"It is a managers commitment to achieving environmental improvement rather than the mere presence of a system that determines environmental

performance". It is the authors view. From authors view that environmental systems don't matter much how we can conclude that, managers appropriately acknowledge claims that environmental systems are valuable tools" is not true, and "they just uncritically accept the claim" is true. In "the mere presence of system", author does not regard the systems as particularly valuable but from this how can we draw conclusion that managers too don't regard the systems as particularly valuable. What is the reason that "managers appropriately acknowledge systems as valuable" can't be true. Now, lets assume that the statement-"whatever their perceptions, it is a managers commitment to achieving environmental improvement rather than the mere presence of a system that determines environmental performance" is a conclusion author draws from the perceptions of two the type of managers. From this statement how can we infer that "managers appropriately acknowledge environmental systems as valuable" is not true and "they just uncritically accept the claim" is true. However, considering above statement as conclusion that author draws from the perceptions of the two types of managers is a paradox in itself, as the above statement just ignores the perception of managers about environmental systems by saying "whatever their perceptions" and "mere presence of a system" and puts forward his own view. There are managers who think that strong environmental performance will bolster their company's financial performance. In order to think so, they should have appropriately acknowledged the claims that systems developed to manage the environmental concerns are valuable tools. Whereas, they just accepted the claims that "systems developed to manage the environmental concerns are valuable tools" without criticism and thought environmental performance will bolster their company's financial success sounds quite absurd. if environmental systems are just considered as one of many tools to improve environmental performance, "managers who think environmental performance will bolster financial success will appropriately acknowledge the claim that environmental systems are valuable tool", and "they just critically accept the claim" are both equally likely to be true. However, the first sentence of the current paragraph, the axiom from which we draw the conclusion, sounds substantially absurd, as environmental systems cover everything that improve environmental performance. Considering environmental systems as just one of many tools to improve environmental performance is quite disputable.

"Managers who perceive the environmental performance to be peripheral to financial success" means "they think environmental systems are related to financial success but not in significant way" "Managers view the environmental systems as extraneous" simply means - managers reject the claim that claims that environmental systems are valuable tools"