New trends in managing environment affairs

Many businesses are dramatically changing the way they think about managing environment affairs at their plants. They want to know more about their plant's impact on the environment than required by law or permit. Is that good or is it bad?

It was only a few years ago that the regulated community, but for a few exceptions, considered performing only those environmental assessments and activities that were required by law, permit or license. If a water test was required, the water test was conducted, and so on.

It was unusual, however, for a plant to undertake tests and analyses if not obligated to do so by either law or permit. And there were good reasons to take this position - there are costs associated with these unnecessary analyses. There could be time, energy and costs expended if the regulator becomes aware of the surprising test results. There might be more energy and more costs expended if a plaintiff's attorney becomes aware of it. Ignorance was bliss.

Notwithstanding the risks, that style of management is changing. Is the new ethic simply a business issue brought about by global trade? Do some senior managers believe that government regulation, although silly in many respects, is slow in responding to the real environmental issues, therefore, they have to know their emissions in order to develop coherent strategies to reduce them? Is the different attitude brought about by a new generation of professionals raised on school songs such as ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle'?

In the last two weeks, I have been at a client's manufacturing plants throughout the country in order to roll out a new air pollution monitoring and recordkeeping program to calculate emissions that are otherwise not regulated. This international company has a highly laudable environmental ethic. In order to develop a corporate standard to limit emissions, even when there is no regulatory requirement to do so, it must know what the emissions are, how they vary under various operating scenarios, and at the same time, improve quality and increase productivity.

More and more corporations, especially those with plants around the world, are developing a commitment to reduce emissions because they believe it is good business. Knowledge is power and the development of these corporate goals can only be properly completed with knowledge in hand.

A company told me recently of their very aggressive efforts on sustainability. In addition to constructing a LEED certified headquarters, they are joining the U.S. EPA's climate registry, reducing storm water runoff, and implementing procedures to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.

"Why," I asked, "are you implementing such an aggressive program?"

"Wal-Mart" was the one word answer. I thought I was misunderstood, so I repeated the questions but received the same answer, "Wal-Mart." This particular company produces a product sold at Wal-Mart, as well as at many other stores, but it is Wal-Mart who is implementing a program to provide premiere shelf space for suppliers who achieve a certain sustainability level. For this company, stepping into this unknown territory is a business issue.

I'm seeing more and more examples like this. But still, the answer to the question I raised at the top of this article? It depends. Business goals and risks a company is willing to withstand seem to be the deciding factor, at least for now.

---

Bookmark this page