Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth
1 0 / 2 [1999] 1 0 5 –1 1 1 © MCB Unive rs ity Pre s s [ISSN 0956-6163]
D. Keith Denton
Pro fe s s o r, De partme nt o f Manage me nt, So uthwe s t Mis s o uri State Unive rs ity, Springfie ld, Mis s o uri, USA
Employee involvement, pollution control and pieces
to the puzzle
Dow Ch em i ca l, a m on g ot h er s, h a s b ecom e fa m ou s a t r ed u ci n g w a s t e a n d en h a n ci n g t h e b ot t om li n e. Dow m a n a gem en t a n d em p loyees h ave gen er a t ed li t er a lly m i lli on s u p on m i lli on s of s av i n gs t h r ou gh t h ei r en er gy con s er v a t i on a n d Wa s t e Red u ct i on A lw a y s P a y s p r o gr a m s (WRA P ). For i n s t a n ce, i n 1992 a lon e t h ey s aved over $20 m i lli on , a n d t h e aver a ge r et u r n on i n ves t -m en t w a s 111 p er cen t (N els on , 1992, p. 7). T h es e s av i n gs, i n la r ge p a r t , h ave occu r r ed b eca u s e of em p loyee i n volvem en t . Im p r es -s ive r e-s u lt -s li k e t h o-s e of Dow Ch em i ca l ca n on ly occu r i f em p loyees a cce p t con t i n u ou s w a s t e r ed u ct i on a s p a r t of t h ei r d a i ly r es p on s i b i li t i es. It s h ou ld n ot com e a s a s h ock . E m p loyee i n volvem en t (E I) i s cr i t i ca l t o good q u a li t y, p r od u ct iv i t y, a n d p r ofi t m a k -i n g. Wh y s h ou ld -i t n ot a ls o b e cr -i t -i ca l t o p ollu t i on con t r ol?
The state of EI ef forts
Logica lly, on e wou ld t h in k em p loyee in volve-m en t wou ld b e a volve-m a jor fa ct or in cor p or a t e effor t s t o r ed u ce p ollu t ion b u t t h e r ea lit y is a n ot h er m a t t er. T r u e, m os t m a n a ger s r ecog-n ize t h e ecog-n eed t o b ot h eecog-n cou r a ge t h eir em p loyees t o r ecycle, a n d t o s h ow t h em h ow t o r eu s e a n d con s er ve en er gy. T h es e s a m e m a n a ger s k n ow t h ey s h ou ld a ls o r ecogn ize t h os e s a m e em p loyees w h en ever t h ey r ecy -cle, r ev is e or con s er ve en er gy. On t h e ot h er h a n d , r a r ely a r e s a la r y r a is es or p r om ot ion s b a s ed on en v ir on m en t a l p er for m a n ce. Lik e-w is e, e-w h ile m a n a ger s m ay en cou r a ge em p loyees t o p r ov id e s u gges t ion s for r ed u c-in g w a s t e, lit t le effor t is m a d e t o s y s t em a t i-ca lly t r a in t h os e s a m e em p loyees s o t h ey i-ca n p r op er ly id en t ify a n d cla s s ify t h e ca u s es of en v ir on m en t a l p r oblem s (e.g. P a r et o’s An a ly -s i-s, Ca u -s e a n d E ffect Dia gr a m -s, H i-s t ogr a m -s, et c.).
Per h a ps so lit t le effor t is given t o coor din a t -in g em ployee -in volvem en t a n d pollu t ion con t r ol beca u se m a n y com pa n ies st ill view pollu t ion con t r ol a s a cost t h a t n eeds t o be m in im ized. If com pa n y execu t ives m er ely w a n t t o “st ay ou t of t h e pa per s” t h en lit t le a t t en t ion is goin g t o go t o developin g lon g-t er m solu g-t ion s g-t h a g-t r equ ir e em ployee in
volve-m en t . Wh en it covolve-m es t o pollu t ion , per h a ps a m a jor it y of m a n a ger s sim ply h ope t o m in im ize t h e a m ou n t of ca pit a l n eeded t o st ay ou t of le ga l t r ou bles.
In du st r y lea der s lik e Dow Ch em ica l h ave m a de a n a m e for t h em selves by t a k in g t h ese cost con cer n s a n d t u r n in g it a r ou n d. T h eir t h in k in g goes “if it (pollu t ion ) is a cost t o you (m y com pet it or ) a n d a cost t o m e, I w in if m y cost is lower ”. T h ese m a n a ger s r ecogn ize t h a t pollu t ion is a n over h ea d, a n d lik e a n y over -h ea d, if it ca n be bet t er m a n a ged you ca n ga in a com pet it ive a dva n t a ge. T h ey a lso k n ow con t r ollin g over h ea ds r equ ir es E I a n d t h a t r equ ir es lon g-t er m com m it m en t , in vest m en t , a n d coor din a t ion .
M a n a ger s, in t h e cos t com p et it ive com p a -n ies, m a k e ext e-n s ive u s e of cr os s -fu -n ct io-n a l t ea m s b eca u s e p ollu t ion k n ow s few b ou n d -a r ies. P ollu t ion fr eely cr os s es fu n ct ion -a l -a n d d iv is ion a l lin es, s o m a n a gem en t n eed s t o t ea ch ot h er s h ow t o u s e t h e t ools t h a t b ot h id en t ify a n d s olve p ollu t ion p r oblem s. Som e m a n a ger s a s s u m e t h a t en cou r a gin g em p loy -ees t o r ecycle is en ou gh . Lik ew is e, m os t em p loyees b elieve t h a t t h ey a r e d oin g a ll t h ey ca n w h en t h ey r ecycle, bu t b ot h a r e w r on g.
Con t r ollin g en er gy a n d w a st e over h ea d r equ ir es t h a t people t h in k a bou t it – a lot . It r equ ir es t h a t a br oa d gr ou p of people a cce pt ow n er sh ip for pollu t ion . Pollu t ion m u st n ot be t h ou gh t of a s a “com pa n y” pr oblem , it is ever yon e’s pr oblem . Su ch com m it m en t does n ot com e ea sy, n or over n igh t . Com pa n ies lik e Dow sh ow u s t h a t t h is k in d of em ployee com m it m en t t a k es su bst a n t ia l m a n a gem en t coor -din a t ion a n d com m u n ica t ion . Idea ls on h ow t o m a n a ge pollu t ion m u st be fr eely sh a r ed t h r ou gh ou t a ll levels. T h er e m u st be syst em -a t ic t r -a in in g pr ogr -a m s t h -a t t e-a ch em ployees bot h h ow t o iden t ify en vir on m en t a l pr oblem s a n d h ow t o m a k e good pollu t ion r edu cin g decision s.
A pilot study
Recen t ly a n a n on ym ou s qu est ion n a ir e t o som e of t h e best k n ow n pollu t ion r edu cin g com pa n ies in t h e wor ld w a s sen t by t h e a u t h or. It w a s pilot t est in g, so it cou ld be fi n e
Keywords
Che mic al indus try, Emplo ye e invo lve me nt, Enviro nme nt, Re c yc ling
Abstract
D. Ke ith De nto n Emplo ye e invo lve me nt, po llutio n c o ntro l and pie c e s to the puzzle
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth
1 0 / 2 [1 9 9 9 ] 1 0 5 –1 1 1
t u n ed. It w a s sen t t o t h e t op level execu t ives of t h ese com pa n ies a n d w a s design ed t o iden -t ify cu r r en -t pollu -t ion m a n a gem en -t pr a c-t ices a n d focu sed on st r a t e gic, fi n a n cia l, oper a -t ion a l, m a r k e-t in g a n d em ployee in volvem en -t in it ia t ives. T h e officia l in a ll ca ses w a s per -ceived t o be t h e h igh est r a n k in g officia l in ch a r ge of en vir on m en t a l r espon sibilit ies. Respon ses in t h e a r ea of em ployee in volve-m en t pr oved t o be especia lly in t er est in g. As expect ed, t h ese t op level execu t ives per ceived t h a t t h eir com pa n ies h a d been su ccessfu l a t fi llin g in sever a l pieces t o t h e pollu t ion m a n -a gem en t pu zzle.
T h e qu est ion n a ir e in qu ir ed a bou t t h ese pieces, 58 of t h em t o be exa ct . Qu est ion s focu sed on oper a t ion a l, em ployee in volve-m en t , volve-m a r k dow n , a ccou n t in g a n d fi n a n ce, a n d st r a t e gic m a n a gem en t pr ocedu r es. E a ch of t h ese wer e t h en gr ou ped in t o t h r ee levels of effor t ca lled cost m in im iza t ion , com pet it ive cost in g, a n d r even u e gen er a t in g a ppr oa ch es. Cost m in im iza t ion s qu est ion s (1-5, 15-19, 31-34, 41-44 a n d 51-53) h a d t o do w it h pr a ct ice t h a t in volved m eet in g ba sic le ga l a n d sh or t -t er m pollu -t ion r espon sibili-t ies. Com pe-t i-t ive cost in g qu est ion s (6-8, 20-27, 35-38, 45-46, a n d 54-55) focu sed on pr a ct ices t h a t t en ded t o dem on st r a t e a m or e lon g-t er m com m it m en t t o r edu cin g pollu t ion over h ea d cost . Reven u e gen er a t or qu est ion s wer e t h ose r equ ir in g even gr ea t er com m it m en t a n d in volved r est r u ct u r in g of t h e or ga n iza t ion t o t h e poin t t h a t em ployees a r e dee ply in volved in m a k in g pollu t ion m a n a gem en t decision s. Respon -den t s wer e t h en a sk ed t o fi ll ou t a “pollu t ion wh eel” sim ila r t o F igu r e 1. If it wer e com -plet ely fi lled in t h en a ll of t h e “pieces of t h is pollu t ion pu zzle” wou ld be com plet ed. N ot ice ea ch qu est ion h a s fou r con cen t r ic cir cles beca u se qu est ion s a sk ed pa r t icipa n t s t o r a t e t h e de gr ee (fr om n ever t o a lw ays) t h a t cer t a in pr a ct ices exist ed.
If on e exa m in es F igu r e 1, it ca n be n ot iced t h a t t h er e a r e sever a l wh it e spa ces in t h is pa r t icu la r or ga n iza t ion ’s “gr een ” effor t s. On e of t h e fi r st t h in gs t h a t ca t ch es you r eye is qu est ion s 35 t h r ou gh 38 in t h e E m ployee In volvem en t pa r t of t h e pollu t ion wh eel. Qu est ion n u m ber 35 a sk s pa r t icipa n t s t o wh a t de gr ee t h eir com pa n ies’ em ployees’ sa la r ies, in cen t ives a n d bon u ses wer e t ied t o h ow well t h eir en vir on m en t a l goa ls wer e m et . In t h is ca se t h is vice-pr esiden t st a t ed t h a t t h ese in cen t ives “r a r ely” (on e r in g) exist ed. If h e h a d felt it a lw ays exist ed t h en h e wou ld h ave sh a ded t h e en t ir e n u m ber 35 qu est ion sim ila r t o t h e w ay qu est ion n u m ber 55 w a s sh a ded.
Qu est ion n u m ber 36 a sk ed t h is execu t ive h ow oft en a n en vir on m en t a l ca t e gor y is pa r t of t h eir em ployees’ job a ppr a isa l. Qu est ion 37
a sk ed t o wh a t de gr ee cr oss-fu n ct ion a l gr een t ea m s wer e in oper a t ion , a n d 38 in qu ir ed a bou t h ow syst em a t ica lly h is com pa n y a ppr oa ch ed pollu t ion m a n a gem en t t r a in in g. T h e vice-pr esiden t ’s r espon ses sh owed t h a t t h er e wer e ga ps in t h eir em ployee in volve-m en t a ct ivit ies. T h ese ga ps a r e pr esen t despit e t h e fa ct t h a t t h e com pa n y is r en ow n ed for it s pollu t ion effor t s. Wh a t is cu r iou s is t h a t h e felt m or e st r on gly t h a t t h eir wor k -for ce “fr equ en t ly” (t h ir d r in g) h a d a h igh de gr ee of in volvem en t in pla n t level gr een decision s (qu est ion n u m ber 39). A h igh de gr ee of in volvem en t , a ccor din g t o t h e qu es-t ion , is defi n ed a s a ces-t u a lly m a k in g decision s, n ot sim ply pr ovidin g in pu t or r ecom m en da -t ion s for decision s. He lik ew ise fel-t -t h a -t -t h e com pa n ies wor k for ce fr equ en t ly h a d a h igh de gr ee of decision m a k in g a u t h or it y in cor por a t e level gr een decision s (qu est ion n u m -ber 40).
It doesn’t make sense
P er h a p s t h i s p a r t i cu la r u p p er level m a n a ger h a d n ot p a i d m u ch a t t en t i on t o t h e q u es t i on -n a i r e (a lt h ou gh ea ch volu -n t eer ed t o fi ll i t ou t ). It i s a ls o p os s i ble t h a t a s i gn i fi ca n t ga p exi s t ed b et w een w h a t t h i s execu t ive
a s s u m ed exi s t ed a n d w h a t r ea lly exi s t ed . Ot h er low er level p er s on n el m i gh t a ls o n ot a gr ee w i t h t h i s execu t ive. Wi t h i n t h e or ga n i -za t i on i t i s ju s t a s li k ely t h a t t h ei r gr een effor t s w er e n ot ver y logi ca l or con n ect ed . H ow els e ca n on e exp la i n h i s r es p on s es on on e h a n d w h er e i t i s s ay i n g t h e com p a n y “fr eq u en t ly ” h a s a h i gh d e gr ee of em p loyee i n volvem en t i n b ot h p la n t a n d cor p or a t e gr een d eci s i on s, bu t on t h e ot h er h a n d op er -a t i on -a l con d i t i on s for t h i s p -a r t i ci p -a t i on w er e n ot i n p la ce.
Rem em b er t h i s v i ce-p r es i d en t s a i d t h a t h i s com p a n y fr eq u en t ly h a d a h i gh d e gr ee of em p loyee i n volvem en t i n a ct u a lly m a k i n g p la n t a n d cor p or a t e d eci s i on s. Bu t t h e com -p a n y “r a r ely ” -p r ov i d ed i n cen t ives, b on u s es or s a la r i es t h a t w er e d i r ect ly t i ed t o h ow w ell en v i r on m en t a l goa ls w er e m et . If t h ei r em p loyees ’ job a p p r a i s a ls r a r ely i n clu d e a n en v i r on m en t a l ca t e gor y h ow, or m or e i m p or t a n t ly, w h y w ou ld m os t of t h ei r em p loyees b e m ot iv a t ed t o m a k e or t o p a r -t i ci p a -t e i n g r een d eci s i on s ? If -t h e com p a n y r a r ely p r ov i d es s y s t em a t i c em p loyee t r a i n -i n g t h a t t ea ch es em p loyees h ow t o m a k e good en v i r on m en t a l d eci s i on s (q u es t i on n u m b er 38), h ow ca n t h es e s a m e p eop le p os s i b ly m a k e good gr een d eci s i on s a t t h e p la n t or cor p or a t e level?
D. Ke ith De nto n Emplo ye e invo lve me nt, po llutio n c o ntro l and pie c e s to the puzzle
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth
1 0 / 2 [1 9 9 9 ] 1 0 5 –1 1 1
a ppr ovin g well over 100 pr oject s w it h over a 300 per cen t ROI.
Dow m a n a gem en t felt t h a t for t h eir pr oject t o be effect ive it m u st be sim ple. T h e con t est r u les a sk ed pa r t icipa n t s t o pr ovide a pr oject descr ipt ion t o t h e com m it t ee t h a t su m m a -r izes it s u t ilit y, yield, cost savin gs a n d ROI ca lcu la t ion s (t h e for m u la is pa r t of t h e for m ). On e copy is su bm it t ed t o t h e com m it t ee a n d m in or cor r ect ion a n d u pda t es a r e m a de on t h e or igin a l. On e copy is k e pt a s ba ck u p.
T h e com m it t ee does a pr oject r eview, let t er s a r e sen t t o ea ch pa r t icipa n t docu m en t in g t h e t im e t h e r eview w ill occu r. T h ey a sk pa r t ici-pa n t s t o com e in t o t h e com m it t ee a n d t ell t h em wh a t w ill be discu ssed. T h e focu s is on eva lu a t in g t h e pr oject , n ot people. If t h er e a r e er r or s, it is t h e com m it t ee’s job t o cor r ect t h em , n ot t o a t t a ck people. T h e com m it t ee t r ies t o m a k e it s r eview s a s su ppor t ive a s possible so t h a t people leave feelin g good a bou t t h e r eview. If t h e pr oject pr oposa l is “sh ot dow n ”, t h e com m it t ee’s goa l is t o m a k e pa r t icipa n t s feel t h a n k fu l t h a t t im e w a s n ot spen t on u n econ om ic pr oject s (N elson , 1992, pp. 10-11).
Ken n et h E . N els on i s Dow ’s E n er gy Con -s er va t i on M a n a ger. H e d oe-s a d m i t t h a t i n t h e ea r ly d ay s s om e p la n t s u p er i n t en d en t s d i d n ot li k e a com m i t t ee of “ou t s i d er s ” com i n g i n t o t h ei r p la n t a n d eva lu a t i n g p r oject s. H ow ever, t h e com m i t t ee d evelop ed a r e p u t a -t i on of r eq u i r i n g p eop le -t o ju s -t i fy -t h ei r p r o-ject s. T h ey a ls o t r i ed t o t r ea t ever yon e a s eq u a ls s o t h a t gr a d u a lly ever yon e ga i n ed con fi d en ce i n t h ei r ju d gm en t . On e s u p er i n -t en d en -t n o-t ed , a f-t er b ei n g r ev i ew ed , “you gave u s a h a r d t i m e, bu t t h en a ga i n you give ever yon e a h a r d t i m e” (N els on , 1992, p p. 10-11).
T h e con t est is a specia l even t a t Dow. It is h eld on ce a yea r w it h a specifi c dea dlin e. Abou t 90 per cen t of a ll en t r ies a r e su bm it t ed w it h in a week of t h e dea dlin e. It is t h en u p t o t h e com m it t ee t o u n cover good pr oposa ls a n d t o pr ior it ize t h em . Mem ber s of t h e com m it t ee do n ot con t r ol a n y ca pit a l. At Dow, expen di-t u r es a r e a dm in isdi-t er ed di-t h r ou gh di-t h eir E con om ic E va lu a t ion / Ca pit a l P la n n in g De pa r t m en t .
T h eir a n n u a l con t est h a s becom e a n in t e-gr a l pa r t of t h e bu dget in g pr ocess, so it is h igh ly pr ized sin ce it is u sed t o h elp defi n e ca pit a l n eed. In fa ct , m a n y people see t h e con t est a s a good w ay t o get ca pit a l beca u se fu n ds a r e n or m a lly m a de ava ila ble t o con t est w in n er s. Som e of t h e k eys t o t h eir su ccess m ay su r pr ise you .
No cash
Sever a l in gr edien t s of t h is su ccessfu l
em ployee in volvem en t pr ogr a m seem t o ch a l-len ge con ven t ion a l w isdom . Win n er s of t h e con t est do n ot r eceive a n y ca sh aw a r ds, a ll t h ey per son a lly get ou t of it is a n en gr aved pla qu e given a t a for m a l aw a r ds cer em on y. Ken n et h N elson , Dow ’s E n er gy Con ser va t ion Ma n a ger, list ed sever a l r ea son s w h y t h ey avoided ca sh aw a r ds.
F ir st , Dow believes it is im possible t o be fa ir in com pen sa t in g people for w a st e r edu c-t ion idea s. He lisc-t ed som e con cer n s lik e: Wh o t h ou gh t of t h e idea ? Wh o wor k ed on it ? Wh o im plem en t ed it ? How is t h e size of t h e aw a r d det er m in ed? (N elson , 1992, p. 12). N elson a lso won der s if a pr oject w it h 1,000 per cen t ROI is bet t er t h a n a m illion dolla r pr oject w it h a 50 per cen t ROI. He a lso poin t s ou t t h a t w a it in g for som e pr oject s t o pr ove t h em selves m ay t a k e so lon g t h a t t h ey loose m ot iva t ion a l va lu e.
In fa ct , Dow m a n a gem en t even believes ca sh aw a r ds for con t est ca n a ct u a lly be de-m ot iva t in g. People w it h r ea lly ou t st a n din g pr oject s w ill expect m or e com pen sa t ion . T h ose w h o ca n n ot su bm it pr oject s, beca u se t h eir wor k does n ot pr odu ce a lot of r isk or pollu t ion , m ay feel ch ea t ed. Rew a r din g people w it h ca sh in a n er a of t ea m m a n a ge-m en t a lso ge-m ay in h ibit good coge-m ge-m u n ica t ion a n d t ea m play. Wh o wou ld sh a r e in for m a t ion a n d idea s wh en on e in dividu a l m igh t get t h e cr edit a n d ca sh ?
At Dow t h ey a lso felt it w a s im por t a n t t o n ot br ea k t h eir ch a in of com m a n d. In dividu a l su per visor s h ave t h e pr im a r y in pu t on t h e size of r ew a r ds for good per for m a n ce. Ma n a ger s felt t h a t h avin g a con t est t h a t aw a r ds ca sh wou ld com pet e w it h t h e boss for em ployee loya lt y. It m igh t cr ea t e con fl ict in g pr ior it ies a n d r esu lt in a loss of su ppor t for t h e su per visor.
D. Ke ith De nto n Emplo ye e invo lve me nt, po llutio n c o ntro l and pie c e s to the puzzle
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth
1 0 / 2 [1 9 9 9 ] 1 0 5 –1 1 1
No goals, no gimmicks – just the
facts
Dow ’s p r o gr a m i s s u cces s fu l d es p i t e t h e fa ct t h a t t h ey h ave n o n u m er i ca l goa ls for t h e n u m b er of p a r t i ci p a n t s, n u m b er of p r oject s, n or for t h e d olla r s s p en t or d olla r s s aved . M a n a gem en t feels i t i s m or e i m p or t a n t t o s et u p a good m ech a n i s m a n d p r oces s s o t h a t p r oject s ca n b e con ceived , d es i gn ed , fu n d ed , a n d i m p lem en t ed . T h ei r t h i n k i n g goes s om et h i n g li k e, i f b ot h t h e or ga n i za t i on a l s t r u ct u r e a n d fu n d i n g i s i n p la ce, ot h er t h i n gs w i ll t a k e ca r e of t h em s elves.
A lt h ou gh m a n y m a y n ot a gr ee w i t h N els on , h e b eli eves t h a t i f a n effect ive s y s t em i s i n p la ce, t h en t h er e i s n o n eed for s p eci fi c ob ject ives a n d goa ls. M a n a gem en t ’s m a i n goa l i s t o h elp fi n e t u n e t h e s y s t em .
Dow a ls o t r i es t o avoi d gi m m i ck s t h a t a r e n or m a lly a s s oci a t ed w i t h cor p or a t e con t es t s. M a n a gem en t n ever felt t h e n eed t o u s e s loga n s, p os t er s, d eca ls, bu m p er s t i ck er s, k ey ch a i n s, a r m p a t ch es, ja ck et s, or coffee cu p s t o p u bli ci ze s av i n gs. It i s n ot t h a t s u ch gi m m i ck s a r e n eces s a r i ly b a d , on ly t h a t t h ey d o li t t le, i f a n y t h i n g, t o en cou r a ge p eop le t o s ave en er gy or r ed u ce w a s t e. M a n a gem en t a ls o feels t h a t s om et i m es i t i s t h e gi m m i ck s, r a t h er t h a n t h e con t es t , t h a t ca n b ecom e t h e foca l p oi n t of t h e p r ogr a m . For i n s t a n ce, a con t es t t o d es i gn t h e b es t p os t er ca n con -s u m e w eek -s of effor t t h a t cou ld b e b et t er s p en t look i n g for p r oject s (N els on , 1992, p. 16).
Dow a ls o d oes n ot u s e m on t h ly n ew s let -t er s -t o p u b li ci ze -t h ei r con -t es -t . I-t i s n o-t -t h a -t Dow d oes n ot n eces s a r i ly feel n ew s let t er s a r e n ot h elp fu l – i t s s i m p ly a m a t t er of p r i or -i t -i es. N ew s let t er s m -i gh t b e h elp fu l for r eco g-n i zi g-n g p eop le or for geg-n er a t i g-n g i d ea s a g-n d s p r ea d i n g i n for m a t i on , b u t t h ey ca n b e ex t r em ely t i m e con s u m i n g. If you w er e t o m i s s s en d i n g ou t a n i s s u e, ot h er s m i gh t b eli eve t h e p r o gr a m i s b ei n g d e-em p h a s i zed . Ba ck i s s u es a r e a ls o a p r ob lem . A ft er a few m on t h s good i d ea s t en d t o get los t b eca u s e few p eop le r a r ely t a k e t h e t i m e t o r ea d t h r ou gh b a ck i s s u es.
If Dow d oe s n ot u s e ca s h , gi m m i ck s, goa ls or eve n n ew s le t t e r s – w h a t cou ld e x p la i n t h e con t e s t s u cce s s ? M a n a ge m e n t b e li eve s t h e r e a r e a t le a s t t h r e e k e y s t o t h e i r s u cce s s .
Three keys
Dow m a n a gem en t st r esses t h a t t h ey h ave fou n d r ela t ively few t ech n ologica l br ea k -t h r ou gh s for r edu cin g w a s-t e. Mos-t of -t h eir idea s for r edu cin g w a st e a r e a pplica t ion s of
old pr in ciples. For t h is r ea son t h ey t r y t o con cen t r a t e on com m u n ica t in g good pr oject idea s.
T h e fi r s t w ay t h ey h ave fou n d t o effect ively com m u n ica t e t h es e id ea s is t o p u b lis h a com -p let e lis t of a ll of t h eir E n er gy / WRAP con t es t p r oject s. T h is in clu d es b ot h w in n er s a n d n on -w in n er s. T h ey p oin t ou t t h a t t h ey feel t h er e a r e n o los er s. T h e lis t con t a in s t h e n a m es of t h e p la n t , p eop le s u b m it t in g t h e p r oject , a b r ief d es cr ip t ion of t h e p r oject , it s cos t , s av in gs, ROI a n d w a s t e t h a t w a s r ed u ced .
P r oject descr ipt ion s a r e wor ded so t h e r ea der ca n u n der st a n d t h e pr in ciples w it h ou t get t in g in t o a gr ea t dea l of det a il. T h ese pr o-ject su m m a r ies a r e r ea d by a lm ost ever yon e in volved in t h e con t est . People w a n t t o k n ow wh a t ot h er s a r e doin g a n d fr equ en t ly fi n d idea s t h a t a r e a pplica ble t o t h eir ow n pla n t s. T h is w ay t h ey ca n t h en su bm it a sim ila r idea t o t h e n ext con t est .
Dow ’s cor por a t e m a n a gem en t a lso pu b-lish es a Wa st e E lim in a t ion Idea Book t h a t con t a in s im pr ovem en t idea s or ga n ized by su bject (pu m ps, h ea t exch a n ger s, com pr es-sor s, et c). Idea s in t h e book a r e collect ed fr om pa st con t est s a n d fr om wor k don e a t ot h er loca t ion s.
Dow a lso oper a t es a Con t in u ou s Im pr ove-m en t Wor k sh op t h a t t h ey h old ever y yea r or t wo. It is a n in t en sive t wo-day wor k sh op a im ed a t givin g people pr a ct ica l idea s for im pr ovin g pla n t pr ocesses in clu din g h ow t o fi n d cost savin g pr oject s. On e session is t it led “How Win n er s T h in k ” a n d is ba sed on in t er -view s w it h Dow ’s t op 12 w a st e r edu ct ion pr oject gen er a t or s. T h e session con cen t r a t es on h ow t h ese people fi n d so m a n y pollu t ion r edu ct ion pr oject s yea r a ft er yea r.
T h e i r w or k s h op con clu d e s w i t h a t w o-h ou r s e s s i on w o-h e r e p a r t i ci p a n t s s p li t i n t o g r ou p s of fou r or five a n d a n a ly ze a h y p o-t h e o-t i ca l flow s h e e o-t look i n g for p r ob le m s a n d s u gge s t i n g w a y s t o i m p r ove t h e p r oce s s . Dow m a n a ge r s i n t h e s e s s i on e m p h a s i ze t h a t t h e r e a r e n o r i gh t a n sw e r s a n d t h a t t h e p u r p os e i s t o e n cou r a ge a w i d e v a r i e t y of i d e a s t o b e e x ch a n ge d (N e ls on , 1992, p. 17).
P a r t icipa n t s a r e t h en en cou r a ged t o r et u r n t o t h eir pla n t s a n d u se t h e k n ow ledge t o gen -er a t e a t lea st on e n ew pr oject . T h e gr ou p t h en r econ ven es in t wo week s a n d discu sses w h a t ea ch pa r t icipa n t exper ien ced w h en t r yin g t o a pply t h e pr in ciples lea r n ed in t h e wor k sh op.
Conclusion
D. Ke ith De nto n Emplo ye e invo lve me nt, po llutio n c o ntro l and pie c e s to the puzzle
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt and He alth
1 0 / 2 [1 9 9 9 ] 1 0 5 –1 1 1
i n i t i a t ive w i t h ou t em p loyee i n volvem en t i s u s eles s. It i s m a n a gem en t ’s job t o en cou r a ge em p loyees t o con t i n u a lly fi n d w ay s t o i m p r ove op er a t i on s bu t , u n for t u n a t ely, m a n y E I i n i t i a t ives a r e oft en ‚ d i s joi n t ed . Sy s t em s n eed t o b e i n p la ce w h er e i d ea s a r e fr eely s h a r ed .
Dow i s on e com p a n y t h a t h a s op er a t ed p ollu t i on m a n a gem en t a s i t s h ou ld b e. P ollu t i on i s a n over h ea d , a n d li k e a n y ot h er over -h ea d i t -h a s t o b e m a n a ged . T -h ei r WRA P a n d en er gy com m i t t ee r e p r es en t s a ca s e s t u dy of effect ive em p loyee i n volvem en t . It i s effec-t ive b eca u s e i effec-t i s w ell effec-t h ou gh effec-t ou effec-t . T h er e a r e
n o gi m m i ck s, ju s t a focu s on good com m u n i -ca t i on . T h e effor t s a r e on t r a n s fer of k n ow l-ed ge, s h a r i n g s u cces s a n d m a k i n g i t ea s y t o p a r t i ci p a t e. It s ou n d s q u i t e lo gi ca l a n d t h a t s h ou ld b e m a n a gem en t ’s r ole. Cr ea t e lo gi -ca l, w ell focu s ed em p loyee i n volvem en t effor t s a n d ever y t h i n g els e w i ll t a k e ca r e of i t s elf.
