Environmental Non-Governmental
Organizations and Environmental Management Systems:
North Carolina Groups Share Their Views
In late 1999 a group of North Carolina's environmental leaders participated in a focus group to discuss voluntary environmental programs and, in particular, environmental management systems (EMS). The purpose of this meeting was to enable the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to hear the opinions of environmentalists in the state and identify opportunities for citizen education and involvement in EMS. 1
The focus group yielded key insights into attitudes toward voluntary environmental programs, especially those offering regulatory flexibility, and the concerns that participants have about the implementation of such programs. This report provides a detailed analysis of the focus group discussion, organized by major themes, and recommends actions to the DPPEA that will facilitate communication with environmental and community organizations and may foster greater involvement in EMS projects.
The NC DENR, with DPPEA as the lead agency, is conducting a pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness of an EMS in improving environmental performance/compliance and pollution prevention. Through this pilot program, DENR hopes to better understand EMS implementation, particularly the ISO 14001 model. 2 The pilot program is being supported by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, and data are being compiled into a national database maintained by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH).
As part of the pilot program, DPPEA has organized quarterly roundtable meetings with industry and local government participants. During these meetings and in other forums, held in North Carolina and nationally, the role of stakeholder involvement in EMS has been debated. DPPEA realized the need to engage a wider audience in its program, particularly environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). The agency's efforts to involve ENGOs in its EMS program have included meeting with several ENGO representatives, hosting a workshop for ENGOs and academic researchers, and cooperatively sponsoring a representative from an ENGO to attend a national EMS workshop.
To further its efforts to involve ENGOs, DPPEA contracted with the UNC-CH Environmental Resource Program (ERP) to research ENGO perceptions of voluntary programs and EMS.3 The objectives of the project were to (1) understand North Carolina environmental leaders' views of EMS and (2) identify opportunities for citizen education and involvement. Ultimately, the results of this research will assist DPPEA in designing programs that could better engage ENGOs in the EMS process.
A focus group was selected as the research method because it would provide an opportunity to hear and understand the participants' attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that affect their behavior and choices. The focus group was held on December 1, 1999 and involved eight participants representing seven regional and statewide environmental organizations focused on a variety of environmental issues. Two representatives of statewide environmental organizations were interviewed by phone because they could not participate in the meeting. See Appendix A for a list of participants, interviewees and observers.
The focus group lasted for two hours and was taped. A professional facilitator led the discussion using a topic guide to steer the conversation. Following the focus group, a transcript of the discussion was created and analyzed, and key messages and themes were identified. The messages and themes from the phone interviews were also incorporated into the report.
The focus group discussion centered on three primary topics:
Each topic is explained in more detail below. Key quotes that support the major themes are provided in the full report.
Experience with Partnerships
The participants had interacted with industry and government in various ways. Some interactions were partnerships, while others involved litigation. They viewed industry's primary goal--to make profits--to be in direct opposition to their own goal--to protect the environment. Therefore, they had a healthy distrust of industry, stating that it would be naïve to trust those with such different agendas. The participants also noted that differing levels of resources made it challenging to enter into partnerships with industries. Most participants believed that profit was the primary motivation for environmental improvements by industries; however, some recognized other motivations, such as creating a positive public image, involving employees, or avoiding litigation. The participants also identified aspects that help ensure the success of ENGO/industry partnerships including the following: commitment to common goals, accountability through written agreements, a problem-solving attitude, open access to information, and performance criteria.
Perceptions of Voluntary Programs and EMS
A majority of the focus group discussion centered on the topics covered in this section. For clarity, the comments are divided into three categories: voluntary programs, voluntary EMS, and incentive-based EMS. Although this report distinguishes between various approaches, some participants used the terms interchangeably.
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 were simply implementing voluntary EMS, the ENGOs, while supportive of the concept, did not feel a vested interest.
Participants' perceptions were influenced by the legislative discussions in North Carolina and the experiences of other states. They assumed that although voluntary programs might not provide regulatory flexibility today, they would likely do so in the future.
Voluntary Programs
Participants generally expressed skepticism about voluntary programs. Although they would like to see such programs succeed, they were concerned about program integrity. In addition, the perception of lax enforcement efforts in North Carolina made the participants less amenable to voluntary programs.
Most participants assumed that voluntary programs would come with reduced regulatory oversight, which they did not support; therefore, they identified a list of parameters for making voluntary programs more acceptable. Participants unanimously agreed that a regulatory baseline and strong enforcement of existing laws were critical to the success of such programs. Other parameters included:
Voluntary EMS
Many participants liked the philosophical underpinnings of voluntary EMS (i.e., the concept of looking holistically at an organization's impact on the environment). They stressed that their support for the idea hinged upon an EMS that "worked," meaning an organization's "entire system would be examined, all pollution and other problems would be identified, and they would all be corrected." However, they expressed concerns about EMS implementation and its ability to reduce negative environmental impacts. Most participants questioned whether EMS would result in real benefits without third party verification, vigorous enforcement and public scrutiny.
Many participants also felt that organizations should not get additional benefits for implementing EMS; they felt the potential environmental benefits and cost savings should be sufficient motivation for organizations considering it. Other issues raised included how appropriate/meaningful stakeholder involvement in EMS would be defined and whether beyond-compliance activities were the most appropriate use of state resources.
Incentive-Based EMS
For incentive-based EMS, participants emphasized the need for a regulatory baseline that would not be compromised with EMS implementation. In other words, they wanted to know that EMS would supplement current regulations rather than replace them. This baseline was critical to ensuring confidence in incentive-based EMS. Most participants only supported incentives--even relatively non-controversial incentives such as public recognition--if there were a regulatory baseline, performance criteria, third-party verification and public access to information. Additionally, the focus group participants thought that organizations participating in incentive-based EMS should be required to have good compliance histories.
EMS Agreements with Regulatory Flexibility
Much of the discussion of incentive-based EMS focused on EMS agreements that provide regulatory flexibility. Participants did not favor replacing current regulations with such agreements. Their reasons for favoring the current regulatory approach included the consequences of violating existing regulations (when enforced), the demonstrated ability of regulations to drive innovation, and a general respect for the law leading to compliance in many cases. However, participants also recognized that there have been many problems with the current approach in North Carolina, and thus, some were willing to consider alternative approaches.
Participants viewed objective verification as the only way to ensure that real benefits would be realized through EMS agreements with regulatory flexibility. Several participants felt that flexibility should not be offered until after a period of demonstrated performance improvement, if it were offered at all. Others did not support regulatory flexibility in any situation.
Participants perceived that the major downside of offering regulatory flexibility with EMS would be the potential opportunity for industry to violate regulations without being caught. They emphasized the need to maintain current regulations and ensure public access to information. They also anticipated a great deal of resistance from environmental groups if EMS were used in place of current regulations.
General Role of DENR in Reducing Negative Environmental Impacts
Focus group participants believed that current enforcement of state regulations is not strong enough and that industry does not face sufficiently severe consequences for degrading the environment. They said many get away with small fines or are able to plea bargain, making environmental destruction acceptable for economic reasons.
Participants believed that command/control regulatory measures were essential for making industry protect the environment. They would like to see stronger laws, and they believed that even though current laws and enforcement are weak or inconsistent, the threat of consequences keeps industry in line much of the time. In lieu of voluntary programs, participants argued for better enforcement of current laws (using such tools as litigation, increased fines, and cessation of operations) and better communication among DENR's permitting divisions.
Based on the focus group discussion and subsequent interviews, the following recommendations outline actions DPPEA could take to refine its outreach efforts to better engage ENGOs in the EMS process.
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. 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. For instance, DPPEA must convince ENGOs that voluntary programs result in real benefits. To do so, give specifics about the environmental improvements that can be attributed to EMS.
Motivation and resources were limiting factors for ENGO involvement in industry partnerships. For this reason, DPPEA should continue to make resources available to encourage ENGO participation in its meetings. Although DPPEA has offered travel compensation with limited response, the agency should continue to offer assistance. As interest grows, ENGOs may take advantage of it.
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 and the failures of the current system. DPPEA must recognize the difficulty of separating the idea of voluntary programs from the current regulatory environment. 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.
Most participants preferred written agreements when working with industries or local governments. If examples of such agreements exist, especially related to EMS, be prepared to share them with interested ENGOs.
3. Focus equally on DPPEA's message and the communication method
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.
Speak to the interests of the target audience. DPPEA must consider the interests of the individuals it is trying to reach and explain how this project relates to those interests. Make the connection between processes that are known to be successful and what EMS offers. Additionally, tell them what DPPEA needs or wants from them by explaining how the agency wants them to be involved
Go to the audience. Develop personal relationships, so individuals have a vested interest in providing 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. Also recognize that a small group of people is working on an array of environmental issues for the state, and they may not be able to participate in meetings, regardless of the resources you provide. Consider putting meeting minutes or other materials on the Web or in some other easily accessible format.
We also recommend that DPPEA update its EMS Web site and increase its use of listservs and e-mail distribution lists as outlined in the full report.
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.
DPPEA should, wherever possible, use real results with specific details to make the case for supporting EMS. As the agency learns more about EMS through its pilot program and the ensuing data collection, it should share the lessons learned.
The agency should also recognize that skepticism exists for a reason, and recognize the links between enforcement and EMS in participants' minds. Their concern 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 is different here.
As DPPEA develops new EMS program options in North Carolina, it should keep in mind that these ENGOs did not support incentive-based programs because of enforcement failures in the state. A few were willing to consider this approach, but only with the proper safeguards, such as a regulatory baseline, performance criteria, third-party verification of environmental improvements, and public access to relevant documents. None of the participants supported compromising current regulations in exchange for EMS implementation.
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.
1. The DPPEA is a non-regulatory, technical assistance division of DENR and, as such, provides information and tools that organizations can use to come into, maintain or go beyond compliance.
2. ISO 14001 is an international standard, created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which specifies requirements for environmental management systems.
3. The ERP is an outreach unit, jointly funded by the UNC-CH School of Public Health and the UNC-CH Carolina Environmental Program, focusing on applied research, environmental education and community service.
Table of Contents | Executive Summary | Introduction | Findings | Conclusion | Appendixes