The purpose of this section is to summarize the key themes identified in this report and present recommendations derived from them. These recommendations should enhance DPPEA's efforts to engage a broader audience in its EMS program.
Overall, participants expressed skepticism of voluntary programs. This feeling was rooted in two concerns: 1) they viewed industry's primary goal—to make profits—to be in direct opposition to their own goal—to protect the environment, and 2) most assumed that voluntary programs would come with reduced regulatory oversight, which they did not support. They unanimously agreed that a regulatory baseline and strong enforcement of existing laws were critical to the success of voluntary environmental programs.
Conceptually, participants supported EMS, however they raised many questions about program integrity in practice. ENGOs wanted to see real benefits from these programs; they were not interested in what might happen but rather what had already occurred. For voluntary EMS, participants saw potential problems with its implementation, including concerns about its effectiveness in reducing negative environmental impacts and stakeholder involvement.
Participants emphasized the need for a regulatory baseline that would not be compromised with incentive-based EMS; they want it used to supplement current regulation, not replace it. They appeared to be willing to consider only the most basic "perks" for regulated entities (and some were unwilling to consider any perks), given the current enforcement in North Carolina. Participants also perceived that the major downside of EMS agreements with regulatory flexibility would be that industry would likely take advantage of the opportunity to violate laws without being caught.
In participants' minds, the discussion of EMS, even voluntary EMS, could not be separated from enforcement. These ENGOs viewed enforcement and beyond-compliance efforts as linked, and they were most concerned when EMS implementation was linked to legislative initiatives or public policy (such as agreements granting regulatory flexibility for EMS implementation). If organizations are simply implementing voluntary EMS, the ENGOs, while supportive of the concept, did not feel a vested interest.
Although participants believed that enforcement of state regulations is not strong enough and that industry does not have severe enough consequences for degrading the environment, they supported the current regulatory approach over voluntary programs. They believed that "command/control" measures are essential for making industry protect the environment and that industry could not be trusted to take costly measures to protect the environment on its own.
The following recommendations outline specific actions DPPEA can take to refine its outreach efforts to better engage ENGOs in the EMS process. These recommendations are designed to respond to the concerns identified by participants and are grouped into four categories: defining why DPPEA wants ENGO involvement, respecting and addressing ENGO concerns, focusing equally on the message and the communication method, and establishing credibility for EMS.
1. Explain what DPPEA and ENGOs gain from ENGO involvement
DPPEA should start by defining why it wants ENGO involvement and what it hopes to accomplish. Does the agency want to conduct outreach to inform ENGOs of its efforts, or does it want to solicit their opinions and active involvement? Next, communicate this information to ENGOs in terms that are relevant to them and tied to their goals. Whenever possible, make connections between agency and ENGO goals, and address concerns raised in the focus group.
Be prepared to answer the following questions for ENGOs before asking for their participation:
s DPPEA must convince ENGOs that voluntary programs result in real benefits. Give specifics about the environmental improvements that can be attributed to EMS (e.g., How much were waste/emissions reduced? How much water/energy was saved? Could these savings have occurred without an EMS?).
ENGOs indicated that motivation and resources were limiting factors to their involvement in industry partnerships. For this reason, DPPEA will need to directly address these issues.
Most participants preferred written agreements when working with industries or local governments, and EMS should prove no exception. Such agreements could outline the goals for working in partnership, provide accountability, and specify the communication processes and the desired end result. They could also address other parameters of voluntary programs that were important to the participants, such as a commitment to going beyond compliance or performance criteria and consequences for not meeting those criteria. If examples exist where such agreements have been used in conjunction with EMS, be prepared to share them with interested ENGOs.
2. Respect and address ENGO concerns
Before attempting to involve or generate support from ENGOs, DPPEA should listen to and understand the concerns expressed during the focus group. One of the dominant feelings expressed was anger about the lack of enforcement in North Carolina. Although DPPEA is a non-regulatory division of DENR, it is still part of DENR, making it difficult to separate DPPEA's efforts from the agency's problems with enforcement.
DPPEA must also recognize the difficulty of separating the idea of voluntary programs from the current regulatory environment. In other words, when the current system is not working, creating confidence in a new system will be a challenge. Be prepared for skepticism regarding beyond-compliance efforts and the terms "policy innovation" or "regulatory reinvention."
Ongoing discussions are occurring among DENR staff and environmental organizations to address enforcement issues, and they are relevant to EMS implementation. 7 While these discussions indicate promise for enforcement reform, DPPEA must recognize that ENGOs are well aware of failures of the current system. Additionally, ENGOs have communicated that they are not willing to compromise on certain issues, such as a regulatory baseline for EMS agreements, because of this history.
3. Focus equally on DPPEA's message and the communication method
Although DPPEA could use a variety of tools to reach ENGOs, such as printed and electronic materials or face-to-face meetings, the agency must recognize that the message it communicates is just as important as the vehicle. The following suggestions should help DPPEA communicate with a lay audience about EMS:
Speak clearly in language that a lay person can understand, and use that language on the Web and in printed materials. Eliminate acronyms and jargon as much as possible. Define EMS without using complicated or vague terms, and explain why people should be interested (using parameters that are important to them, not DPPEA). Nowhere on the DPPEA Web site, or many of the related Web sites, is there a simple definition of EMS. For suggestions on clearly communicating complex information, see Appendix C for a copy of a newsletter entitled Is Something Standing Between Your Message and Your Audience?
Speak to the interests of the target audience. Similar to the ideas presented above (Define What DPPEA Hopes to Gain, p. 12), DPPEA must consider the interests of the individuals it is trying to reach and explain how this project relates to those interests. For example, EMS embodies the concepts of top management commitment and employee involvement, two things indicated as desirable by participants. Let them know that the concepts they embrace are integral parts of EMS. Make the connection between processes that are known to be successful and what EMS offers. Additionally, tell them what the agency needs or wants from them. Explain how you want them to be involved.
Go to the audience. Develop personal relationships, so individuals have a vested interest in coming to the table to provide input. Learn about their key issues and projects by attending their organizational meetings. Work with some of the statewide, policy-focused environmental organizations to share information (at their request) through their annual meetings or newsletters.
Bring the audience to you. Provide resources to ENGOs to increase their participation. The resource limitations (i.e., time and money) identified by participants as barriers to successful partnerships must be considered as you try to create opportunities for their involvement. Frequent meetings that require travel and occur during business hours may limit participation. If DPPEA or DENR were able to compensate travel or provide alternate ways to participate in meetings (e.g., via phone or Internet), participation might increase. Although DPPEA has offered travel compensation with limited response (p. 2), the agency should continue to offer assistance, because as interest grows ENGOs may take advantage of it. Also recognize that a small group of people is working on an array of environmental issues in the state, and they may not be able to participate in meetings, regardless of the resources you provide. For this reason, the agency should consider putting meeting minutes or other materials on the Web or in some other easily accessible format.
The DPPEA's electronic communication efforts could be improved in the following ways :
Update the Web Site
Expand Your Use of Listservs and Email Distribution Lists
4. Establish credibility for EMS
Credibility is essential for ENGOs to support EMS. ENGOs must believe that EMS meets their objective of protecting the environment while also meeting industry's objectives of maximizing profit and minimizing losses. Without this credibility, environmental organizations will likely dismiss EMS, even as a tool to encourage beyond compliance activities, and will certainly oppose any regulatory flexibility tied to its implementation.
Voluntary EMS
ENGOs stated that environmental benefits were most believable when they resulted in an improved bottom line. Wherever possible, use real results with specific details to make the case for supporting EMS. Be specific when saying that EMS saves money, reduces environmental impacts, or decreases the need for litigation.
Recognize that skepticism exists for a reason, and recognize the links between enforcement and EMS in participants' minds. Their basic assumption is that voluntary programs will translate into reduced regulatory oversight. DPPEA may need to address the failures of EMS or other voluntary programs, if applicable, and be prepared to describe how those will be avoided in North Carolina, citing specifics about how the situation here is different.
Incentive-Based EMS
As DPPEA develops new EMS program options in North Carolina, it should keep in mind the limits on ENGOs ability to support incentive-based programs. The participants generally were not supportive of such programs because of enforcement failures in North Carolina, but a few were willing to consider this approach, with the proper safeguards. Those safeguards included:
None of the participants supported compromising current regulations in exchange for EMS implementation.
No consensus was achieved regarding specific incentives that might be offered to companies that implement EMS, even when a regulatory baseline is guaranteed. DPPEA may want to conduct additional research into which incentives would be acceptable under specific circumstances. In addition, several participants felt that incentives should not be offered until after a period of demonstrated performance improvement.
DPPEA could also help build credibility for EMS by encouraging facilities in its pilot program to implement and evaluate stakeholder involvement projects. Such projects would illustrate the successes and pitfalls of stakeholder involvement and would provide a body of evidence to inform ENGOs about the potential performance benefits of EMS and whether their participation is a valuable investment of their time/effort.
Table of Contents | Executive Summary | Introduction | Findings | Conclusion | Appendices