Raul, since your question seems rather open ended, here's an observation why TRI etc are good things: There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that TRI type schemes are important at creating awareness at the management level of the inefficiencies of production. Most managers have little knowledge how much of the stuff they buy ends up as pollution. Without the quantitative info from a TRI report they can't quantify the economic impacts of these losses. So TRI schemes are very important for jump starting the progress of companies to more eco efficiency. In the early 90s I heard often that corp execs were horrified to hear the emissions they were releasing, esp if they end up on the front page.
The data from TRI schemes is always going to be a problem, but it can and is widely used. However I think there should be more attention to the behavioral results of implementing TRI systems. Forcing execs to see the waste they produce is a catalytic step to progress.
Burton Hamner
Director, Cleaner Production International
Producer,
http://www.CleanerProduction.Com
5534 30th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 91805
wbhamner@cleanerproduction.com
(206) 526-5308
mobile (206) 491-0945
fax (206) 260-9001
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:46 PM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: TRI
From: Raul Pacheco [mailto:
pachecoh@interchange.ubc.ca]
Dear all,
As one of the members of the North American Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC) Consultative Group for Pollutant Release and Transfer
Registries, I would like to know what your feeling is about TRI and PRTRs in
general. The Mexican version (whose development I've closely followed and
I've also been involved with) is still in its developmental stages. RETC
(the Mexican PRTR) has closely followed the model of TRI and the Canadian
National Pollutant Release Inventory, so it is interesting to know how
researchers feel about the oldest version (TRI).
As Dinah indicates, the accuracy of TRI data could be seen as questionable.
However, if considered a mistake, that's a design mistake. Simply because
PRTR data come from estimations generated by the companies themselves, they
are susceptible to errors. All PRTRs in the world have the same design
problem.
I do believe, however, that sound research is based on empirical evidence.
And if this (TRI or any other PRTR data source) is as good as it gets, then
we should try as hard as we can to make it work and to make the best use of
it. Also, I think that simply by using TRI data and analyzing whether it is
useful, we are furthering our knowledge. We should test PRTR data to see
what we can learn.
Just my $ 0.02...
Best wishes,
Raul
----- Original Message -----
From: <
Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
> With biannual TRI - TRI as one of the main datasources for researchers
> in corporate environmental behavior is lost, or at least poses some
> statistical challenges.
>
> Maybe that is a good thing, as TRI is very tempting to use, but its
> accuracy is questionable...
> Is questionable data better than no data?!
>
>
> Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
> Economics and Decision Sciences Research
> National Center for Environmental Research
> 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20460
> 202-343-9687
> 202-233-0678 (fax)
>
> Courier Delivery Address:
> USEPA, NCER
> Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
> 1025 F Street NW
> Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>
>
> Reid Lifset
> <reid.lifset@YAL
> E.EDU> To
>
> 12/02/2005 08:58
> AM
>
>
> Dinah's questions highlight the significance of
> the White House's proposal to change the
> reporting requirements for TRI annual to biannual.
>
> At 02:15 PM 12/1/2005,
Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV wrote:
>>So does this mean that we should expect corporate environmental
>>performance to "improve" in spurts? No smooth improvements (i.e.
> curves)
>>in performance over time?
>>What does this mean for empirical analyses? Are annual data
>>appropriate/sufficient? Averages over time? Monthly better? WHAT IS
>>AVAILABLE?!
>>Have you (or others) analyzed the relative importance of personal
>>networks (knowledge transfer/networks) vs. other variables that might
>>affect environmental performance?
>>
>>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>>Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>>National Center for Environmental Research
>>8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
>>Washington, DC 20460
>>202-343-9687
>>202-233-0678 (fax)
>>
>>Courier Delivery Address:
>>USEPA, NCER
>>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>>1025 F Street NW
>>Washington, DC 20004-1409
>>
>>
>>
>>
roome@FSW.EUR.NL
>
>>
>>
>>Dinah,
>>
>>from 1997-2001 we had a grant to undertake a longitudinal study in real
>>time of corporate environmental management. We found lots of examples
>>of
>>dis-continuities in practice arising from people leaving and issues
> like
>>mergers and acquisitions. In particular when key people left companies
>>their networks were also often lost.
>>
>>Nigel Roome
>>
>> > visionaries are one thing...
>> > has anyone done any research to figure out what happens to an
>> > organization when the enviro visionary leaves? Does the effort die -
>>if
>> > so, then why should we be so excited about visionaries?
>> > I recall some chatter about such an event at Monsanto, but forget
> the
>> > details of who was involved and what happened.
>> >
>> >
>> > Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>> > Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>> > National Center for Environmental Research
>> > 8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
>> > Washington, DC 20460
>> > 202-343-9687
>> > 202-233-0678 (fax)
>> >
>> > Courier Delivery Address:
>> > USEPA, NCER
>> > Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>> > 1025 F Street NW
>> > Washington, DC 20004-1409
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
roome@FSW.EUR.NL
>> > Sent by:
>> > Organizations
>>To
>> > and the Natural
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> > Environment
>>cc
>> > Discussion
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Greetings ONE-L,
>> >
>> > A coiuple of thoughts re: Kurt Fischer's questions.
>> >
>> > 1. It seems to me that there are many senior managers who have
>>embarked
>> > on
>> > corporate environmental practices for managerial reasons and then
>>built
>> > in
>> > very deep personal commitments as they discover this as part of
> their
>> > 'life mission'. David Buzzelli from Dow, Herman Mulder fromn ABN
>>Amro,
>> > Ray Anderson from Interface. The interesting thing is the way this
>> > moves
>> > from a position of dealing with an external concern or issue to
>>building
>> > the develop and practice of corporate enviornmental management into
>> > their
>> > personal identity.
>> >
>> > 2. Second we all know that much of CEM is rhetorical. Sometimes
>> > greenwash, sometimes because vision, by definition, is where you
> want
>>to
>> > go not where you are. But I want to draw also on the profound
>> > difference
>> > between the perspectives of anglo-saxon ideas of law and roman
>>catholic
>> > notions of law. To anglo-saxons laws generally set minimum
> standards.
>> > You meet these or not. In catholic thinking laws are set as
> standards
>> > to
>> > aspire to but with a recognition that humans are mortal and flawed
> and
>> > may
>> > not get to these standards. But in aspiring to them they are doing
>> > pretty
>> > well.
>> >
>> > I wonder if these ideas draw comment??
>> >
>> > Nigel Roome
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Greetings, ONE-L,
>> >>
>> >> I̢۪m looking for some citations for ar a paper and talk I̢۪m
>>preparing,
>> > working
>> >> tittitle “From Epiphany to Environmental Belief.â€Â
>>Â
>> >>
>> >> Our discussion of a couple of weeks ago about Ray Anderson that
> Andy
>> >> Hoffman started and on epiphanies got me wondering if anyone has
>> > published
>> >> analytical and critical comparisons to proselytizing religious
>> >> organizations, looking at how business leaders went or might go
> from
>> >> environmental epiphany to environmental belief, zeal, and
> management.
>> >> Critical in the sense of looking at not only at the environmental
>> > belief
>> >> structure as translated into business plan, but also at
> environmental
>> >> record, sustainability indicators, and business (financial)
>> > performance.
>> >>
>> >> For a couple of starting points re. religious belief and
>> > organizational
>> >> management, I am looking at the new book on Joseph Smith by Richard
>> > Lyman
>> >> Bushman and Malcolm Gladwell̢۪s September 12 New Yorker article
> on
>> >> Rickick
>> >> Warren.
>> >>
>> >> Can anyone point me toward citations of publications that 1) look
> on
>> >> environmental management as religious or evangelical quest or
> secular
>> >> religion, or 2) that draw lessons for environmental management from
>> >> religion management?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Kurt
>> >>
>> >> __________________________________________________
>> >> Kurt Fischer
>> >> The Greening of Industry Network
>> >> tel 781.646.4596 fax 781.646.4189
>> >
kurt.fischer@greeningofindustry.org
>> >> JOIN GIN!
http://www.greeningofindustry.org/
>> >> <http://www.greeningofindustry.org/>
>> >>
>> >> Dates to note:
>> >> February 17-18, 2006: Sustainable Regions and Global Trade, GIN
>> > workshop
>> >> at
>> >> the School for International Training, Brattleboro, Vermont USA.
>> >> July 2-5, 2006: GIN2006, The 13th International Conference of the
>> > Greening
>> >> of Industry Network, Cardiff University, UK.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
> ================================================================
> Reid J. Lifset, Assoc.
> Dir. School of Forestry & Env. Studies
> Industrial Environmental Mgmt. Program Yale University
> Editor, Journal of Industrial Ecology 205 Prospect Street
> 203-432-6949 (tel) -5912 (fax) New Haven, CT
> 06511-2189 USA
>
reid.lifset@yale.edu
>
http://mitpress.mit.edu/JIE
>