December 2004

September 2004

August 2004

Richard: I suppose the crass answer is that environmental activist organizations are in the business to point out industry's failures - both real and alleged - and push their own agenda. It is big business in and of its own right, employing thousands and raising millions in donations. They are behaving as expected and building their support base.

I think the real answer is, however, related to how these two groups -- industry and environmentalists -- perceive the world. The operative question might be, "Just how much (environmental progress) is enough?" or "Is the proverbial glass half full or half empty?" The answer is obvious: it depends if you are the waiter (company) pouring (out resources) or the customer (stakeholders) waiting for the drink (benefits to society). It also depends on just how big the glass is.

There are currently major differences in perceptions of where things stand vis-à-vis the environment. Viewed from the perspective of companies that are proud of their efforts, the glass is overflowing. But the dilemma soon becomes apparent if the size of their glass is no bigger than regulatory compliance. Confusion is added to the mix if companies are using terms such as "environmental excellence" to tout their efforts when an objective, independent evaluation may reveal that they are barely doing more than baseline compliance. From the perspective of activists, the glass is much bigger. They define it not just by regulations but by progress toward preventing long-term environmental issues facing the world. To some activists the glass is not even partially filled and it is leaking faster than it is being replenished (unsustainable). It is a very big glass, indeed.

Who is right? In the long run, what matters is what stakeholders perceive the situation to be. Ultimately, the "customer" who pays the bill has the last word. The waiter's opinion is of secondary importance. The key point is: companies need to evaluate where they stand according to stakeholder expectations. Their own opinions of their performance, even benchmarked within their sector, and the opinion of regulatory agencies are narrow dimensions in this evaluation. The "wild cards" in this game are the well-respected, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have a higher trust level with the public than the corporations and even the regulators.

July 2004

What impacts will Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have on EH&S organizations?

Richard: Potentially substantial. The past thirty years was all about regulations. The coming decades may be all about voluntary (but de facto) standards, certifications and partnerships with NGOs. Current EH&S organizations were established to handle mandatory government regulations. Where is it written that the next generation of "EH&S and social responsibility activities" will be run by these same departments? Indeed, it may be more likely that other functional areas within companies take over these responsibilities. It's already underway.

The next generation of EH&S and social responsibility issues will influence companies in unconventional (i.e., non-regulatory) ways. Unfortunately, management's focus has been on positive ones (e.g., competitive advantage green products and processes). Nonetheless, business management recognizes the powerful bottom-line impact that these issues can have on companies.

Contrast this with the current state of regulatory compliance. EH&S departments have grown increasingly efficient at handling these obligations. EH&S regulations, for the most part, impact processes within the fence line and thus, affect areas that are under management's control. Management may not like regulations, but they are much more familiar with the EPA and OSHA than this loosely-defined universe called NGOs over which they have no control.

In the first half of the past century, EH&S obligations were met by generalists typically within the plant utility or human resource departments. Specialized departments sprouted with the buildup of regulations. NGO-driven activities may be at a point comparable to the emergence of regulatory activity in 1970. Business management may view EH&S departments as the technicians handling the same old mundane regulations. On the other hand, they may view emerging NGO-related issues as where the really serious action will be. Faced with these dynamics, how might management respond?

There is already some movement to put EH&S governance-related activities (a hot button of NGOs) under the corporate audit staffs. EH&S and social responsibility reports are being taken over by communication departments; the EH&S departments are the data gatherers. New, high-level positions with titles such as "VP of Sustainable Development or Social Responsibility" are being created outside the chain of command of traditional EH&S organizations. Product certification efforts are being driven by sales and marketing groups or at the highest levels within the company.

So what does this mean to EH&S departments? Change your image and expand your business acumen, or be resigned to be the equivalent of the technicians handling the same old regulatory stuff.

Will the movie The Day After Tomorrow have a positive or negative impact on support for global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions?

Richard: Lots of people have weighed in on this question. It certainly has sparked controversy. NASA issued a directive to its employees not to talk about the film and once that leaked out, they promptly backed away from their gag order. Environmentalist George Monbiot commented," The Day After Tomorrow is a great movie and lousy science." The liberal spin doctors at Moveon.org have positioned the movie as another indicator of "the enormous threat that President Bush is not dealing with." And on and on it goes.

I have not seen the movie and will not until I can rent the DVD (I've read the story line, however). I'm already overdosed on special effects substituting for a script of substance. Yes, the movie will at least inform people that the record-breaking cold spell in New England is an indicator of global warming instead of just the opposite. But, I suspect that the number of enlightened folks will be more than offset by those who will believe that this is another vivid demonstration of environmentalists touting wacky theories.

My feeling about this movie is one of utter disappointment: Hollywood flash, predictable plots and rationalizations over why science had to be sacrificed to keep the audiences' attention. There are screenplay techniques that could have been used to represent a more realistic period of time. Citizen Kane, considered the greatest movie ever, spanned the life of an individual from childhood to death. Consider the Star Wars trilogy and its expansive time frame. The award-winning television series Roots covered a time period spanning generations. With the right script, the movie could have turned the issue of slow climate transformation into a compelling story that illustrates each generation's responsibility for protecting future generations.

Marlon Brando playing the boxer, Terry Malloy, in the Academy Award winning movie On the Waterfront tells his brother, "I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am." The Day After Tomorrow "coulda" had class instead of expensive special effects. It "coulda" been a contender to rival the impact of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring for awakening international environmental consciousness. It "coulda" been something to stimulate serious debate instead of tacky controversy and political swipes. Instead, it is just a movie that eventually will be forgotten. But, it will make a lot of money quickly ($400 million worldwide and still counting) which is what matters to the producers who will be long gone when the real effects of climate changes begin.

June 2004

According to principles of good business practice, how should companies staff and structure their EH&S organizations?

What an intriguing way to ask this question. Nearly all of the literature that I have read on EH&S staffing and organization approaches this question from either the perspective of EH&S managers (i.e., what they think it takes to get their job done) or from current practice (i. e., an examination of case studies or benchmark data). You have approached it from a more basic level centered on business performance and efficiency.

EH&S managers can sometimes wrap themselves up in a flag of self-righteousness, but in reality, there are many other functions that require attention to governance, employee and community concerns, legal issues, operating efficiency, and political sensitivities. Maybe EH&S has one of the broadest mixes of these concerns (which certainly makes it interesting work!), but it should be governed by the same business fundamentals.

There are scores of books which deal with staffing and organizational design. None are specific to EH&S. All of these are based on core principles of how individuals, teams, and broad organizations function together. The very best information has come out of two recent research studies that did not set out to examine staffing and organizational design, but nonetheless, found that the most successful companies today have several fundamental characteristics that lead to success.

The first research study is summarized in Jim Collins' Good to Great. He found that the successful companies had created a "culture of discipline" which allowed freedom and responsibility within a set framework. Key to this was "the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats." Successful companies avoided hierarchal, bureaucratic structures in a culture that was not overbearing.

The second study by a team lead by Professor Nitin Nohria at Harvard found that no particular organizational structure is the "right structure" that defines the winners. The research team found that it was important to trim layers of management and bureaucracy and that simple structures and processes were best. Streamlined rules and regulations with a high degree of sharing using the latest information technologies were important.

So what does all this mean in the context of EH&S? Many EH&S organizations are almost the antithesis of good business management practices. Traits of some EH&S organizations include an unwillingness to deal with problem employees, a preference for rigid rules instead of a focus on employee competency, complex structures (e.g., safety and health separated from environment because the managers are at odds), functionally isolated, rudimentary information systems, and so on.

For EH&S managers wishing to make fundamental changes, they might consider referencing these core organizational principles as justification for moving to something more in line with current business thinking.

Why is the rest of the world focused on sustainable development while the U.S. seems to ignore it?

The words "focused" and "ignore" imply that the U.S. is at opposite ends of the spectrum from other countries. I think it is a question of degree and no country is either truly focused on or ignoring sustainable development, in spite of all the rhetoric you may read or hear. That said, the U.S. certainly seems to be lagging behind.

This opinion is based on conversations with leading EH&S professionals from other countries and the trends in emerging research, non-government organizations' activities, and company programs. Some of the very best work and literature articles on sustainable development originate outside the U.S.. For example, I think that it was more than just coincidental that CERES, based in Boston, headquartered the Global Reporting Initiative to Amsterdam. As they say, you need to "go where the action is" and most of the top reports are coming out of Europe.

In some respects the U.S. is a victim of its own success in solving highly visible and acute problems in the second half of the past century. Opinion surveys confirm that the environment is still a concern, but it just does not have the immediacy that the economy, jobs, and the war on terrorism have. Emerging environmental issues are complex, chronic, long term, and most significantly, "over there." Developing nations are facing the kinds of problems the U.S. faced in the past century. And developed countries such as Japan and those in the European Union have historically been faced with population densities and resource issues on a different scale than the wide open and resource rich U.S..

A more subtle aspect is that although the U.S. consumes like no other country on the planet, the "smokestack" industries have shifted overseas. The pollution that was in Allentown, PA, is now in China. Out of sight, out of mind. When we are done with all this stuff, we still have vast areas to dispose of the refuge. So what if we have depleted the North Atlantic; we can always import fish from the South Pacific.

Clearly, this is an unsustainable path for the U.S., but the political climate will not support a realistic assessment of where this might be headed. In the absence of leadership out of Washington, I'm afraid that it will take an environmental crisis or major resource shortage to re-calibrate the public's perception of the need for more sustainable practices.

 

May 2004

With so many attempts at adding business value through pollution prevention, environmental management systems and other initiatives, why are EH&S staffs and budgets still shrinking?

GEMI's first booklet on the topic, Environment: Value to Business, focused on the traditional sources of environmental value such as pollution prevention projects or other manufacturing or service programs along the supply chain. Often these efforts can be justified based on the "hard numbers" (i.e., they meet threshold financial hurdles set by the company). Most of the effort over the past twenty years has been in these areas and as a result, most of the "easy wins" (a.k.a. low hanging fruit) have already been realized. I detect a significant drop off in pollution prevention-type activities led by environmental departments since the enthusiastic mid-1980s through mid-1990s. In part, this is a positive indicator since design engineers have assumed greater responsibility to build these considerations in at product or process conception. The earlier flurry of activity by environmental professionals was often focused on retrofits.

Much of the interest in environmental value creation today, however, is at the enterprise or shareholder level. Not surprisingly, this is the focus of GEMI's third, recently released booklet that Steve mentioned above. In the distant past, corporate value was all about tangible assets: plant and equipment. Today, a company's shareholder value can be as much as 75% intangible assets: alliances, innovation, brand equity, leadership, strategy, and so on. The environmental reputation of a company can be a positive augmentation or a major destroyer of shareholder value. Think Johnson & Johnson and Union Carbide.

Environmental professionals are sometimes under the mistaken impression that unless the numbers show a positive return, it's a no go. That's not necessarily true if they can articulate the intangibles. Plant managers are usually the hardest to sell the benefits of intangibles, but the closer you get to the top, the more amenable they may be. In the final analysis, executives are especially responsive to activities that enhance the following four broad categories:

• Access to competitive natural capital (property, materials, and licenses)
• Access to competitive human capital (development, reputation, and relationships)
• Strengthening the supply chain (reliability, low cost, value added to customers, etc.)
• Product and process reliability, efficiency, and liability reduction

What are the best universities to seek a Ph.D. in Environmental Management with a focus on business practices? 

I suggest you study the literature from the World Resources Institute, and note specifically the "Beyond Grey Pinstripes 2003" booklet. This booklet is free and ranks schools around the world by their environmental programs related to their MBA programs. Although this is about MBA programs, it gives you a good idea of which colleges are very active in the area of business and the environment. 

There are, of course, many other factors you will need to take into consideration such as the quality of their Ph.D. program, cost, availability of scholarship funds, and location preference. These evaluations have to be done individually, but this initial reference booklet can really narrow the field considerably. Obtaining a graduate degree is a major investment in time and financial resources, not to mention lost income during the time you spend getting your MBA or Ph.D. in which you could have been gaining practical experience. My recommendation is to invest some effort in tracking down some recent graduates from the university you are interested in and determine if they think it was worth the effort to attend that particular program.

There are some occupations that require advance degrees to progress professionally; research or university positions are the obvious examples. But for most others, it can be a much more difficult evaluation. Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale offer prestige and networking opportunities, but they are expensive and may be no better than several years at an "Ivy League" company, non-government organization or government agency with a reputation for excellence in employee training and experience. General Electric, Microsoft, and DuPont are obvious company examples, and do not overlook experience with the EPA, a state or foreign environmental agency, or a NGO such as Environmental Defense.

April 2004

We are facing another cutback - Question 1: Any suggestions on how to go about doing more with less?

Cutbacks are ubiquitous nowadays, especially among groups viewed as staff overhead. EH&S departments are almost always characterized as such. It reminds me of the classic I love Lucy episode with Ethel and Lucy trying to keep pace with the assembly line at the chocolate factory. Something's got to give. EH&S professionals are deeply committed and do not want compliance issues, injured employees or their company's reputation jeopardized. They work all the more frantically, resorting to superhuman feats just trying to keep up, just like Ethel and Lucy. 

EH&S professionals are so busy that they rarely step back and critically examine what they are doing and why. They assume that they do not have enough direct control and discretion to change the current situation. They become boxed into a narrowly defined role that paradoxically provides personal satisfaction for several reasons. First, the "I'm so busy!" complaint is a code word for "I'm so indispensable -- therefore I should not worry about being laid off." Second, it is very gratifying to solve the crisis and save the day. Third, by doing the same things the same way, it releases individuals from having to make the really hard decisions that they could ultimately be held accountable for. 

Taking direct, deliberate action takes courage. It means saying "no" to some demands. It means prioritizing activities and dropping the lower value-added ones. It means dealing with poor performers. It means going to upper management and clearly laying out what can and can not be done and why. It means relinquishing control and trusting others to do what they promise to do. 

For example, I have seen a number of EH&S organizations take over responsibilities that should be done by others, but would not say "no" because they "just knew" that those others would "screw it up." In reality, this is a variation of the "I'm indispensable" mindset. A better approach is to put energy into clarifying roles and responsibilities, supplying training, and then -- here is the key point -- auditing and reporting the results to management. If things do get screwed up, there will be ample warning. 

Meetings are another area that consumes a lot of wasted time. Set aggressive time limits. Start them precisely on time, chastise those who are late, and end them exactly on time no matter what. You will be amazed at how quickly things will change. The analysis paralysis that is so often present at meetings is reflective of the deeper problem: the inability to make decisions based on the facts available and move on. In the final analysis the problem is less about headcount and budget and more about competency, accountability, decisiveness, courage, and leadership.

We are facing another cutback -- Question 2: What periodicals are the essential ones we should continue to subscribe to?

Technical journals are generally linked to professional society memberships. You should assign at least one member of your staff to each of the major professional societies to access their journals. American Institute of Industrial Hygiene has The Synergist, Air and Waste Management Association has EM and The Journal, the Environmental Law Institute has the Environmental Forum and so on. These primarily focus on North American issues. International operations would need to subscribe to the appropriate country or regional publications. 

There is a plethora of Web-based newsletters, but most are just cutting the same stuff off the web. For general news and developments, GreenBiz.com is very good due to its search engine and easy access to Reports and Tools. European-based Environmental Expert (free/electronic) also has a good search engine and access to a wealth of information. One of the very best for international news is the International Corporate Environmental Reporting Site (free/electronic), but don't let the name mislead you -- it contains a much broader mix of environmental news with links to source material. For news and analysis The Green Business Letter (subscription/electronic) is good. 

One of the hottest news and analysis sites is Crosslands (subscription/electronic) published by Victor House News. Although it is new, the editor, William D'Alessandro, is one of the most respected environmental journalists with thirty years of experience. I highly recommend this site. 

For general environmental management articles Corporate Environmental Strategy (subscription -- recently changed to electronic) and Environmental Quality Management (subscription/hardcopy) are both good. Another excellent resource is Environmental Protection (free/hardcopy) because it contains my fantastic monthly column, Management Newsletter (Note to self: Control ego). 

Probably the most important resources are business-oriented journals and newspapers. Technical people may think that they don't need to keep abreast of this information, but they are doing themselves a great disservice. When all is said and done, we have to sell our programs and prove the value of our services to management. There is no better way to do this than to understand evolving business issues and techniques. Two of the most essential resources are the Wall Street Journal (subscription/newspaper) and Harvard Business Review (subscription/hardcopy). Another excellent resource is the MIT Sloan Management Review (subscription/hardcopy).

Postscripts: Where are the bright lights?  

A number of bright lights have illuminated the path to sustainable development over the past decade. Three of the brightest according to surveys such as the one recently published by the Center for Environmental Innovation are DuPont, Dow and Baxter International. That was then, but how is the illumination nowadays? 

DuPont is undergoing a major reorganization that will eliminate the Corporate SHE Center of Excellence. Paul Tebo, VP Safety, Health & Environment, will be retiring and other members of the group are seeking jobs within the company. Dow has been undergoing major consolidations and Sam Smolik, VP EH&S, will be retiring. Baxter recently cut back its top EH&S staff, including Bill Blackburn, VP & Chief Environmental Counsel. Other bright lights may be dimming, too. Christian Aid's January 2004 report, Behind the Mask, criticizes Shell for not delivering on their promises of social responsibility. Friends of the Earth's Failing the challenge -The Other Shell Report 2002 is also highly critical of Shell's performance. Bright lights such as Ford, Procter & Gamble, and British Telecom have also been under attack by groups such as the New Economics Foundation (see their report Corporate Spin). 

So where are the really bright lights nowadays? We'd like your opinion, because we're having a difficult time identifying them. The flip side of all this is that with the lights possibly dimming, now may be the perfect time to turn on your own company high-beams and build a solid reputation. But be warned: superficial efforts will not be tolerated in a world filled with distrust and sophisticated scrutiny.

March 2004

From a practical standpoint, how can a new EH&S manager undertake a high-level strategic risk review of a company's operations when it has hundreds of facilities?

It is essential for someone new on the job to discover quickly the hidden skeletons in the closet because within a year or two they will become their skeletons. You may survive if one or two of these issues erupts unexpectedly. No one is perfect. Beyond that, top management will begin to wonder if you have the situation under control and whether you have an adequate grasp of the issues. Management should be informed of these pre-existing issues and assured that you will be working on strategies to reduce their risk. 

You do not need to review every facility, only those that are most critical and a statistically significant representation of the others. In most companies and especially in large corporations, senior EH&S staff members have a good idea of which facilities represent the most risk. Typically, these are the sites that have: (1) handled toxic materials for decades; (2) had numerous problems in the past; (3) poor EH&S competencies, management systems, or understaffed EH&S departments; and/or (4) recently joined the company and have never undergone a thorough evaluation. 

Hopefully, all of these high-risk facilities can be evaluated. For the others, use a risk profile to prioritize the issues and take a statistically significant cross-sectional representation: many at the top, some at the middle, and a few at the bottom of the risk profile. Do not sample only high-risk sites, since this presumes that you already know the risks. Some of the low-risk facilities may have significant, heretofore unknown, issues. For some companies or business units that have scores of similar sites, consider doing a process map of the common processes and review a few representative sites.

There is an old saying that there are few resources to prevent problems but unlimited resources to fix them. The point is that if your assessment uncovers significant issues, budget constraints may suddenly evaporate and the resources you need for a more thorough investigation may be placed at your disposal. Management may not be happy, but they will be more receptive than being blindsided at some future point. After all, you were not the person who created these problems or let them fester out of sight for years.

How do EH&S departments demonstrate that they are adding business value?

Companies such as 3M and Baxter International have tracked the cost savings that EH&S activities have brought to the business. This gives a general indication of EH&S department value but, arguably, it is not necessarily a measurement of how a specific EH&S group is meeting business management's expectations and needs. For example, many of the pollution prevention projects for which 3M is famous were initiated by process engineers that were not in the EH&S group. In addition, tracking EH&S cost savings will not insulate a group from significant cutbacks, as Baxter International's recent EH&S staff reductions sadly demonstrate.

EH&S groups can "demonstrate their mettle" through a number of methods beyond just identifying cost savings. The most common is good (internal) client interaction - quality executive face time is important. Also, some groups conduct internal, written surveys of client satisfaction. If done properly, issues can be identified before they erupt.

The budget review process is another prudent time to get the issues out in the open. If the people paying the bills believe that they are not getting their money's worth, these discussions can be an early warning indicator. Client team meetings (to periodically check on how things are progressing) are another technique. Since corporate EH&S groups sometimes provide EH&S services to other EH&S departments, it is important that the EH&S groups get together on occasion to discuss how things are going.

Client points-of-contacts can act as an early warning radar for potential issues. These client points-of-contacts and written service agreements are often used in EH&S shared service departments. When these departments first formed (about a decade ago), written agreements tended to be quite formal. The paper work is less burdensome today, but the face-to-face discussions at the beginning of each new business cycle are still essential. A few (very few) companies have conducted formal value reviews to examine exactly how EH&S staff members spend their time. The objective is to drop low-value activities. 

Much of the value proposition is about management's awareness of what the EH&S group does. The best companies have systems to measure and monitor performance of the group and provide executives feedback on how well the company is providing EH&S services.

February 2004

Is Office Depot's announcement that they have issued the first office supply catalog consisting solely of environmentally preferable products that big of a deal?

I hate to sound like the two-handed lawyer, but on one hand it is and on the other it is not.

From a purely environmental impact standpoint, it is insignificant. I do not think that highlighting environmentally preferable products in a catalog printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper will have a measurable shift in the planet's well-being. Cynically, one might think that Office Depot has used an environmental message to do nothing more than market their products. Even though small regional "eco-friendly" office products suppliers have published similar catalogues for several years, Office Depot is the first major supplier in their industry to market in this manner, so they get the bragging rights and a little leverage.

That said, the planet is suffering "death from a thousand cuts." Maybe it can be helped by a thousand Band-Aids. If every company in the world promoted a positive environmental marketing strategy and offered eco-friendly products, the environment would undoubtedly be much better off. Not only would environment-friendly practices be promoted, but these messages would also serve as another form of public education.

Although Office Depot's effort may have a tiny positive environmental impact, similar efforts have had significant impacts, literally changing the way companies do business around the globe. Indeed, Office Depot's move may have been influenced by The Home Depot. In 1999, The Home Depot issued a wood purchasing policy that gave preferential treatment to suppliers who offered certified wood products. They were the first major home improvement retailer to pioneer the US market for wood products certified under the principles of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

There are other examples. McDonalds worked with Environmental Defense and changed their food packaging techniques, affecting fast food packaging throughout the world. Chiquita teamed up with the Rainforest Alliance in an environmental certification program called the Better Banana Project. Many of these efforts started as less-than-friendly discussions between environmental organizations and industry. Nonetheless, they have resulted in positive changes that, in total, have had a major environmental impact.

Maybe, as one of the largest office products suppliers Office Depot effort will spawn other actions that, as a whole, will have a real impact.

How do I select the right environmental, heath, and safety metrics for my company?

A well-developed metric set is the result of a six-step process:

1. The first, and most critical, step is to interview the business executives to determine their concerns, priorities and the type of information they would like to review. This may be an iterative process; they may not know what the key issues are and some management education may be necessary.

2. After conducting a thorough EHS risk assessment, prioritize the most significant issues and develop key performance indicators (KPIs) around these issues. In ISO 14001 jargon, this is called an "aspect and impact" analysis. This step includes a forced ranking based, in part, on interviews with top executives and the company's policies and standards. Progress on the KPIs determines if your programs are really working and getting results on the most important issues.

3. Benchmark within your industry sector and determine what metrics other companies are tracking and reporting. Management does not want to be at the bottom on the heap -- it looks bad in the media. The "usual suspects" get identified in this effort (compliance, wastes, injuries, spills and emissions).

4. Next, utilize a forward-looking perspective and determine what metrics might be indicators of where the company stands relative to emerging issues. These may be the metrics that other companies do not track or are not even aware of. This takes some research, such as asking thought leaders, knowledge experts such as scientists what issues are on the cutting edge for your industry. The December 2003 column provided insights into the development and use of such 'leading' performance indicators.

5. Examine your overall management goals. How quickly do you want the environmental management system (EMS) fully implemented across the company? Include metrics for how well the programs are set in place. This step could also include opinion surveys of customers or employees on how well the company is doing. These metrics are typically leading indicators of performance and, in some respects, the most important ones. If you do well on these, the lagging indicators, such as accidents and spills, improve with time and stay improved.

6. At this stage, the metric set is developed and you will need to finalize the administrative issues. Hopefully, you can convince management to set specific targets and link at-risk-pay to a few of these. Certain metrics should be tied to operational areas to show top management what business units are "with the program." A universal problem is getting cooperation from the businesses "feeding the system" -- often one of the greatest challenges and another reason why it is so important to get management support and involvement from the very beginning.

You will need to carefully select what gets reported up the chain and how frequently. In total, management might need/want to see only half a dozen or so parameters. Many companies report KPIs up to the executives using a one page monthly summary with highlights, targets and trends so they can instantly see if things are off-track.

January 2004

Q:   I just received a direct solicitation from a well-established, older non-government organization that has never asked for contributions in the past. Are these groups running out of money?

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) are facing increased financial pressure, just like the federal government, state governments and corporations. Many NGOs were well off in the late 90s because foundations were awash in money from investments. Before the economic downturn, foundations were literally scrambling to find worthy projects. In addition, direct contributions from businesses and individuals reached new heights. This is no longer the case.

From my own experience when recently seeking foundation money for an educational research institute, the Center for Environmental Innovation, it is exceedingly difficult to get even an expression of interest for projects that would have received immediate funding five years ago. NGOs are at a serious disadvantage unless they have long-established relationships with the organizations or individuals being pursued.

These financial difficulties extend to trade associations and professional societies. After cutting costs in every conceivable manner, corporations are now reaching into the bottom of the barrel to chop further. Corporations are asking tough questions such as, "Why do we belong to this or that organization?" and "What value do these organizations bring to our business model?" Professional society memberships are also declining. The word is out that EH&S job opportunities are not the best right now. It should come as no surprise that if fewer students are going into the EH&S professions, there will be fewer people interested in joining professional organizations, especially if they have to join on their own dime. Companies rarely sponsor individual memberships today. 

Some of these NGOs, trade associations and professional societies have built up extensive infrastructures that can no longer be supported. The number of societies with overlapping interests has grown substantially. For example, a health-related association is in the process of deciding if they should include the word "environment" in their name to increase membership. They are trying to sell this idea under the rubric that some members are taking on environmental-type work (multi-tasking is another factor in corporate cost cutting).

I doubt seriously if something as simple as a name change will draw in more members. The problem is more systemic than many are willing to believe. The market, so to speak, is saturated and these organizations face the age-old economic rule of supply and demand -- and what they supply is in diminishing demand. 

How can I determine if my salary is appropriate for the EH&S responsibilities I have?

Richard: A number of professional society surveys and magazine surveys provide this information. For example, Air & Waste Management Association and Environmental Protection magazine conduct annual salary surveys. There is also extensive information on the web. The best source is Monster.com's Salary Wizard. "Environment" is a designated job category that also includes health and safety responsibilities. It can be searched by an amazing array of delineators: locations, job title (about 25 are listed), job description, degrees, certifications, industry sector, size of company, to whom you report (by title), number of employees you supervise, and working conditions such as hazardous duty and shift work. One wonders, however, if the input data are sufficiently robust to support this fine differentiation, but the system does highlight the considerations involved in salary structure. 

A full, personalized Salary Wizard report is about $70. The most basic report (location and title) is free. Even this basic report includes salary range, bonus and benefit information. The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook is another resource filled with useful information, including salary data. An additional helpful site is EcoEmploy.com, which has several links to salary surveys for EH&S professionals. Local job ads are another fairly reliable benchmark. 

The most significant surveys are the benchmark studies commissioned by your company's employee relations department and conducted by consultants such as Mercer Human Resource Consulting. These salary surveys are often grouped together by   overall categories such as "facilities support" so they may not have precisely your job title. These studies are very expensive (tens of thousands of dollars) and confidential, but they are the definitive guide used by management to determine what your company may be willing to pay for different types of internal services. In other words, if you come to your next salary discussion armed with information from the web, management may not be convinced that your sources are the most reliable.

The bigger issue, however, is that it is a buyer's market and many EH&S people are just happy to have a job, let alone wanting more money. There may not be much leverage with management. The hardball approach is to do your research and then benchmark with contacts at professional meetings to see what the going rate may be in your general area of expertise. Unless they are a close friend, do not directly ask a colleague what they make; it's rude. Ask them what the word is "out on the street" for the type of jobs of interest. If you think you are getting short-changed, start looking for a new job and see what you come up with. If you can get much more elsewhere, tell your management and be prepared for them to say, "Fine - best of luck with your new endeavor." Then do it. But, remember there is a lot more to job satisfaction than just money.