevertheless,
according to Fidélis and Moreno-Pires (2009), an increase in LA21
implementation has been identified since 2005, stressing that these
processes are mainly recent and are making the journey to
implementation.
In the international context, LA21 implementation is diverse, as
there are many factors that influence LA21 development. Other
countries, such Germany or the United Kingdom, present quite
different performances and figures. For example, according to Kern
et al. (2007), by the year 2006, 2610 local authorities (including
approximately 170 counties) in Germany had initiated an LA21
process, representing more than 20% of all of Germany’s local au-
thorities and more than half of its counties.
According to the statistical tests, no significant associations
were identified between the municipality geographic location by
NUTS II regions and each environmental practice analysed. One
reason for this result could be the fact that in one single NUTS II
region, there are many municipalities with different environmental
profiles, indicating that the use of these non-homogeneous spatial
units would not be a good option to make geographic comparisons.
Soares et al. (2003) argued that NUTS II regions are not the best
spatial units to evaluate inter-regional socio-economic indicators
patterns, as they aggregate very different municipalities. These
authors state that for a deeper analysis, we must consider smaller
geographic units.
6. Conclusions
Until now, many Portuguese local authorities have not inte-
grated environmental concerns into their own operational and
strategic activities as part of their responsibilities. The results ob-
tained for each individual environmental practice or tool adopted
by the municipalities indicate that the level, for the majority of
them, is poor. Nevertheless, some initiatives have been undertaken
by the Portuguese municipalities, revealing a rising interest in
achieving better environmental and sustainability performance.
Overall, the general state of environmental integration and
engagement in the surveyed municipalities is poor.
There is a significant association between municipality size and the
integration of several environmental practices. The possibility that
larger local public municipalities have greater chances related to re-
sources, willingness or ability to adopt environmental practices, such
as those surveyed, could have implications for a system such as that of
the Portuguese, which is largely a system of small governments.
The aggregate environmental practices profile (MIEP index)
evaluates the overall extent to which a set of environmental prac-
tices has been adopted by the local authorities surveyed. This
approach tries to synthesise the gathered information from the
survey and to improve communication with local decision-makers
in the understanding of the local public services’ environmental
profile. The index confirms that environmental performance is
greater in the larger municipalities. This association with munici-
pality size (workers and inhabitants) seems to influence the
adoption of the majority of each individual environmental practice
analysed.
The comparison between the aggregate environmental practices
profile and the municipalities’ self-assessment of environmental
performance (a single survey question about the respondent’s
perception of the integration level of environmental practices in
the municipality) showed contradictory results, with a dispropor-
tionately positive self-assessment carried out by the municipalities.
30 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
The self-assessment reveals that the municipalities consider their
environmental profile to be good or medium, in contrast to the very
poor and poor classifications obtained with the index. The poor
knowledge of their actual environmental profile and the fact that
this evaluation is mainly supported by non-mandatory practices
could explain, in part, this optimistic self-view on the part of the
municipalities. There is a lack of theoretical and practical knowl-
edge or perception about the environmental affairs in many
municipalities.
This research can increase awareness and support Portuguese
municipalities in assessing the integration of certain environmental
and sustainability practices and tools to adopt new policies and
measures to improve their performance.
Further research should seek to follow-up on the integration of
environmental practices and tools (at strategic and operational
levels) in the Portuguese local public administration and include
other areas and data collection approaches. These areas include (i)
content analysis of municipality’s main reports, including sustain-
ability reports of the organisation, and selected public policies,
plans and programs; (ii) interviews with key stakeholders engaged
in the local public administration; (iii) evaluation of environmental
and sustainability training needs, as well as education and
awareness-raising initiative requirements for the staff, including
the top decision-makers; and (iv) explore what role national and
regional authorities should play in guiding municipalities in
adopting these practices. Additionally, in future developments,
comparisons among different levels of public administration (local,
regional and national public organisations) could be considered.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the
constructive comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.
References
Aall, C., 1995. Municipal eco-auditing in Norway. Eco-Manag. Audit. 2, 32e35.
ABAE, 2007. Associação Bandeira Azul da Europa. Accessed: 15.12.07. Available.
http://www.abae.pt.
Abubakar, I., Alshuwaikhat, H., 2007. Towards a sustainable urban environmental
management approach (SUEMA): incorporating environmental management
with strategic environmental assessment (SEA). J. Environ. Plan. Man. 50 (2),
257e270.
Agenda21Local, 2007. Agenda 21 Local em Portugal. Escola Superior de Bio-
tecnologia da Universidade Católica do Porto. Accessed: 15.12.2007. Available.
www.agenda21local.info.
Aguado, I., Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., 2007. Networking for Local Agenda 21
implementation: learning from experiences with Udaltalde and Udalsarea in
the Basque autonomous community. Geoforum 38, 33e48.
Barrera-Roldan, A., Saldivar-Valdes, A., 2002. Proposal and application of a sus-
tainable development index. Ecol. Indic. 2 (3), 251e256.
Braun, R., 2008. Regional environmental assessment (REA) and local Agenda 21
implementation. Environ. Dev. Sustain 10, 19e39.
Burritt, R.L., Welch, S., 1997. Accountability for environmental performance of the
Australian commonwealth public sector. Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 10, 532e561.
Butelli, P., Canziani, R., Marchesi, R., Perotto, E., 2008. Environmental performance,
indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J. Clean.
Prod. 16, 517e530.
Clement, S., Plas, G., Erdmenger, C., 2003. Local experiences. Green purchasing
practices in six European cities. In: Erdmenger, C. (Ed.), Buying into the Envi-
ronment. Experiences, Opportunities and Potential for Eco-procurement. In-
ternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Greenleaf
Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 69e93.
Comoglio, C., Botta, S., 2012. The use of indicators and the role of environmental
management systems for environmental performances improvement: a survey on
ISO 14001 certified companies in the automotive sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2, 92e102.
Curristine, T., Lonti, Z., Joumard, I., 2007. Improving public sector efficiency: chal-
lenges and opportunities. OECD J. Budg. 7 (1), 1e41.
Delmas, M., Toffel, M.W., 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management
practices: an institutional framework. Bus. Strat. Environ. 13, 209e222.
Demirer, G.N., Uludag-Demirer, S., Arikan, Y., 2003. Integrated preventive envi-
ronmental management training for municipalities: a case study from Turkey.
Environ. Qual. Manage. 13 (2), 67e75.
Diamantis, D., 1999. The importance of environmental auditing and environmental
indicators in Islands. Eco-Manag. Audit. 6, 18e25.
Dickinson, J., Leeson, R., Ivers, J., Karic, J., 2005. Sustainability reporting by Public
Agencies: International Uptake, Forms and Practice. The Centre for Public
Agency Sustainability Reporting, Melbourne.
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2010. GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for
public and third sector organizations. Publ. Manag. Rev. 12 (4), 531e548.
Eckerberg, K., Mineur, E., 2003. The use of local sustainability indicators: case
studies in two Swedish municipalities. Local Environ. 6 (8), 591e614.
Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2002. Mapping environmental management system initia-
tives in Swedish local authorities e a national survey. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 9, 107e115.
Emilsson, S., Hjelm, O., 2004. Different approaches to standardized environmental
management systems in local authorities e two case studies in Gothenburg and
Newcastle. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 11, 48e60.
Enticott, G., Walker, R.M., 2008. Sustainability, performance and organizational strat-
egy: an empirical analysis of public organizations. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17 (2), 79e92.
European Commission, Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003
concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/
361/EC). Off. J. Eur. Union, 20 May 2003, L 124/36, 36–41
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2009. Regulation (EC)
No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November
2009 on the Voluntary Participation by Organisations in a Community Eco-
management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), 22 of December.
Feichtinger, J., Pregernig, M., 2005. Participation And/Or/Versus sustainability?
Tensions between procedural and substantive goals in two Local Agenda 21
processes in Sweden and Austria. Eur. Environ. 15, 212e227.
Fidélis, T., Moreno-Pires, S., 2009. Surrender or resistance to the implementation of
Local Agenda 21 in Portugal: the challenges of local governance for sustainable
development. J. Environ. Plan. Man. 52 (4), 497e518 (22).
Frame, B., Vale, R., 2006. Increasing uptake of low impact urban design and
development: the role of sustainability assessment systems. Local Environ. 11
(3), 287e306.
Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., 2008. Determinant factors in the degree
of implementation of Local Agenda 21 in the European Union. Sustain. Develop.
16, 17e34.
Gibbons, J.D., 1993. Nonparametric Statistics e an Introduction. In: University Paper
Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social SciencesSage, Newbury Park,
CA series no. 07-090.
GRI, 2004. Public Agency Sustainability Reporting e a GRI Resource Document in
Support of the Public Agency Sector Supplement Project. Global Reporting
Initiative, Amsterdam: Netherlands.
GRI, 2010. GRI Reporting in Government Agencies. Global Reporting Initiative,
Amsterdam: Netherlands.
Grochowalska, J., 1998. The implementation of Agenda 21 in Poland. Eur. Environ. 8,
79e85.
Günther, L., Scheibe, L., 2006. The hurdle analysis. A self-evaluation tool for mu-
nicipalities to identify, analyse and overcome hurdles to green procurement.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 13, 61e77.
Holden, M., 2006. Revisiting the local impact of community indicators projects:
sustainable seattle as prophet in its own land. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 1, 253e277.
Holden, M., 2013. Sustainability indicator systems within urban governance: us-
ability analysis of sustainability indicator systems as boundary objects. Ecol.
Indic. 32, 89e96.
ICLEI, 2002. Second Local Agenda 21 Survey (conducted with support from UN
Secretariat for WSSD, and in collaboration with UN Development Programme
Capacity 21) (Freiburg, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
(ICLEI) European Secretariat).
INE, 2011. CENSOS 2011 e Resultados Provisórios. Instituto Nacional de Estat, Lis-
boa, Portugal.
International Organisation for Standardization ISO, 2004. International Standard ISO
14001: environmental Management Systems e Requirements with Guidance
for Use. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jackson, T., Thomson, J., 2007. Sustainable procurement in practice: lessons from
local government. J. Environ. Plann. Man. 50 (3), 421e444.
Karam, N., Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., 2008. Environment and sustainable devel-
opment indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecol. Indic.
8 (5), 771e777.
Keating, M., 2001. Review and Analysis of Best Practices in Public Reporting on
Environmental Performance. A report to Executive Resource Group, Birming-
ham. Research paper #9.
Kern, K., Koll, C., Schophaus, M., 2007. The diffusion of Local Agenda 21 in Germany:
comparing the German federal states. Environ. Polit. 16 (4), 604e624.
Lozano, R., 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems:
an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 14e26.
Lozano, M., Vallés, J., 2007. An analysis of the implementation of an environmental
management system in a local public administration. J. Environ. Manage. 82,
495e511.
Lundberg, K., Balforsa, B., Folkesona, L., 2009. Framework for environmental per-
formance measurement in a Swedish public sector organization. J. Clean. Prod.
17 (11), 1017e1024.
Lundberg, K., 2011. A systems thinking approach to environmental follow-up in a
Swedish central public authority: hindrances and possibilities for learning from
experience. Environ. Manag. 48 (1), 123e133.
 L. Nogueiro, T.B. Ramos / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 20e31
Malmborg, F., Norén, H., 2004. Are standardized EMSs useful in local authorities? A
study of how a tool from the private sector is used in the public sector. Bus.
Strat. Environ. 13, 187e197.
Martins, A., Rodrigues, V., Ramos, T.B., Direitinho, F., 2000. Guia para a Criação de
“Empregos Verdes” a Nível Local. Editado pela Direcção Geral do Emprego e
Formação Profissional, Lisboa.
Mascarenhas, A., Coelho, P., Subtil, E., Ramos, T.B., 2010. The role of common local
indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indic. 10, 646e656.
McMahon, S.K., 2002. The development of quality of life indicators e a case study
from the City of Bristol, UK. Ecol. Indic. 2, 177e185.
Michelsen, O., de Boer, L., 2009. Green procurement in Norway; a survey of practices
at the municipal and county level. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (1), 160e167.
Miranda, L., Steinberg, F., 2005. Local Agenda 21, capacity building and the cities of
Peru. Habitat Int. 29, 163e182.
Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 31 2007. An examination of corporate
reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. J. Oper.
Manag. 25 (5), 998e1014.
Montesinos, V., Brusca, I., 2009. Towards performance, quality and environmental
management in local government: the case of Spain. Local Gov. Stud. 35 (2),
197e212.
Moreno-Pires, S., Fidélis, T., 2012. A proposal to explore the role of sustainability
indicators in local governance contexts: the case of Palmela, Portugal. Ecol.
Indic. 23, 608e615.
OECD, 1996. Recommendation of the Council on Improving the Environmental
Performance of Government. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, Paris. C(96)39/Final.
OECD, 1998. Workshop on Environmental Management Systems for Government
Agencies. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris.
C(96)39/FINAL.
OECD, 2002. Recommendation of the Council on Improving the Environmental
Performance of Public Procurement. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development. C(2002)3, Paris.
OECD, 2003. An Overview of Corporate Environmental Management Practices. Joint
Study by the OECD Secretariat and EIRIS (Ethical Investment Research), Paris,
pp. 1e22.
OECD, 2006. Recommendation of the Council on Good Practices for Public Envi-
ronmental Expenditure Management. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development. C(2006)84, Paris.
Patton, D., Worthington, I., 1996. Developing Local Agenda 21: a case study of five
local authorities in the UK. Sustain. Dev. 4, 36e41.
Petrosillo, I., Marcoa, A., Bottab, S., Comoglio, C., 2012. EMAS in local authorities:
suitable indicators in adopting environmental management systems. Ecol.
Indic. 13, 263e274.
PMSGO (Committee on Performance Measurement for Sustainable Government
Operations), 1999. Environmental Performance Measures for Government Op-
erations e a Guidance Document (version 1.0). Prepared by Marbek Resource
Consultants for the Committee on Performance Measurement for Sustainable
Government Operations, Canada, pp. 1e41.
Pulsellia, F.M., Ciampalinia, F., Tiezzia, E., Zappiab, C., 2006. The index of sustainable
economic welfare (ISEW) for a local authority: a case study in Italy. Ecol. Econ.
60 (1), 271e281.
31
Ramos, T.B., Melo, J.J., 2005. Environmental management practices in the defence
sector: assessment of the Portuguese military’s environmental profile. J. Clean.
Prod. 13 (12), 1117e1130.
Ramos, T.B., Melo, J.J., 2006. Developing and implementing an environmental
performance index for the Portuguese military. Bus. Strat. Environ. 15, 71e
86.
Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2007a. Environmental pressures and im-
pacts of public sector organisations: the case of the Portuguese military. Progr.
Ind. Ecol. 4 (5), 363e381.
Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2007b. Environmental performance policy
indicators for the public sector: the case of the defence sector. J. Environ.
Manage. 82, 410e432.
Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2009. The state of environmental perfor-
mance evaluation in the public sector: the profile of the Portuguese defence
sector. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (1), 36e52.
Rea, L.M., Parker, R.A., 1997. Designing and Conducting Survey Research. Jossey-Bass
Inc, California.
Ryall, C., Warner, K.E., 2001. Greener purchasing activities within UK local author-
ities. Eco-Manag. Audit. 8, 36e45.
Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., Ott, L., 1996. Elementary Survey Sampling. PWS
Publishing Company, Boston.
Schmidt, L., Nave, J., Guerra, J., 2006. Who’s afraid of Local Agenda 21? Top-down
and bottom-up perspectives on local sustainability. Int. J. Environ. Sustain.
Dev. 5 (2), 181e198.
Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Zuliani, F., Mason, M., 2008. The ISO 14031 standard to guide
the urban sustainability measurement process: an Italian experience. J. Clean.
Prod. 16, 1247e1257.
Selman, P., 2000. A sideways look at Local Agenda 21. J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 2, 39e
53.
Soares, J.O., Marquês, M.M.L., Monteiro, C.M.F., 16 2003. A multivariate methodology
to uncover regional disparities: a contribution to improve European Union and
governmental decision. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145 (1), 121e135.
Strengers, Y., 2004. Environmental culture change in local government: a practised
perspective from the international council for local environmental ini-
tiativesdAustralia/New Zealand. Local Environ. 9 (6), 621e628.
UNEP, 2008. Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World.
Reported funded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as
part of the joint UNEP, ILO, IOE, ITUC Green Jobs Initiative. Produced by
Worldwatch Institute with Technical Assistance of Cornell University, Global
Labor Institute, Nairobi.
USEPA, 1999. Profile of Local Government Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, Washington, D.C. EPA
310-R-99e001.
Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J.H., 2000. A guide to community sustainability in-
dicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20, 381e392.
Wheater, C.P., Cook, P., 2000. Using Statistics to Understand the Environment.
London: Routledge.
Williams, B., Wilmshurst, T., Clift, R., 2011. Sustainability reporting by local gov-
ernment in Australia: current and future prospects. Acc. Forum 35, 176e186.
Wilson, J., Grant, J.L., 2009. Calculating ecological footprints at the municipal level:
what is a reasonable approach for Canada? Local Environ. 14 (10), 963e979.