Environmental Non-Governmental
Organizations and Environmental Management Systems:
North Carolina Groups
Share Their Views
This section of the report summarizes the broad themes identified during the focus group and interviews and provides key quotes that support those themes. The discussion centered around three primary topics:
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 difficult to enter into partnerships with industries. Most participants believed that profit was the primary motivation for environmental improvements by industries. Some recognized other motivations, such as creating a positive public image, involving employees, or avoiding litigation. The participants also identified aspects that ensure the success of such partnerships including the following: commitment to common goals, accountability through written agreements, a problem-solving attitude, open access to information and performance criteria.
1. Trust
Participants stated that trust is not often part of partnerships with industry or local governments. They felt that respect and strategic alliances were possible, but trust was more difficult to achieve. One participant stated that she had interacted with a few industry representatives that provided "straight information" but this was not necessarily the norm. This apparent distrust was attributed to the generally conflicting interests of each party and the belief that profit motivates most industry decisions.
I don't think trust is in the equation at all. I wouldn't use that word with a corporation - it's a power/money calculation. If it would save them money to cooperate with you, they'll do that.Our interests are different from theirs, ours is a broader public interest in health, and the good corporation makes money at the very top of their priorities, and they might want to get goodwill but that eventually gets the money anyway.
2. Resources
Participants recognized that differing levels of resources (i.e., time and money) make it hard to enter into partnerships with industry. There was general agreement that industries can significantly outspend grassroots groups and dedicate more time during business hours to addressing their issues. Participants also noted that the greater wealth of industry enables greater access to decision-makers and information.
I constantly am challenged by the lack of resources to be able to come to a meeting with the kinds of resources that they have when they come to the meeting.They're in the halls of the legislative building every day and we're not there...we're working, we're raising our children. They're in Raleigh with the legislators and with the regulators, and we're not.
3. Motivations
The participants recognized that industry is driven primarily by profit, while ENGOs are motivated by a desire to protect the environment and public health. Therefore, they felt that profit was also the driver of most environmental improvements, and said that environmental benefits claimed by an industry were most believable when financial benefits were also realized. They asserted the importance of finding ways for an industry to be protective of the environment while at the same time improving its bottom line.
I felt a lot more confident when they were putting it in their terms. If they said we did this to clean up rivers - I don't buy that for a minute. But if they said we saved 1.3 million dollars of hazardous waste fees by looking at our system, I find that more acceptable, or more believable maybe.In order for us to believe that they're really committed to it, we have to know that they're saving money or making more money somehow...I'm just not going to believe that they're doing it for altruistic reasons, but I will believe that they're doing it for financial reasons.
Several participants discussed other motivations for reducing negative environmental impacts, including the desire to avoid litigation, employee involvement in decision making, and positive media coverage. When citing an industry's desire to avoid litigation, the ENGOs cited their successful legal battles as supporting evidence.
Employee involvement in decision making was also cited as motivating environmental improvements. One participant felt that employee-owned facilities had extra incentive to reduce environmental impacts. This participant cited the case of Blue Ridge Paper, which had been 40 percent bought by its employees, as a company where environmental sentiment coming from the employee-owners was driving business decisions.
Finally, positive media coverage was also noted as motivating environmental improvements. Another participant mentioned [Amoco] British Petroleum as voluntarily making certain reductions in its emissions before the law required them. The company was the first to make such reductions, so it received positive media coverage. As a result, consumers remembered the company name and were more likely to purchase its gasoline. Participants noted that being the first to do something often resulted in a positive image and press coverage, both of which were ultimately linked to profits.
4. Aspects of Successful Partnerships
Participants identified a variety of factors in successful partnerships with industry or local government, including a commitment to common goals and accountability through written agreements. According to one participant, a problem-solving attitude lends credibility to an organization's commitment to specific goals.
[The company] stood back from the problem and said, "What are all the problems we have and how can we make these problems go away?" Not just how can we meet the rule...the attitude by which they approach it - am I trying to solve a problem or am I trying to meet a regulation? The minute I find that out, to me, that tells me a whole lot about how everything's going to go.
Participants emphasized the need for both parties to be held accountable to an established communication process and a specific end result. Several participants felt that written agreements were critical in providing such accountability. These agreements typically spell out what information will be shared, how each party will interact, commitment to specific objectives, and a way to terminate the agreement
For our organization, whenever we have done a collaborative partnership or project...we have a written memorandum of understanding...it lays out clearly the kind of information, what you're going to share, how you're going to treat it, the right to continue your own activities. And some sort of real commitment to objectives of why you're doing the project. I mean, something to hold it accountable and also a way for everybody to terminate it...we couldn't do a project with a company without it.
Participants also cited a desire for open access to information in a partnership.
I think one of the things that is doable is if companies have...an open-door policy. They're not going to let you have free rein, and I don't think most people expect that, but the ability to say...I want to see your records on "x" as it affects water quality or air emissions...and I want to be able to examine [them] within a reasonable time period.
Additionally, performance criteria were mentioned as important in ensuring the desired end result. Many participants felt that the value of participation in partnerships was limited without these aspects.
A majority of the conversation focused 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 EMS approaches, some participants used the terms interchangeably.
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.
Overall, participants expressed skepticism of voluntary programs and felt that regulatory flexibility should not be a component of such programs, despite their assumptions that the two were typically linked. They also identified parameters that could increase their comfort level with such programs. For voluntary EMS, participants supported the concept but saw many problems with the implementation, including concerns about its effectiveness in reducing negative environmental impacts, stakeholder involvement and whether beyond compliance activities are the most appropriate use of state resources. For incentive-based EMS, participants emphasized the need for a regulatory baseline that would not be compromised; it was a fundamental aspect of the parameters identified as necessary to encourage confidence in such an approach. Participants also outlined the reasons they prefer the current regulatory approach to voluntary approaches.
1. Voluntary Programs
Participants generally expressed skepticism about voluntary programs, and most assumed that voluntary programs would come with reduced regulatory oversight, which they did not support. Although they would like to see such programs succeed and would be willing to try to create them, they were also concerned about program integrity. They said they have seen examples where this approach has led to deception and environmental destruction. Participants unanimously agreed that a regulatory baseline and strong enforcement of existing laws were critical to voluntary program success.
In my mind, voluntary is a buzzword for lessening environmental protection.When I hear voluntary, I think of backsliding, meaning less public input and more confidentiality.
The perception of lax enforcement efforts in North Carolina makes environmental groups less amenable to voluntary programs. These groups view industry as violating laws because it is often cheaper than complying with regulations. Meanwhile, industry lobbies to maintain legislative status quo, so the ENGOs do not expect enforcement to be strengthened in the near future.
It's really a double-edged sword in that we don't have enforcement of the laws and regulations that we do have, but we can't get the kinds of laws and regulations we really need because of the lobby power of the pollution interests.
When you have very poor control, which is what we have in this state, you will have a lot of people who know that they can get away with murder, and so they do.
Most participants felt that regulatory flexibility should not be offered in exchange for participation in a voluntary program. Some participants have seen regulatory flexibility abused, for instance in the case of audit privilege (i.e., self-policing). Participants were also generally concerned about industry's potential involvement in shaping the incentives for participation in a voluntary program; however, specific examples were not provided.
There has to be the same standard that everybody faces, with the same rules and the same enforcement; and then you can start talking about [voluntary programs].
I think we'd all feel very differently, but what we've seen is...there have been enough instances where people abused regulatory flexibility.
Parameters for making voluntary programs more acceptable were also discussed. A voluntary program would be more acceptable to participants if:
The industry or the local government has to really...be very aggressive in bringing community people in and showing them, "Here's what we plan to do; here's what we hope it will achieve" and spend some time educating those people - not talking down to them. But educating them as to what the situation is and what they think this alternative offers that's better.
2. Voluntary EMS
Some participants recognized the potential for voluntary EMS to move compliant industries beyond compliance, yet they also questioned whether that potential would be realized. They felt that industry could not be trusted to take costly measures to protect the environment. Most assumed that voluntary programs would come with reduced regulatory oversight--something that all agreed would be a major step backwards for the environment.
Benefits
Many participants liked the philosophical underpinnings of 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."
An EMS done right and accountable offers the chance to get closer to zero emissions.
Concerns
The participants voiced concerns about EMS implementation and its ability to reduce negative environmental impacts, especially if "bad actors" got involved. They also indicated that the potential benefits of EMS should be sufficient motivation implementation by industry and local government.
Most participants questioned whether EMS would result in real benefits to the environment without third party verification, vigorous enforcement and public scrutiny.
This is just a vacuum...the details need to be looked at very carefully...I'm real uncertain about whether EMS is something that is beneficial at all.
I think it's important to keep in mind that the certification we're talking about is really only for the trappings of this management system; if there's not going to be full disclosure of performance results, then I think there is a real opportunity for manipulation of such systems.
I still have a problem with being self-certified. If you don't have a regulatory system that either does testing or that verifies testing [as] your performance measurement, then I just think the system becomes too chaotic.
Many participants felt that organizations should not get additional benefits for implementing EMS. They felt that the benefits of a holistic approach and resulting reductions in pollution and violations should be sufficient motivation.
I think every company should have an EMS. I mean, it just makes sense that if they look at their whole system...that seems to be a legitimate goal. Now, they shouldn't get anything out of that.
Why should the state financially support programs that save companies money? Serious candidates, those who are getting environmental performance benefits from EMS, may deserve recognition or some sort of award, but not financial support.
Stakeholder involvement and access to information
Participants were concerned about stakeholder involvement in EMS. They wanted a clearer sense of what constitutes an appropriate stakeholder and suggested that members of affected communities should be included. They also noted that each facility would have a unique set of stakeholders.
I've got a real problem with in-house stakeholder groups because I know people who've been on [one], and they're not really the people who are affected in the community.
Who would be on [an industry's] stakeholder group? It would be the mayor of the city. It would be the power brokers who are already bought in and are accepting of the [industry]. There may be one environmentalist, or maybe a fake one.
Additionally, a request was made to involve the environmental community in ongoing discussions of EMS in North Carolina.
I think that [DENR's EMS] program has not been widely publicized, the environmental community has not been invited to the meetings...before we part, I'd really like to suggest that our organizations get the schedule of these pilot project meetings and that we start systematically attending them.
Beyond-compliance activities versus enforcement
During the discussion of EMS, a philosophical question was raised: should EMS be used as an approach in North Carolina's regulatory framework? Participants who supported the use of EMS felt that North Carolina needs to consider alternatives to the current regulatory system because it is not working.
I would never be willing to consider EMSs or environmental excellence, or any of the rest of this...if command-and-control were a system that was working. I wouldn't even come to this meeting. It is only because command and control is such a dismal failure in this state that I think I'm desperate enough to at least look at other ways of doing things, whether I'm comfortable with them or not.
We're in a world where DENR is not going to get all the funding that is required to do the things we're saying. [We're not] in a place where our laws actually protect in all the ways they should.
Those who did not support the use of EMS felt that North Carolina needed to improve the current system before EMS or any other beyond-compliance incentives were considered.
Should DENR's goal be having people that are in compliance do better, or is it to have everybody in compliance? And is DENR willing to punt those that aren't in compliance, and the real criminals and the real bad actors, because it's difficult to get them? If you're willing to punt those companies and the people that they're hurting and put your resources on the good guy's side, trying to make them better, I think that your whole philosophy is skewed.
3. Incentive-Based EMS
Participants did not support compromising current regulations in exchange for EMS implementation. Nor did they agree on specific incentives that might be offered to companies that implement EMS, even when a regulatory baseline is guaranteed. Most participants only supported providing incentives if there were a regulatory baseline, performance criteria, third-party verification and public access to information. Participants viewed objective verification as the only way to ensure that real benefits would be realized through EMS implementation.
Several participants felt that incentives should not be offered until after a period of demonstrated performance improvement. Others did not support regulatory flexibility in any situation. Additionally, participants wanted to know that participating organizations had a good compliance history. Questions were raised about the histories and the environmental impacts of several organizations participating in the pilot program.
Participants perceived that the major downside of incentive-based EMS would be that industry would likely take advantage of the opportunity to violate regulations without being caught. Participants emphasized the need to maintain current regulations and provide access to information. They anticipated a great deal of resistance from environmental groups if EMS were used in place of command/control.
Concerns
Participants were emphatic about the need for strong enforcement.
In the absence of vigorous enforcement and public scrutiny, an EMS will not improve the environment; the well-intentioned companies are safeguarding the environment now.
Participants emphasized the need for public access to information. Some were concerned that industries were not required to release environmental improvement results to the public. They would prefer that such reporting were required on a regular basis rather than left to industry initiative.
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to have access to all the information from them that we want.
Secrecy in an EMS is just absolutely horrible...especially about how they [achieve] their systems management results.
Participants were also concerned about the potential for EMS to weaken the permit process or provide loopholes to current regulation.
Permitting is the first line of defense for the environment and public health... anything that veers away from permitting and enforcement is something that I have some real concerns about.
[In our] experience...with this environmental excellence effort...what was presented was an attempt to get extra credit homework for doing what you already had to do, or possibly even trading off and meeting one law to break another one.
Some participants suggested that any incentives be contingent on improved environmental performance.
Incentives should be provided based on results...basically they should be asked "what have you accomplished in the last two years?" before any incentives are offered.
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 for several reasons:
(1) The current system offers real consequences. If they violate the law, they can go to jail and get fined. I mean, there's teeth in that.
(2) Regulations can drive innovation. Example after example shows that from tailpipe emissions, catalytic converters, things that the industry did not want...when it became law, incredibly new ideas and technologies came forward, cost-effective things to make it happen.
(3) Many people respect the law and follow it. One of the pros would be that people tend to think that have to follow laws, rules or regulations.
However, participants also recognized that there have been many problems with the current approach in North Carolina.
Most participants lacked confidence that EMS agreements with regulatory flexibility would reduce negative environmental impacts. However, they identified the following six factors as those that might increase confidence in such agreements:
[I would feel more comfortable] if we have strong and appropriate laws, if those laws are enforced, if the EMS end products are verifiable and accountable to show they are being carried our fully, and if all information is public.
[I would feel more comfortable] if you limit eligibility to good actors, if you have minimum safeguards, minimum regulatory standards that everybody has to meet, and then people who get into it are going to go beyond compliance and do something good for the environment.
Many participants felt that no amount of safeguarding would make them believe that the potential of this type of EMS incentive program could be realized. Some felt that human nature was such that people couldn't be trusted with any system that offers flexibility. Others felt that incentive-based EMS could only work if it were stricter than the current regulations and it were enforced, or if it were happening in a state with more resources available for enforcement.
Focus group participants believed that, currently, enforcement of state regulations is not strong enough and that industry does not have severe enough 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/inconsistent, the threat of consequences keeps industry in line much of the time.
They identified a number of ways, in addition to voluntary programs, that DENR could decrease negative environmental impacts, including the following:
(1) Enforce current laws and use all available tools to do so, including the legal system, increased fines, cessation of operations for violators, and imprisonment.The courts are far more effective - victims of pollution are really effective in doing something when they get something that's actionable and they go into court and they get make a case against an industry.
I think shutting them down - just flat shutting them down just to set a good example of what can happen to everybody else if they don't comply - that would be a really good message.
They ought to put some in jail...if you put one or two of the polluters in jail, it really sends a message.
(2) Communicate better among its permitting divisions.
There's no taking into account of the additional impacts of all of the permits that are being issued. They're all taken separate except in extreme cases.
[DENR's] divisions, the regulatory divisions, when they are all regulating the same industry or group of industries, if they would confer more...that would be enormously helpful.
Other recommendations included:
We need recruiting in North Carolina of truly clean industry, and I think our economy would not be damaged by that. I think economically we would benefit with an only-clean-industries-need-apply approach.
Table of Contents | Executive Summary | Introduction | Findings | Conclusion | Appendices