Galenica company business report
Table of Contents
Galenica Company Business Report
Evaluate their Environmental Sustainability of Galenica Company
Galenica Company is a global and fully-integrated provider of healthcare in Switzerland. Incorporated in 1927, the headquarters of Galenica is in Switzerland from where Galenica fulfills its role as a logistics and pharmaceutical company group (GALENICA 2018). The Company operates a large network of pharmacies and offers its reputable products and brands in Switzerland. Galenica also offers products from business partners including a variety of on-site tests and services for customers. The Galenica network compromises of nearly 500 independent and joint venture partner pharmacies the Company provides a noticeable healthcare services market command (GALENICA GROUP 2016). The services offered by Galenica are pre-wholesale as well as wholesale distribution services in the healthcare system. healthcare market in Switzerland. Against this backdrop, the report will present concepts of sustainability status at Galenica, analysis of environmental needs, stages of corporate environmental responsibility, and environmental auditing and reporting.
The Company acknowledges that proactive and accountable actions contribute are requisite for long-term success and have an influence on the Galenica. Part of the goals of Galenica includes practicing social responsibility including the efficient use of natural resources for sustainable commercial exploitation (GALENICA GROUP 2016). The topmost management of Galenica supports several goals targeting sustainability of the Company that includes enhancing the efficiency of resource management especially energy consumption (Alt, Díez-de-Castro and Lloréns-Montes 2015). Through attempts to attain these goals, Galenica has increased its capacity for innovation and efficiency. Galenica cites motivation and employee awareness as part of its approaches to seek responsible and efficient energy consumption in the workplace (Garcia Martinez, Guijarro, and Poyatos 2017). Stakeholders of Galenica are adequately involved through annual updates as captured in the sustainability report.
The activities of Galenica touch on several areas and impact the environment. The Company requires both renewable and non-renewable resources particularly fossil fuels to produce active ingredients and finished products. The Galenica production processes generate solid, gaseous, and liquid waste products including greenhouse gases (GALENICA GROUP 2016). The Company claims that it has taken measures to economically use resources efficiently and lessen the adverse environmental impact. The energy consumed at Galenica is in form of vehicle fuel, electricity, heating oil, and natural gas. As of 2016, impact on the natural environment. They mostly use green energy consumption at Galenica increased by 6% suggesting the need to rethink the approach towards efficient energy use (GALENICA GROUP 2016).
Creative and beneficial application of technology is critical for a firm to realize significant global climate change. Previously solar energy savings and contribute significantly to a sustainable environment. Galenica indicates that it has pursued the reduction of energy demand via insulation of heating and production of hot water (Wolf 2014). The Company argues that it prevents losses of energy in the compressed air network of the Ettinger site (Christ and Burritt 2013; GALENICA GROUP 2016). At the Geneva site, Galenica reports that it has optimized cold activities that result in physical healthiness. For example, proper diet, ensuring that all meals are balanced, and taking a lot of water production. The Company also has enhanced that recovery from heating, installation of LED lights in the offices, and compressors at the Lisbon site (GALENICA GROUP 2016). At the St. Gallen site, the Company is commissioning an additional heat pump and installing the energy-saving light. Through technology implementation, Galenica has attained a reduction in steam consumption via optimization of configurations (GALENICA GROUP 2016). In its report on sustainability, Galenica has indicated that it has entered into agreements to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions and enhance energy efficiency in line with the Energy Agency in Switzerland.
Individuals and organizations committed to environmental impact can opt to use less harmful services and products. In line with adjusting consumption patterns to foster environmental sustainability, Galenica has embraced solar energy (Schulze et al. 2016). Galenica in line with the Energy Agency in Switzerland has conducted a feasibility study of installing roof photovoltaic systems (Galpin, TWhitttington, and Bell 2015). The other changes are the renovation of building at several production sites of Galenica to attain energy-saving and reduction in carbon dioxide emission preparedness. Some of these changes include insulation of the new building with measures to save energy such as LED lights (GALENICA GROUP 2016). The other changes at Galenica focusing on increasing environmental sustainability are the creation of a new parking concept and reduction in hard paper printouts (Colicchia, Marchet, Melacini and Perotti 2013). Some of the innovative solutions that qualify as change patterns include the use of video conferencing and the merger of sites to cut down on vehicle journeys between sites.
A significant number of organizations aspire to attain environmental sustainability but most follow a wrong approach of attaining instant makeover which is infeasible (Aguado, Alvarez and Domingo 2013). The five-phase sustainability plan allows organizations to transition through the environmental sustainability process and enhances their commitment and compliance with environmental sustainability (Singh, Jain, and Sharma 2014). The pre-compliance stage involves an organization using exploitative practices to beat the system. An organization at this stage tends to flout safety, environmental, and health laws (Lorek and Spangenberg 2014). Organizations engaging in pre-compliance practices are risking a lot on their reputation and fines. The actions of an organization at this stage are illegal (Tseng, Tan and Siriban-Manalang 2013). Galenica complies with environmental and workplace regulations which disqualifies it as a stage one firm.
In the second phase, the organization obeys all environmental, safety, labor, health, and environmental regulations as a way of managing its liabilities (Flammer 2013). In other terms, a business reactively fulfills all legal demands concerning environmental regulations. Organizations at this phase will provide a safer and respectful workplace for employees including the installation of pollution containment equipment (Ervin, Wu, Khanna and Jones 2013). However, the organization will still treat environmental and corporate social responsibility actions as a cost at this stage (Fifka, 2013). The actions of a company at this stage are legal but not sustainable (Fontaine 2013). Galenica has transitioned through this stage and cannot be qualified as a stage two firm.
An organization transitions to the third phase from the second phase on the realization that it can save money with proactive and operational eco-efficiencies (Galpin, Whittington and Bell 2015). The savings can be realized in several ways such as energy savings and lowering the associated trail of carbon. The second way is by the organization saving impact on our environment. Sometimes I find myself moving from the city and take a walk in the countryside where we have trees and freshwater. The third way involves the organization saving materials in its packaging and products. The fourth way entails the company saving costs of handling waste (Mair and Laing 2013). At this stage, a business increases its investment in the community and enhances its reputation, and maximizes the value of shareholders. However, sustainability initiatives are not yet institutionalized (Toppinen and Korhonen‐Kurki 2013). Galenica’s actions and changes to attain environmental sustainability can be classified as product stewardship as it has not fully institutionalized all environmental sustainability processes and measures (GALENICA GROUP 2016).
At this phase, a business has adjusted its business model into a sustainable design. The company at this stage will rebrand as an entity committed to sustainability (Fujii, Iwata, Kaneko, and Managi 2013). The business will infuse sustainability principles into the company values and organizational culture (Sahakian and Wilhite 2014). A business at this stage-manages sustainability approaches with critical business strategies. Companies in this phase produce cleaner products and practice eco-effectiveness (Mair and Laing 2013). Galenica needs to develop new technologies that support environmental sustainability; the Company lacks innovative technologies to support its efforts of realizing environmental sustainability.
A business at this stage builds a committed, value-driven focus to enhance the well-being of the society, environment, and the company. An organization at this last stage actively practices environmental sustainability because it is moral to do such (Alazzani and Wan-Hussin 2013). Since Galenica has not transitioned through the fourth stage to realize the benefits of the fifth stage on ecologically sustainable practices, the Company needs to commit more to environmental sustainability using this model (Toppinen and Korhonen‐Kurki 2013).
Environmental Auditing and Reporting
Additionally, Galenica pursues integrated reporting that covers environment and corporate social responsibility. From the Sustainability Report of Galenica of 2016, the organization has health and safety measures to safeguard the health of employees and maintain workplace safety in tandem with the country’s occupational safety commission (GALENICA 2018). The Federal Coordination Commission for Occupational Safety in Switzerland oversees the implementation of minimum workplace safety and employee health (Papagiannakis, Voudouris, and Lioukas 2014). In reaction to the Commission minimum demands, Galenica organizes prevention campaigns at different sites to raise employee awareness of topics related to health and risks of accidents (Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos 2014). Due to these efforts, Galenica reported a decline in absences linked to illnesses by 22% as of 2016 (GALENICA GROUP 2016). Employees at risk of illnesses or those that had fallen ill were offered assistance through Galenica Care Management. All these developments affirm the social responsibility of Galenica.
Agreeably, the reason for engaging in environmental reporting and auditing that is integrated is justified by an acknowledgment of relatedness of processes and entities at organizations. Galenica boasts of management and prevents victimization of the employees. Furthermore, to the management, it helps them communicate to the employees from diverse countries and ethnicities (GALENICA 2018). These workers exhibit different personal philosophies towards environmental sustainability necessitating an integrated approach to sustainability at the firm (Martins 2015). An integrated reportage and auditing of sustainability at the organization seeks to set the path for institutionalizing the numerous changes in processes, attitudes, and activities at Galenica towards environmental sustainability (Lorek and Spangenberg 2014). The integrated approach also acknowledges the dependability of different entities and domains in creating a sustainable organization. Social activities, for instance, impact the environment (Junior, Best and Cotter 2014). A motivated employee may find it natural to use resources efficiently as opposed to the status quo.
Correspondingly, the sustainable report gives data and information on the integrated approach to attaining sustainability at Galenica (GALENICA GROUP 2016). Energy consumption is a critical area of focus for the Company due to its involvement in the manufacturing, storage, and distribution of pharmaceutical products (Dixon-Fowler et al. 2013). In line with this target, Galenica collects and analyzes consumption data and addresses each energy consumption category (GALENICA 2018). Galenica still uses fossil fuel but is in the process of substituting a significant percentage of fossil fuel with solar energy that is clean and sustainable (Renwick, Redman, and Maguire 2013). Vehicle fuel is separated from fuel categories to analyze fuel used in automobiles and the one used to run plant machines and equipment.
Equally important is that Galenica explicitly acknowledges and addresses environmental responsibility in its sustainability report. The organization acknowledges that it engages in diversified healthcare and the production of the multiple products’ active ingredients impacts the environment (Crane, Matten and Spence 2013). In particular, Galenica cites that it requires fossil fuels to generate the active ingredients used in its products and services which adversely impacts the environment (Tung, Baird and Schoch 2014). The pollution due to the usage of fossil fuel exists in gaseous, solid, and liquid forms widening the scope of a single instance of pollution (Ervin, Wu, Khanna, Jones and Wirkkala 2013). In a way, Galenica implies that in producing its products to address different service delivery is another basis of social allocation. According to the Great Britain healthcare concerns it inadvertently sets the path to the creation of pollution-related healthcare issues not just for humans but the entire ecosystem (García‐Martínez, Guijarro and Poyatos 2017). Environmental sustainability is highly critical for Galenica.
In conclusion, Galenica acknowledges the criticality of environmental sustainability and engages in several attempts to realize environmental sustainability. Some of the initiatives of Galenica are the promotion of workplace safety and workplace health. The efforts of Galenica qualify it as an organization at the product stewardship stage where it embraces existing technology to improve its sustainability but not all these changes and targets are institutionalized. Galenica reportedly engages in environmental auditing and reporting using the integrated approach to social and environmental sustainability initiatives. The integrated approach is necessary as organizational processes and entities show significant dependency preceding a cause-effect relationship. The overall view is that Galenica has taken measures to acknowledge and enhance environmental sustainability but more needs to be done to realize true environmental sustainability.
Galenica should use the framework for stages of environmental sustainability and focus on institutionalizing environmental sustainability practices.
The organization needs to increase the energy efficiency of its machines and equipment which contribute significantly to energy consumption.
Galenica should develop an integrated plan or framework for sustainability rather than running disjointed programs and reportage. For instance, social responsibility at the workplace impacts the attitudes of workers towards environmental sustainability.
Last, Galenica should use energy-efficient vehicles with minimal greenhouse emissions.
Aguado, S., Alvarez, R., and Domingo, R., 2013. Model of efficient and sustainable improvements in a lean production system through processes of environmental innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, pp.141-148.
Alazzani, A., and Wan-Hussin, W.N., 2013. Global Reporting Initiative’s environmental reporting: A study of oil and gas companies. Ecological indicators, 32, pp.19-24.
Alt, E., Díez-de-Castro, E.P., and Lloréns-Montes, F.J., 2015. Linking employee stakeholders to environmental performance: The role of proactive environmental strategies and shared vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), pp.167-181.
Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, L., 2013. Corporate social responsibility in a global context.
Christ, K.L., and Burritt, R.L., 2013. Environmental management accounting: the significance of contingent variables for adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41, pp.163-173.
Dixon-Fowler, H.R., Slater, D.J., Johnson, J.L., Ellstrand, A.E., and Romi, A.M., 2013. Beyond “does it pay to be green?” A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEP–CFP relationship. Journal of business ethics, 112(2), pp.353-366.
Fifka, M.S., 2013. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective–a review of the empirical literature and a meta‐analysis. Business strategy and the environment, 22(1), pp.1-35.
Flammer, C., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), pp.758-781.
Fujii, H., Iwata, K., Kaneko, S., and Managi, S., 2013. Corporate environmental and economic performance of Japanese manufacturing firms: Empirical study for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), pp.187-201.
GALENICA GROUP (2016). SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2016. [online] GALENICA GROUP, p.20. Available at: https://www.zonebourse.com/GALENICA-34973404/pdf/103388/Galenica_Rapport-annuel.pdf [Accessed 21 Nov. 2018].
GALENICA (2018). About Galenica. [online] Galenica.com. Available at: https://www.galenica.com/en/ueber-galenica/ueber-galenica.php [Accessed 21 Nov. 2018].
Junior, R.M., Best, P.J., and Cotter, J., 2014. Sustainability reporting and assurance: A historical analysis of a worldwide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), pp.1-11.
Lorek, S., and Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy–beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of cleaner production, 63, pp.33-44.
Mair, J., and Laing, J.H., 2013. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: the role of sustainability-focused events. Journal of sustainable tourism, 21(8), pp.1113-1128.
Martins, A. C. A. (2015). Impact of corporate social responsibility in the European pharmaceutical market (Doctoral dissertation).
Montiel, I. and Delgado-Ceballos, J., 2014. Defining and measuring Business Ethics, Hoffman, W. M., Frederick, R., &Petry, E. S. (2009). The ethics of organizational transformation: mergers, takeovers, and corporate sustainability: Are we there yet?. Organization & Environment, 27(2), pp.113-139.
Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., and Lioukas, S., 2014. The road to sustainability: exploring the process of corporate environmental strategy over time. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), pp.254-271.
Renwick, D.W., Redman, T., and Maguire, S., 2013. Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), pp.1-14.
Sahakian, M., and Wilhite, H., 2014. Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1), pp.25-44.
Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M., and Thollander, P., 2016. Energy management in industry–a systematic review of previous findings and an integrative conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.3692-3708
Singh, N., Jain, S., and Sharma, P., 2014. Determinants of proactive environmental management practices in Indian firms: an empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, pp.469-478.
Toppinen, A., and Korhonen‐Kurki, K., 2013. Global Reporting Initiative and social impact in managing corporate responsibility: a case study of three multinationals in the forest industry. Business ethics: A European Review, 22(2), pp.202-217.
Tseng, M.L., Tan, R.R., and Siriban-Manalang, A.B., 2013. Sustainable consumption and production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, pp.1-5.
Tung, A., Baird, K., and Schoch, H., 2014. The relationship between organizational factors and the effectiveness of environmental management. Journal of environmental management, 144, pp.186-196.