Oregon Business Decisions for Environmental Management Selected Summary Statistics and Effects of Voluntary Environmental Programs

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)
  facilitylevel 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
Respondent Characteristics

• 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

Establishments (facilities) with lt100 employees
(2000 Census)
6
Program Participation
7
Participant Characteristics

• Participants reported higher revenues
• Participants had more employees
• Participants were located in 27 counties

35
VPPs NPs
Average Employees 100 56
Median employees 33 22
Average Revenues 28 million 10 million
Revenues 7 million 3 million
30
30
25
22
20
20
20
16
15
10
5
5
0
Construction (236)
Food (311)
Wood (321)
Electronics (334)
Transport (484)
Hotels (721)
8
Influences and Perceptions
0
1
2
3
4
5
9
Barriers
High upfront expense
M 3.63, SD 1.36
High day-to-day costs
M 3.29, SD 1.28
Upfront time commitment
M 3.21, SD 1.26
M 3.11, SD 1.33
Uncertain future benefits
M 2.86, SD 1.40
Risk of downtime or interruptions
Knowledgeable staff
M 2.77, SD 1.23
Employee appraisals
M 2.36, SD 1.29
M 2.30, SD 1.29
Employee rewards
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
Program Participation
Customer Influences N M SD t df p ?2
VEP Participants 117 3.19 1.02 4.68 228 lt0.001 0.09
Nonparticipants 113 2.52 1.14 4.68 228 lt0.001 0.09
Competition
VEP Participants 116 3.17 0.94 5.10 225 lt0.001 0.10
Nonparticipants 111 2.52 1.01 5.10 225 lt0.001 0.10
Interest Groups
VEP Participants 119 2.41 1.02 3.07 233 lt0.01 0.04
Nonparticipants 116 1.99 1.05 3.07 233 lt0.01 0.04
11
Environmental Practices
Practice Sample VPPs NPs
Environmental training for employees 39 58 37
Internal environmental standards 35 52 33
Documented environmental policy 26 38 24
Well-defined environmental goals 23 45 20
Regular environmental audits 22 33 21
Green purchasing policy 16 25 13
Environmental cost accounting 15 27 12
Environmental standards for suppliers 15 30 12
Periodic public publishing of environmental information 9 20 7
ISO 14001 certification 5 8 4
Employee compensation for environmental performance 3 8 2
Mean Number of Practices N M SD t df p ?2
VEP Participants 113 3.30 2.98 3.36 224 lt0.01 0.05
Nonparticipants 113 2.06 2.55 3.36 224 lt0.01 0.05
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?