University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

785
The role of customers in much of this literature is, as a result, risk and efficiency
led/driven and, on the whole, is based on rational views, and interpretations, of
supplier behaviour (and thus how to affect change?). As such, the approach here
sees SMEs/suppliers at arms length and driven to change, and improvements to
conduct based on specifications and/or supplier policies. Therefore, and although
there are potential wider benefits of ESCM for SMEs (as outlined earlier and, for
example, as discussed by Tilley, 1999), the process of change and strategy
development is based on a prescription (i.e. of conduct and behaviour) and this does
not see customers engaging their suppliers/SME nor does it really engage process
issues and considerations (i.e. it deals with issues of ‘why act’ and ‘what action’
grounded in a prescription of action but not how to address some of the factors
affecting SME attitudes and behaviour from Tilley, 1999 and Figure 1). This
situation and view is considered concerning given the potential role of customers and
ESCM in SME-environmental literature and the CSR context noted earlier and the
need for change in practice.
Supporting SME-Environment Related Behaviour and Attitude Change
This apparent situation comes despite the comments of Berger et al (2001),
Henningsson et al (2004) and Tilley (1999; as noted) who identify supply-chain
dialogue as important to affecting SME-environment behaviour and, in the case of
Berger et al (2001) and Tilley (1999), the benefits of wider social discourse too.
Berger et al (2001), Groundwork (1998) and ECOTEC (2000) also clearly identify a
potential ‘mentor’ role for larger businesses/customers; Fanshawe (2000) and
Tunnessen (2000) agree. This role is particularly useful in addressing supplier/SME
understanding of what action and why action (as identified by Tilley, 1999) and such
comments also lead insight into how action occurs (i.e. the processes which
drive/lead change). de Bruijn and Hofman (2001, and also: Hunt, 2000; Shearlock et
al, 2001) offer further insight via their discussion of stakeholder-power links and
Roome and Wijen (2005) further this in relation to learning impacts and benefits.
Interestingly, Holt et al (2001) caution that ESCM activity should, and must, not be
just a ‘hurdle’ for business retention (the thrust of the ESCM literature?) as such an
approach may simply condition rather than change behaviour and attitudes.
Rothenberg and Becker (2004) further support the need for customers to intervene
and engage their suppliers/SMEs to affect behaviour change. They offer such
comments as a result of an identified problem with SMEs; this time related to their
limited propensity to access government support. This lack of engagement and use
of such support comes as a result of a lack of both awareness and, more importantly,
trust in its quality and in those who provide it (Fanshawe, 2000 and Howarth, 2000
agree). Such findings are evidenced in the general SME support literature too with
SMEs often being seen to prefer informal, personal and non-traditional networks
(such as supplier and customer links) rather than formal sources of support (such as
government agencies; E.g. Bennett and Robson, 1999a). Holt et al (2001) also
support the notion that SMEs do not often willingly look for, or seek, support (i.e.
from ‘formal’ sources) and related to SME-environment behaviour this situation is
likely to be further shaped by current SME perceptions and levels of understanding
related to the environment and their impacts. This situation is essentially the ‘catch