University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

Revised Conceptual Framework
741
During the course of the Literature Review, the author came across 25 elements
which could be described as drivers to accepting free environmental advice and 41
elements which could be described as barriers to accepting free environmental
advice. These were then grouped together into areas that had similar attributes (or
‘bins’ according to Miles and Huberman (1996)). The bins were developed into the
‘Forces’ shown in the Diagram below. So for example ‘desire to comply with
legislation’ (Meritt, 1998), ‘lower risk of prosecution’ (Palmer, 2000) and ‘fewer
violations of regulations’ (Stanwick and Stanwick, 2005) were all seen as Legislation
drivers and ‘independence of the OM – unwilling to accept help’ (Goffee and Scase,
1995) and ‘OM does not believe in training’ (Simpson et al, 2004) were seen as OM
Attitude barriers.
This activity resulted in seven Drivers and seven Barriers (Diagram 2). The author
noted that three of the Drivers and Barriers were directly and oppositely paired – the
attitude of the OM, the legislation and the environmental Quality Standard ISO14001.
Also two others – increased financial performance and costs of investment/training
and benefits of training and do not seek advice on training can be viewed as opposite
of the same coin. Finally there were four other areas – two Drivers and two Barriers
– which did not match up although a Force like Lack of resources containing, as it
does money, has links to Costs of training and investment.
Finally a Conceptual framework was developed and, in homage to Tilley (1999b), a
Forcefield Analysis was used (Fisher, 2007).
Conceptual Framework Development and Issues
As well as the content of the Model, there was one further development of Tilley’s
work. This the reversal of the positioning of the driving and resistant Forces and
direction of the arrows versus Tilley (1999b). It seems more realistic and more
logical to show the SME being squeezed between the two opposing Forces – the
Scylla of the environmental quality and the Charybdis of economic growth – rather
than being pulled apart by them as in Tilley’s (1999b) model.