Integration of pollution prevention programs with organization management, communication and culture-related assistance is needed, this study shows.
IMAGINE THAT YOU WORK for one of the approximately 100 programs in the United States that provides pollution prevention assistance to small and mid-size companies. Among the contacts you have made are some companies who call you regularly -- perhaps more often than they really need to -- to solve problems. You also see their representatives at all your seminars -- even the seminars the representatives do not particularly need to attend.
If the main goal was to have a regular dialogue with clients, the answer is yes, says research scientist Carol Foley of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). If the main goal was to see clients succeed on their own at pollution prevention, then you may need to provide some different solutions -- solutions that integrate organizational assistance with technical aid.
"The days of a separate pollution prevention program are coming to an end, " Foley says. "Pollution prevention had to be separate early on to raise awareness. By focusing on a particular problem, we discovered that technical assistance programs can become surrogates for multi-departmental decision-making within companies."
Foley, who also is a visiting fellow at the Army Environmental Policy Institute, bases her conclusions on a study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division. She and three colleagues surveyed pollution prevention efforts among 1,529 mid-size firms in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, obtaining a 40 percent response rate. Each firm had two to 30 facilities nationwide and was potentially eligible for the U.S. EPA 33/50 program, a voluntary emission reduction program focusing on 17 toxic chemicals.
The researchers' findings support the need for integrating pollution prevention programs with organization management, communication and culture-related assistance. Among their findings:
Pollution prevention is not as integrated across the entire facility in mid-sized
firms as it is in larger organizations. One person, perhaps a manager, is responsible for
environmental compliance and, in most cases, does not involve people throughout the
organization in decision making.
Mid-size firms rely on external sources for identifying pollution prevention
options more than large firms do. They tend to look to published literature, trade
associations, vendors and technical assistance programs for ideas and impetus.
Mid-size firms are less likely than large firms to use quality teams, facility
assessments, employee recommendations -- all internal sources -- for gathering information
on pollution prevention options.
The researchers also developed detailed case studies of four of the firms surveyed
that have successfully prevented significant amounts of pollution over the last four to
five years. Among the organizational characteristics they examined in the case studies were
corporate culture, values and attitudes, internal and external organizational factors, and
decision making styles, trying to find commonalities among the successful companies.
One site was committed to Total Quality Management (TQM) concepts, said research associate Leigh McElvaney, who has an interest in corporate communications. Such concepts encourage employee input into company decision making at all levels, and rely on internally generated solutions to problems.
"They had touch-screen computers dedicated to communicating with employees because the typical computer keyboards intimidated their employees; they had video monitors everywhere, broadcasting information such as safety and health tips; and all employees had access to production data at anytime," McElvaney notes.
Another company also successful at pollution prevention was run in a more autocratic style, was not as clean and neat, and did not seem to have formal TQM programs in place.
"However, this company had decentralized decision making processes , as did the TQM-oriented company," McElvaney says. "Some of the floor managers had worked there for a long time and their opinions were respected. The decisions didn't all come from the top down."
A participatory management style that encourages pollution prevention input from all employees is vital, says senior research associate Claudia Huff, a student of organization development.
"The way to solve a lot of environmental problems is to begin by talking to the employees on the floor and getting their ideas," she says. "Companies must encourage the employees on the line to feel confident enough to talk to the manager, and of course the manager must respect those ideas and follow through."
In fact, many technical assistance programs are based on collecting input from employees at different levels of the company. This feedback is used to determine whether the solution to a problem lies within the company, or whether a university's engineering assistance is needed, Foley notes. Encouraging a company to develop management and organizational styles welcoming employee pollution prevention suggestions is just as important as actually implementing a pollution prevention program, the researchers say -- and will encourage the company to solve some problems on its own.
Other organizational characteristics of mid-size firms successful at pollution prevention include:
A significant emotional event -- having had, or knowing colleagues
who have had, experiences with environmental clean-up or regulatory problems, such as
disasters followed by bad publicity and adverse media relations.
Focus on product quality -- with lots of direct input from
customers on environmental issues, as well as on the product or service they buy.
Respect for the company's environmental manager -- colleagues
perceive this person as knowledgeable and effective.
An opportunity for change -- such as a decision to replace old
equipment, or advice gained from an outside source.
The importance of organizational determinants of pollution prevention activities
is increasingly recognized among public policy makers, as well.
Management-based approaches to promoting waste minimization are becoming more popular among environmental agencies. That is a big change: Initially, most pollution management measures promulgated in the United States were regulatory and focused primarily on pollution control technologies, says Dr. Michael Elliott, associate professor of city planning and public policy. He is interested in pollution prevention decision making within companies, and the impact of political and economic system constraints on that decision making.
According to Dr. Elliott, much of environmental pollution control policy seeks to constrain managerial prerogative by requiring specific technology-based solutions. These technologies have been seen by both regulatory agencies and by corporate management as technology add-ons. These technologies frequently did little more than remove pollutants from air or water and transfer them to landfills.
Pollution prevention, on the other hand, requires more basic changes in modes of production, materials purchasing, operation and maintenance systems. Such systems are too specialized to be effectively regulated. Rather, they require fine-tuned decision making within each facility. As such, public policy to promote pollution prevention will work best when policy enhances the likelihood that corporate managers will actively seek to prevent pollution. Fine tuning public policy to address the concerns of corporate managers in various industries is essential to this effort.
The EPA and many states are experimenting with pollution prevention programs. One of the earliest programs was the EPA's 33/50 program. This program targeted 17 chemicals for reduction. Companies that volunteered for the program committed to reducing their release of these chemicals. Across all corporate volunteers, EPA sought a 33 percent reduction in toxic releases by 1992 and a 50 percent reduction by 1995. In return, EPA's program provided an opportunity for the companies to be publicly acknowledged for their pollution prevention programs.
The program proved popular. Following its apparent success at marshalling corporate support for pollution prevention, EPA and state agencies developed other voluntary programs. What these programs have in common are efforts to increase corporate incentives to voluntarily reduce pollution. Publicity for pollution prevention activities, technical assistance to promote awareness, and changes in liability associated with toxic releases are all examples of policy aimed at corporate management.
"These programs have not been evaluated extensively, but what has come out suggests that in fact they can work reasonably well," Elliott says. "The focus on managerial solutions and organizational determinants of pollution prevention is a growing trend. We are going to see a lot more environmental improvement through efforts to flexibly alter corporate decision making."
These researchers' findings mean that pollution prevention is more than technology application -- a company's success is often linked to its organizational culture and how it approaches the problem as a result of that culture, Foley says.
"Pollution prevention programs that are really doing their jobs would be invisible within other programs at a company -- we would become part and parcel of that whole organizational process," she explains. "And that's what pollution prevention is supposed to be: Instilling an ethic or attitude change, such that people adopt a pollution prevention stance in everything they do."
Send all questions and comments to Webmaster@gtri.gatech.edu
Table of Contents