1 / 18

Cody Jones Master of Environmental Management Portland State University February 2, 2007

Oregon Business Decisions for Environmental Management Selected Summary Statistics and Effects of Voluntary Environmental Programs. Cody Jones Master of Environmental Management Portland State University February 2, 2007. Description and Objectives.

skule
Download Presentation

Cody Jones Master of Environmental Management Portland State University February 2, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oregon Business Decisions for Environmental ManagementSelected Summary Statistics and Effects of Voluntary Environmental Programs Cody Jones Master of Environmental Management Portland State University February 2, 2007

  2. Description and Objectives • Environmental issues are gaining attention and importance for stakeholders • Current regulatory framework is not proving effective for certain global issues (CO2, nonpoint sources) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant • Three universities: PSU, OSU, UIUC • Comprehensive survey of environmental management in Oregon • Environmental management: influences and barriers • Environmental practices: training, voluntary programs • Environmental performance: actual outcomes, regulatory compliance, changes in impacts • Informing public policy to foster voluntary environmental management efforts at for-profit organizations

  3. Voluntary Environmental Programs • VEPs • Unilateral — Industry or firm action with no government involvement (Responsible Care) • Bilateral — Industry and government partnerships (Green Permits, Performance Track) • Government initiatives — Government sponsored and managed (WasteWise) • Program types: • Specific impact (ENERGY STAR) • Industry specific (Smartway Transportation Partnership) • General (The Oregon Natural Step Network)

  4. Survey and Sample • Survey: Tailored Design Method (Dillman 2000) • Designed with expert consultation and pretested • Specific respondents were identified (environmental manager or other environmental decision-maker) • Self-administered by mail, with followups • Survey period: Calendar year 2004 (mailed in fall 2005) • SESRC, WSU, Pullman, WA • Sample: Oregon Employment Department (OED) facility–level data • Facilities with  10 employees in Oregon • Six sectors • Manufacturing: food, wood, electronics • Others: construction, transport, accommodation • Range of environmental impacts, environmental regulations, and voluntary approaches • Prominent economically: numerous facilities, high employment, substantial revenues • Random sample of 1,964 facilities

  5. 689 responses 35.1% response rate Construction: 34.3% Food: 37.1% Wood: 37.2% Electronics: 34.2% Transport: 37.3% Accommodation: 29.9% 31 of 36 counties represented Small facilities 89% privately held 79% independent 100 87 85 84 83 83 81 80 60 40 Study sample Washington 20 Montana Oregon Idaho U.S. 0 Respondent Characteristics Establishments (facilities) with <100 employees (2000 Census)

  6. Energy 8% 6% Green building 42% 7% Recycling 13% Industry Climate 16% Water 30% General 20% Participate Do not participate 80% Program Participation

  7. Participant Characteristics • Participants reported higher revenues • Participants had more employees • Participants were located in 27 counties 35 30% 30 25 22% 20% 20% 20 16% 15 10 5% 5 0 Food (311) Electronics (334) Construction (236) Transport (484) Hotels (721) Wood (321)

  8. M = 2.14, SD = 1.27 Interest Groups M = 2.65, SD = 1.38 Customers M = 2.69, SD = 1.36 Competition M = 2.98, SD = 1.45 Investors and Lenders M = 3.25, SD = 1.40 Regulations M = 3.70, SD = 1.05 Upper Management Parent Company M = 3.86, SD = 1.12 Influences and Perceptions 0 1 2 3 4 5

  9. Barriers High upfront expense M = 3.63, SD = 1.36 M = 3.29, SD = 1.28 High day-to-day costs M = 3.21, SD = 1.26 Upfront time commitment M = 3.11, SD = 1.33 Uncertain future benefits M = 2.86, SD = 1.40 Risk of downtime or interruptions M = 2.77, SD = 1.23 Knowledgeable staff M = 2.36, SD = 1.29 Employee appraisals M = 2.30, SD = 1.29 Employee rewards 0 1 2 3 4 5

  10. Program Participation

  11. Environmental Practices

  12. Performance • Impacts queried • Wastewater and dewatering discharge • Solid waste and recycling • Hazardous or toxic wastes • Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions • Hazardous air emissions (all except construction) • Electricity and natural gas (manufacturing and accommodation) • Green building and energy efficient installations (construction) • Diesel and biodiesel use (transport) • Three measures: outcomes, compliance, changes • 95% responded to compliance questions • 70% responded to change questions • 56% responded to outcome questions

  13. Performance - Outcomes • Facilities reported recycling 49% on average • VEP participants averaged 59% • Nonparticipants averaged 44% • Construction installed 38% energy efficient equipment on average • VEP participants averaged 54% • Nonparticipants averaged 32% • Construction built 29% of buildings to “green” standards on average • VEP participants averaged 28% • Nonparticipants averaged 9% • Few facilities were tracking CO2 and those that did used inconsistent standards

  14. Performance – Compliance and Changes • 35% reported overcompliance on at least one impact • 57% of VEP participants • 30% of nonparticipants • 4% reported working toward regulation on at least one impact • 59% reported improvements in at least one area • 80% of VEP participants reported improvements • 54% of nonparticipants reported improvements • Most changes were minimal • Hazardous waste and hazardous air emissions very slightly decreased (~1%) • Electricity and natural gas use slightly increased (1-3%) • Recycling slightly increased (1-3%) • Energy efficient equipment installations and green building slightly increased (~3%)

  15. Summary • Role for regulation • Regulatory influences were rated the most important external influence • Complying with current regulations was highest rated external influence • Majority of facilities reported meeting regulatory requirements as opposed to exceeding them • Opportunities for increased voluntary environmental management • Overall, facilities agreed with the idea that facilities have responsibilities to protect the environment • One-third of respondents reported exceeding regulatory requirements • VEPs may be viable mechanism • Participants reported more practices, greater rates of overcompliance, and greater rates of impact improvements • The bottom line is a major driver of behavior • Investors were a high priority • Costs and time investments were the greatest barriers

  16. Limitations and Future Research • Limitations • Characterization not an analysis • Subjective data • Limited bias testing • Good geographic representation and reasonable consistency with other estimates where available • No apparent bias based on size • Potential exists for underreporting of noncompliance and outcomes, overreporting of overcompliance and improvements • Secondary data on permits, inspections, infractions, and emissions from the DEQ, DOT, OSHA, EPA • Future research: Stay tuned

  17. Acknowledgements U.S. EPA Project Team: David Ervin, Madhu Khanna, Patricia Koss, Junjie Wu, Cameron Speir, Terry Wirkkala, Beth Minor Committee: David Ervin, Cory Ann Wind, Joe Maser Agencies: DEQ, OED, SESRC Survey Respondents

  18. Got Questions?

More Related