Return to Home Page
DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY PRODUCTS:
MARKETING'S GREATEST CHALLENGE IN THE NINETIES
A. Coskun Samli
University of North Florida
and Paul Herb ig
For Correspondence:
A. Coskun Samli
Department of Management, Marketing and Logistics
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
The author gratefully acknowledges the kind cooperation he has received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the preparation of this article.
Introduction
Rayport and Lodge (1990) state that:
Through sales breakdowns, consumer surveys and demographic profiles (giant marketing companies), are closely monitoring the power of "green" appeal . . . this sounds like progress . . . but . . . marketing companies don't create value to their shareholders by selling products that are environmentally sound. . . .
This statement may in a nut-shell indicate the prevailing problem of not understanding marketing's mission in the society as well as in the firm. Marketing first and foremost creates value for the consumer (Kotler 1990, Sirgy, Samli and Meadow 1983, Samli 1987). There cannot and indeed should not be dichotomy between shareholders' values and consumer values after all they all are consumers in the market place.
When Lord Keynes stated that "in the long run we will all be dead" it is doubtful that he had in mind melanoma caused by the sun's rays, leukemia caused by radiation, or asbestosis which is caused by asbestos used in construction materials. This list can be expanded substantially. Human beings although personally have only about 75 year life span, have managed to create nuclear waste with a life span of 100,000 years. Deterioration of the environment is not only causing deaths but also deterioration of human race by substantially increasing birth defects. Our natural resources have been exploited indiscriminately. As stated in a 1988 Environmental Protection Agency report: "Waterways served as industrial pollution sinks; skies dispersed smoke from factories and powerplants; and the land powered to be a cheap and convenient place to dump industrial and urban wastes."
Just what is marketing's role in the environmental health and well-being of our society if not the whole world? It is posited in this article that marketing's role in this area is extremely critical since many existing products and many more yet to come are likely to be environmentally not only offensive but also very dangerous. Marketing should be in a position to evaluate the environmental friendliness or unfriendliness of the products and make provision for the society as well as the consumers to protect themselves and make good logical choices which would enhance their well-being.
More specifically, this article addresses the issue of generating "environment friendly" products. It makes an effort to explore the reasons for, the justification of, and the realities of putting forth environment-friendly products. In essence it attempts to answer three key questions: Why environment friendly products? How could such products successfully be made a part of American mainstream marketing? and What are the key problems in generating a stream of environment-friendly products?
Environmental Problems
Some 16,500 citizens of Silicon Valley drank water from a well which was contaminated with carcinogenic substance. The well was subsequently closed (Logsdon 1990). The U.S. solid waste crisis has reached epic proportions. Approximately $80 billion is spent annually to manage national solid waste disposal (Hemphill 1990). Exhibit 1 presents information on the specific air pollutants which are being regulated. These are only a few of many which are not strongly examined or controlled at this point in time. These pollutants are unfortunately generated in the production of hundreds and thousands of products. They are, therefore, critical for marketing to fulfill its mission of providing a better quality of life for the society (Samli, 1987; Samli, Sirgy and Meadow, 1987). If the products that are distributed through marketing process are causing the environmental deterioration, marketing cannot deliver consumer satisfaction.
____________________
Exhibit 1 About Here
____________________
The environmental deterioration is caused by many products which vary from spray cans with chlorofluorocarbons to nuclear energy generating uncontrollable nuclear waste. While the chlorofluorocarbons are causing significant genetic changes or skin cancer by causing holes in the ozone layer, nuclear and other toxic wastes are causing a very substantial increase in birth defects and various forms of cancer (Mahon and Kelley, 1987). It was estimated that toxic air pollution added up to 2.7 billion pounds (Easterbrook, 1989). In between, the water we drink has constantly increasing levels of carcinogens, most of the foods we consume have DDT residue and other carcinogens. There are thousands of dangerous chemical dumping places throughout the country cleaning of which will run in the billions (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Report, 1988). More than 300 individual chemicals are discharged into our air, land and water by 20,000 waste generating plants. Altogether 6.3 billion pounds of toxic wastes are generated. U.S. has over 20,000 hazardous waste sites and another 200,000 "unofficial" pits, ponds and lagoons which are suspected to be dangerous (Underwood and Dorfman 1990). Examples of hazardous waste generated by industry is displayed in Exhibit 2. Again these wastes are generated as many products are being produced by the industry.
By June 1989 there were almost 2000 superfund sites that needed to be cleaned up. Average estimated cost for the cleaning up process is $21 million. Underground storage tanks are creating another major problem. Approximately 80 percent of these are constructed by unprotected steel. They are likely to rust and allow gasoline to seep through land and pollute the land and water (EPA, 1989). Cleaning up process will take $1 million per spill. In addition to very serious health hazard considerations, the cleaning up process itself is an extreme cost burden to the society. Spending large sums on such activities will make it more difficult for the society to improve its economic well-being. All these monies could have been saved and used for the enhancement of the quality of life if the products were to be evaluated before they are produced and distributed.
____________________
Exhibit 2 About Here
____________________
On the other side of the coin, more and more products are using more and more of our scarce resources in such a way that they will soon be completely depleted. Industries such as plastics, building materials and supplies are using inorganic materials which can not be replenished. Similarly, industries such as paper and construction are using too much wood related materials and forcing our forests to shrink and hence causing much ecological imbalances which in turn cause genetic and biological changes and mutations. This is simply a brief profile of a much deeper and untold story. Society must reverse some deeply rooted practices, or a slow but definite self destruction pattern is likely to set in. Once that happens it may no longer be possible to reverse this direction. In the meantime, not only private litigations and government penalties but primarily the cost of pollution due to banks being hesitant to extend credit or charge higher interests is costing the industry excessive sums in the short-run (Kopitsky and Betzenberger, 1987; Bergsman, 1989).
Marketing has a two fold interest in this process. First, if the markets get into a self destructive mode, marketing would lose its raison d'etre which is facilitating exchange as well as enhancing the quality of life (Samli, 1987). Second, marketing is responsible for the creation and distribution of the products which could eventually cause the demise of the society and, indeed, of the world. Although there has been a strong literature on consumerism (Day and Aaker 1983), from an environmental safety perspective, the marketing literature is very limited. In a sense this may reflect the over emphasis that marketing in the 50s, 60s, and 70s has put on "caveat emptor." With the advance of consumerism it was claimed that the emphasis shifted to "caveat vendor," however the latter has not gone far enough to find some alternatives to ever increasing environmental problems (Day and Aaker, 1983).
The Need for Environment Friendly Products
At least two issues must be considered in dealing with the environment. The first is pollution and the second is resource depletion. Both of these are extremely critical issues. We will consider these separately.
Pollution. Pollution in recent years may be considered as a new twist of Mark Twain's famous saying, "everybody is talking about pollution but nobody is doing anything about it." Pollution of the environment is stemming from three key different directions: the air, the water, and the land. The air pollution is caused by many products. However the most common and the most offensive is still considered to be the automobile. Pollution in some cities, such as Los Angeles has reached such proportions that it has been long estimated that living in Los Angeles is equal to smoking about two packs of cigarettes daily. While on one hand pollutants from factories, vehicles and chemicals are polluting the atmosphere, other chemicals, as mentioned earlier, are also causing the thinning and subsequently even destruction of the ozone layer. Without this atmospheric phenomenon it would be impossible to survive on our planet. Pollution of water has at least two separate dimensions. First the seas and second, springs and other sources of drinking water.
Although we consider ours an advanced civilization, we have not yet found a proper way of treating sewage. In most parts of the world raw sewage is dumped into oceans in such volumes that some parts of the world's seas cannot ecologically replenish themselves. Thus, sea life and a major source of our oxygen is endangered. This is without considering the fact that we have been dumping nuclear waste into our oceans for the past 30 years and if the containers in which the waste is stored do not last a long time a catastrophe may be awaiting human kind.
The water we drink, in almost all parts of the U.S., has more dangerous pollutants than the safety standards prescribe. Again, discharging industrial waste into rivers has caused much of this pollution. Thus, drinking water is becoming a risk in terms of causing cancer and other diseases.
The land is being polluted perhaps at a faster pace than the oceans because consumers particularly in industrialized countries generate tremendous amounts of garbage. Again just like the sewage problem thus far we have not found good alternatives to using garbage dumps. In many parts of the U.S. we are running out of garbage dump sites and neighborhoods do not allow the creation of dangerous chemical dumps near them. However, there are already many industrial waste sites which need to be cleaned up before we experience another Three Mile Island incident. Furthermore, just the insecticides and pesticides that are used by farmers have reached levels of creating health hazards by both polluting the air and the soil.
Depletion. All the metals and other related substances that are mined, are depletable. What is more, much of them are depleted to a point of no return. Although oil prices, for instance, in the short-run go up and down, unless we make holes in our valuable beaches, oceans and forests, the world's fossil fuel reserves are estimated to last another 20 to 30 years. There is still coal in the U.S. for 100 years, but what is 100 years in the endless flow of time? Some of the precious and industrially important metals and substances are becoming very scarce. Additionally, the world's wood related resources are being diminished at a very fast pace. From the rain forests of the Amazon to redwood forests of California, there is an alarming trend of receding forest borders.
It must also be considered that the closer we get to depletion of metals, fossil fuels and other mined depletables, the greater are the pollution levels. Some metals such as lead and fossil fuels such as coal are very environment unfriendly. Constant exposure to high levels of lead creates multiple disease including brain damage among children. Coal burning emits sulfur which eventually becomes acid rain which is destroying plants, forests and other living things.
The Problem
As seen from only a few sketchy examples, there is entropy in the environment and our consumption patterns are primarily accelerating it. The fact is that this trend can continue and can accelerate to the point of destruction.
Although in recent years we have made major strides in the direction of consumer protection, we have not made much progress in the environmental areas. Consumer protection activity has stemmed from many consumer complaints. As the complaints increased many consumerist organizations emerged. Furthermore, almost every state developed an office of consumer affairs. These offices and other consumerist organizations pressured the business sector and the legislative bodies to generate consumer protection activity. However, it must be reiterated that these events took place in a reactionary mode. In fact this is the key problem with the environmental issues. Because of the fact that large numbers of consumers are not making enough of an issue and consumerist organizations are not necessarily preoccupied with environmental issues thus the progress in this area has been less than satisfactory.
Perhaps the most important factor causing this short-fall is that the market does not plan for the future. It only reacts.
The Reactionary Nature of the Market
The market always reacts. Therefore it does not make provisions for future and it never is proactive. When the Bon Vivant Soup killed numerous people from botulism it was discontinued after the fact. Thalidomide was banned after having created hundreds of thousands of crippled babies. Red dye number 2 caused cancer before it was discontinued. In all of these cases the market and health authorities reacted. But by the time the reaction came about substantial harm was done. However let us consider the example of a nuclear power plant. Yes the market may react and the product may not be sold if it is no longer considered a good product. However until this point many nuclear plants have been sold. The nuclear waste that is generated by these plants could destroy the world. In such cases the market's reactivity may be too late and the harm could be too substantial. Thus, in the case of environmental unfriendly products relying on the free market's self regulation is like playing Russian roulette, tremendous damage may take place any time and discontinuing the product after the fact will not be helpful.
Certainly, destruction or even deterioration of the market is not wise from a marketing perspective. Marketing is not directly at fault regarding pollution. However it is responsible for the distribution of all industrial and consumer products. It therefore plays a major role in pollution related issues and activities. Marketing exists to serve the market and see to it that the quality of life is improving in the society as a whole. Accelerating the environmental entropy is, therefore, hardly in the best interest of marketing. Even if they are not immediately destructive, environment unfriendly products generated and distributed by marketing are bound to be excessively costly to the society in the long run. Thus, the necessity of generating environment friendly products, at least partially stem from marketing's becoming more long-run oriented and more proactive in assessing environmental impact of products.
The Need for Futuristic Orientation. It is a repeating scenario that American business has become too short-run oriented. In fact some people blame the marketing concept for this (Hayes and Abernathy, 1980; Bennett and Cooper, 1981). They maintain that emphasizing non-price competition and catering to immediate needs of the market have made American firms extremely short-run oriented. Furthermore, in some industries companies are so anxious to introduce the product quickly to the market that they don't do enough research to find out what the side effects of the product are likely to be. Dalkon Shield IUDs caused cancer of the uterus, Rely tampons created a big scare by their association with toxic shock syndrome.
It is maintained here that in many cases the long run cost based on environmental impact or health disorders or other problems caused by products, would outstrip short-run benefits. Therefore, all products must be examined for their short and long-run impact on the environment and they all must be assessed on the basis of their cost-benefit characteristics. The position that is taken in this article is that the cost of waste and pollution caused by environmental unfriendly behavior is very excessive. This cost is not contributing to companies' profit picture and certainly is reducing the quality of life which marketing could and should deliver.
Need for Proactive Behavior. Instead of waiting to see if something will go wrong with the product or some unexpected problem will occur, environment friendly product generation necessitates proactive behavior. This proactive behavior will evaluate environment friendliness of all products and intercept those that appear to be unfriendly early on before the product causes any problems. Proactive evaluation of products must coincide with concept testing stage of product idea decay curve (Kotler, 1988). In other words, proactive evaluation of the new product idea must take place at the earliest possible stages of product development process. Certainly by the time product specifications are identified, there will be a good opportunity to evaluate the product's environmental impact. Even though there have been attempts to evaluate company risks by lending institutions through the development and use of environmental audits (Scagnelli and Malloy, 1987; Margolis and Lehner) almost nothing has been done to evaluate products before they become a reality. If such an effort were to take place, at least four areas needed to be considered: pollution, dangerous waste, recycling and replenishment.
It is important to determine if a product pollutes air, water, or soil. The questions must be resolved if only one of these three or more are being polluted, and also to what extent? Furthermore, it must be decided if the pollution rate will increase or decrease in time.
Dangerous waste created by products is not often considered. Wilcox and Babcock is still selling nuclear energy plants without having found a solution to nuclear waste. Carbon-dioxide emission of automobiles has gone down per vehicle but since there are many more cars on the highways, total volume that is being emitted has been on the rise since the development of the automobile. It is important to design products to minimize the use of hazardous chemicals and to minimize the production of hazardous waste.
Recycling is important on two accounts. First it will cut down the waste and second it will reduce pollution and increase production efficiency. Recycling generally takes two different forms: first, recycling may take place to produce the same product. For example, recycling automobile scrap steel to make more cars which is basically the main process in auto making in Japan. The second recycling process is developing other products from relatively less dangerous waste. Three very interesting examples are given in the recent national news. These are: first, recycling glass into glassphalt to be used for road construction; second, using ash from incinerated garbage to develop cement blocks; and third recycling plastic soft drink containers to make carpeting or park benches or for many other uses. Similarly, scrap tires are beginning to be used in many innovative ways including burning with coal and generating cleaner energy.
Replenishment implies emphasizing organic and replaceable chemicals and materials to be used in the production of products. This sustainable use of natural resources means more emphasis on water, soils, and forests. Non-renewable resources need to be used more carefully for more important purposes such as high tech, bio-tech, or pharmaceutical industries. In order to facilitate the proposed pro-active behavior there must be an instrument to evaluate products before they are marketed in large quantities.
In order to facilitate the proposed pro-active behavior there must be a procedure to evaluate products before they are produced and marketed in large quantities.
Evaluating Environment Friendliness
It must be understood that all products have two distinct costs: private cost and public cost. Although the accounting profession is far advanced in private cost analysis, almost nothing has been done to determine the public cost of producing and using a product in the U.S. although in U.K. some work has already been done (Hall and Jones 1991, Derwent 1989, Gray 1990, Rubenstein 1989).
Developing a procedure to evaluate environment friendliness of a product necessitates not only the development of a social cost but also a certain way of weighting the estimated cost figures. This proposed two stage procedure is briefly explained here.
Social Cost Accounting
Today's accounting practices do not account for the full costs of production. These costs do not include the consumption of natural resources and the degree of pollution or other environmental or social harm by corporate entities (Rubenstein 1989). Unlike in U.K. where environmental audits and ethical standards are being used, a present value orientation is proposed (Grab 1990).
The present value method is based on a discounted value of the future costs and revenues of a proposed product. In this method incremental social cost outlays expected over the lifetime of an investment or a product are discounted by the marginal cost of capital:
Current First Year Second Year ... Final Year
(Co) + (C1) + (C2) + (Cn)
1+K (1+K)2 (1+K)n
Where
Co...Cn are the incremental social cost cash expenditures.
K is the firm's marginal cost of capital (Myers and Samli 1969).
In this case the incremental cash expenditures concept is based on the past experiences of environment cleaning costs, medical costs attributable to the product (if any), and litigation costs. Litigation costs here have a relatively indirect input. If they are not considered up front, the company may go into receivership later, which in itself creates a major social cost. The outcome of this evaluation of present value process needs to be further weighted by the degree of environment friendliness of the proposed product. An instrument is developed in this article for this purpose. This new concept is coined Environment Friendliness Index (EFI).
Environment Friendliness Index
Environment Friendliness Index is a necessary tool to realistically assess a product's overall contribution. Although we have developed elaborate cost accounting techniques to determine private costs of products, not much has been done in determining the social cost. It is maintained here that the social cost factor is becoming too important to ignore. EFI is conceived as a tool, at least partially, to help understand the social cost of a product.
To initiate the development of EFI a panel of experts must be brought togeter who are familiar with the product and industry in question. This panel should be composed of the company's personnel and other outside advisors including representatives from environmental agencies and consumer groups. A Delphi approach could be utilized first to establish a priority ranking (relative weights) for the ten factors listed in Exhibit 3. These weights should add up to one.
____________________
Exhibit 3 About Here
____________________
Column 2 of Exhibit 4 illustrates the results of a hypothetical Delphi evaluation for a particular new product. The members of the panel should then be asked to evaluate the product in question on the basis of a five point scale from very good (5) to very poor (1). The percentage responses for each factor evaluation are recorded as shown in Table 2. For example, the relative ranking of the importance of chemical waste production as a result of the production of the product in question is .10 and 18 percent of the panel thought that this product is very good in this respect, while 19 percent thought it is good, 10 percent average, 27 percent poor, and 27 percent very poor. In essence, this product is considered to be somewhat offensive in this respect.
____________________
Exhibit 4 About Here
____________________
These evaluations are calculated and summed across factors, a composite index which is EFI can be obtained. If _, _, _, and _ are utilized to represent the survey proportions for Very Good, Good, Average, Poor and Very Poor, respectively. The development of EFI can be generalized in terms of:
10
EFI = _ F1 (5_i + 4_i + 3_i + 2_i + _i)
i=1
Where i = The environmental impact factor and
F = The relative weights of the environmental impact factor.
The numerical value of EFI can range from 5, indicating a very environment friendly product to 1 which is extremely environment unfriendly. In the example given an EFI value of 2.8506 indicates an average to poor product in respect to its environment friendliness. This score can be compared with the scores of numerous other products to determine this particular product's degree of environment friendliness vis-a-vis numerous other products. If for instance product A has an EFI score of 2.6506 and product B has a score of 3.567 and if both A and B are equally desirable for corporate purposes, the company would perform better from an environmental point of view by opting to produce and market product B rather than product A.
It must be pointed out that effectiveness of the index is dependent upon the knowledge, judgement and objectivity of those who are the members of the evaluation committees. Special effort is needed to decide how these committees should be organized. A quick judgement at this point is that they should represent the company, industry and the scientific community.
One final step in this process is combine environment friendliness index with the present value calculations. Environment friendliness of the proposed new product is:
EF = EFI (PV)
Where EF is environment friendliness
EFI is environment friendliness index and
PV is present value
Environment friendliness of the proposed new product depends upon its present social cost scaled by its EFI. By weighting PV with EFI, it becomes possible to over emphasize or partially ignore the social cost which will be accrued throughout its life span as this product is developed and marketed. It must be noted that although the present value of Product A above may be higher than Product B, but their respective EFI's may indicate that B is a wiser investment in terms of overall environment friendliness. This indicates that: EFIA (PVA) < EFIB (PVB) or Product B's environment friendliness is greater than that of A.
Conclusions and Future Research
It must be posited dramatically that environmentally unfriendly products are becoming extremely costly for the society and are posing a great threat to the future of our world. In the near future more attention will have to be paid to the social cost and environmental friendliness. Managements as well as public administrators must be educated so that the society will become sustainable (Post, 1990).
If the products are assessed at the beginning for their environment friendliness and those that are likely to be environmentally very unfriendly were to be eliminated before the products reach the markets, the whole society will benefit. The social cost of extremely offensive products are likely to be excessive of their private profits. Thus, saving the excessive social cost is likely to be much more desirable than generating relatively small private profits. Thus, in the future it is expected that social costs and private profits will have to take their respective positions in the evaluation of particularly new products.
In this article, a social cost accounting process is proposed. The calculated present social cost is weighted by a tool coined Environment Friendliness Index. The purpose was to point out that a product's desirability in regards to its environment friendliness, can be assessed and also can be compared with other products. Thus, it is possible to choose more environmentally friendly products as opposed to those that contribute to the problem rather than the solution.
Marketing must play a critical proactive role in determining environment friendliness of products. It can and should generate and distribute environmentally more friendly rather than less friendly products. This would improve the long run benefits to society and improve the chances of providing a higher quality of life to all.
The technique presented in this paper is illustrative only. Operationalization of this overall process will require much future research. It is very likely that better techniques could be developed by increasing the number of factors included in the construction of EFI. Furthermore there may be more sensitive ways of measuring present value. This type of research is a must for the future of the marketing profession as well as for the future of the society as a whole.
REFERENCES
Bennett, R. C. and R. G. Cooper (1981), "The Misuse of Marketing: An American Tragedy," Business Horizons, November-December, 51-61.
Bergsman, Steve (1989), "Banks Swamped in Toxic Wastes," March, 27-31.
Commoner, Barry (1990), "Can Capitalists Be Environmentalists?," Business and Society Review, Fall, 31-35.
Day, George S. and David A. Aaker (1986), Consumerism, New York: The Free Press.
Derwent, Richard (1989), "A Mandate for Green Reporting," Accountancy, October, 92-94.
EPA (1989), numerous personal contacts with the administrators and experts at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Easterbrook, Gregg (1989), "Cleaning Up," Newsweek, July 24, pp. 27-42.
Environmental Progress and Challenges: EPA's Update, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/230-07-88-033, August, 1988.
Grab, Rob (1990), "The Accountant's Task As A Friend To The Earth," Accountancy, June, 65-78.
Hall, Carol and Mike Jones (1991), "Social Responsibility Accounting," Management Accounting, March, 34-40.
Hayes, R. H. and W. J. Abernathy (1980), "Managing Your Way to Economic Decline," Harvard Business Review, July-August.
Hemphill, Thomas A. (1990), "A Solid Program for Solid Waste," Business and Society Review, Fall, 67-71.
Kopitsky, Jerry J. and Errol T. Betzenberger (1987), "Should Banks Lend to Companies with Environmental Problems," The Journal of Commercial Bank Lending, July, 3-13.
Logsdon, Jeanne M. (1990), "Searching for Solutions to Environmental Problems," Business and Society Review, Fall, 54-58.
Mahon, John F. and Patricia C. Kelley (1987), "Managing Toxic Wastes--After Bhopal and Sandoz," Long Range Planning, August, 50-59.
Margolis, Joshua and Kevin Lehner (1988), "The Environmental White-Globe Test: An Essential Management Tool," Management Review, September, 44-48.
Mentzer, John T. and A. Coskun Samli (1981), "A Model for Marketing in Economic Development," The Columbia Journal of World Business, Fall, pp. ______.
Myers, James and A. Coskun Samli (1969), "Management Control of Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing Research, August, 267-277.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: Annual Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/68-01-7259, November 1, 1988.
Post, James E. (1990), "The Greening of Management," Issues in Science and Technology, Summer, 68-72.
Rubenstein, Daniel (1989), "Black Oil, Red Ink," Cost Accounting, November, 28-35.
Samli, A. Coskun (1987), "Introduction," in A. Coskun Samli, Marketing and the Quality-of-Life Interface, New York: Quorum Books, pp. xv-xviii.
Samli, A. Coskun, M. Joseph Sirgy and H. Lee Meadow (1987), "Measuring Marketing Contribution to Quality-of-Life," in A. C. Samli, Marketing and the Quality-of-Life Interface, New York: Quorum Books, pp. 3-14.
Scagnelli, John M. and B. Charles Malloy (1987), "Should Lenders Require Environmental Audits," The Journal of Commercial Bank Lending, July, 14-19.
Schorsch, Jonathan (1990), "Are Corporations Playing Clean with Green," Business and Society Review, Fall, 6-9.
Solid Waste and Emergency Response: The Waste System, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November, 1988.
Thomas, Tom (1990), "Plum Creek's Chainsaw Massacre," Business and Society Review, Fall, 43-47.
Underwood, Joanna (1990), "Stemming the Tide of Chemical Waste," Business and Society Review, Fall, 63-66.
Exhibit 1
HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
Criteria Pollutants Health Concerns
Ozone Respiratory tract problems such as difficult breathing and reduced lung function. Asthma, eye irritation, nasal congestion, reduced resistance to infection, and possibly premature aging of lung tissue.
Particulate Matter Eye and throat irritation, bronchitis, lung damage, and impaired visibility.
Carbon Monoxide Ability of blood to carry oxygen impaired. Cardiovascular, nervous, and pulmonary systems affected.
Sulfur Dioxide Respiratory tract problems, permanent harm to lung tissue.
Lead Retardation and brain damage, especially in children.
Nitrogen Dioxide Respiratory illness and lung damage.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Asbestos A variety of lung diseases, particularly lung cancer.
Beryllium Primary lung disease, although also affects liver, spleen, kidneys, and lymph glands.
Mercury Several areas of the brain as well as the kidneys and bowels affected.
Vinyl Chloride Lung and liver cancer.
Arsenic Causes cancer.
Radionuclides Causes cancer.
Benzene Leukemia.
Coke Oven Emissions Respiratory cancer.
____________
Source: Environmental Progress and Challenge, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 230-07-88-033, August 1988, p. 7.
Exhibit 2
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY INDUSTRY
Industry General Waste Description
Chemical Contaminated waste waters, spent solvent residuals, still bottoms, spent catalysts, treatment sludges, filter sludges.
Fabricated Metals Electroplating wastes, sludges contaminated with metals cyanides, degreasing solvents.
Electrical Equipment Degreasing solvents.
Petroleum Refinery Leaded tank bottoms, drop oil, emulsion solids, API separator sludge.
Primary Metals Pickle liquor, sludge with metal contaminates.
Transportation Equipment Degreasing solvents, metals, sludges.
National Security All types of wastes.
Other All types of wastes.
____________
Source: The Waste System, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1988, pp. 1-6.
Exhibit 3
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLINESS INDEX
_______________________________________________________________
Factor _ Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pollution: _
_
Air _ Minimum or none --- --- --- Maximum
_
Water _ Minimum or none --- --- --- Maximum
_
Soil _ Minimum or none --- --- --- Maximum
_____________________________________________________________________________
Waste: _
_
Chemical _
Waste _ Very small amounts --- --- --- Dangerous Levels
_
Nuclear _
Waste _ Very small amounts --- --- --- Dangerous Levels
_
Garbage _ Very small amounts --- --- --- Dangerous Levels
_____________________________________________________________________________
Recycling: _
_
Direct _ Over 80% can be --- --- --- Almost None
Recycling _ recycled to produce
_ the same product
_
Indirect _ Almost 60% can be --- --- --- Almost None
Recycling _ used for other
_ purposes
_____________________________________________________________________________
Replenishment:_
_
Organic _ More than 80% --- --- --- Less than 10%
Substance _ organic materials organic materials
_ needed needed
_
Inorganic _ Less than 10% --- --- --- More than 80%
Substance _ inorganic substances inorganic substances
_ are used in produc- are used in produc-
_ tion tion
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 4
A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
_____________________________________________________________________________
Stage of Development
_ ___________________________________
_ _ (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) _
_ Relative _ Very Very _ Composite
Factor _ Weight _ Good Good Average Poor Poor _ Score
______________________________________________________________________________
Pollution: _ _ _
_ _ _
Air _ .15 _ .22 .34 .19 .14 .11 _ .5130
Water _ .15 _ .10 .19 .20 .29 .22 _ .3990
Soil _ .15 _ .18 .19 .10 .26 .37 _ .4125
_ _ _
_ _ _
Waste: _ _ _
_ _ _
Chemical Waste _ .10 _ .18 .19 .10 .26 .27 _ .3090
Nuclear Waste _ .05 _ .14 .25 .13 .26 .22 _ .1415
Garbage _ .05 _ .11 .10 .34 .25 .20 _ .1335
_ _ _
_ _ _
Recycling: _ _ _
_ _ _
Direct Recycling _ .07 _ .13 .14 .16 .29 .28 _ .1785
Indirect Recycling _ .08 _ .15 .27 .13 .23 .22 _ .2320
_ _ _
_ _ _
Replenishment: _ _ _
_ _ _
Organic Substances _ .08 _ .14 .26 .22 .13 .25 _ .2328
Inorganic Substances_ .12 _ .13 .16 .14 .29 .28 _ .2988
_____________________________________________________________________________
1.00 EFI = 2.8506