4.7 Article

Why small and medium chemical companies continue to pose severe environmental risks in rural China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 185, Issue -, Pages 158-167

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.041

Keywords

Chemical industry; Small and medium-sized enterprises; Environmental risk management; Rural China

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71103175, 41171394]
  2. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2012DFA91150]
  3. Ministry of Education of China [NCET10-0806]
  4. Key Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZZD-EW-TZ-12]
  5. Netherlands Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
  6. Chinese Academy of Sciences [11CDP028]
  7. Netherlands Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences
  8. MOST

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In China, rural chemical SMEs are often believed to still largely operate below the sustainability radar. This paper investigates to what extent and how chemical SMEs are already experiencing pressure to improve their environmental performance, using an in-depth case study in jasmine County, Hebei province. The results show that local residents had rather low trust in the environmental improvement promises made by the enterprises and the local government, and disagreed with the proposed improvement plans. Although the power of local residents to influence decision making remained limited, the chemical SMEs started to feel increasing pressures to clean up their business, from governments, local communities and civil society, and international value chain stakeholders. Notwithstanding these mounting pressures chemical SME's environmental behavior and performance has not changed radically for the better. The strong economic ties between local county governments and chemical SMEs continue to be a major barrier for stringent environmental regulation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available