Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 2130-2137
Promoting Pollution Prevention through Community-Industry Dialogues: The Good Neighbor Model in Minnesota BARBARA SCOTT MURDOCK AND KEN SEXTON* Center for Environment and Health Policy, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, MMC 807 UMHC, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
This article examines five attempts by communities to promote pollution prevention through direct negotiations with local manufacturing plants. These projects were Good Neighbor Dialogues spearheaded by Citizens for a Better Environment-Minnesota, an environmental advocacy organization. Three community-company partnerships (a container plant, a foundry, and a cabinet manufacturer) were successful and two (a munitions plant and a petroleum refinery) were not. Successful dialogues all shared certain characteristics: the company was open to negotiating with the community; there was an effective “champion” within the company; a skilled, independent facilitator served as moderator; community participants received independent technical assistance; and both the company and community understood the value of cooperative environmental decision making. Results suggest that Good Neighbor Dialogues can, under the right settings and circumstances, be an effective mechanism for building social capital by fostering greater understanding and trust between companies and communities. They offer the prospect of community-company partnerships that promote pollution prevention and other environmental improvements, while at the same time reinforcing and amplifying traditional pollution control strategies.
Introduction There is growing consensus in the United States that the existing pollution control system must be revamped to meet the more complex challenges of the new millenium (1-6). As the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) observed in a 1995 report to the U. S. Congress, “To continue to make environmental progress, the nation will have to develop a more rational, less costly strategy for protecting the environment, one that achieves its goals more efficiently, using more creativity and less bureaucracy” (5). Two concepts integral to 21st Century environmental protection strategies are (a) pollution prevention (P2) - changing processes and products to reduce or eliminate industrial toxins (7, 8) and (b) community and citizen involvement - meaningful participation in environmental decisions by those affected (3, 6, 9-11). This article examines attempts by several Minnesota communities to encourage pollution prevention * Corresponding author phone: (612) 626-4244; fax: (612) 6260900; e-mail:
[email protected]. 2130
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 36, NO. 10, 2002
through direct negotiations with local industries. The emphasis is on discerning conditions, circumstances, and settings that favor community-based approaches to pollution prevention. Inspired by efforts to foster meaningful involvement of citizens and communities in decisions that affect them, today many researchers are examining public participation in environmental decisions. Their work constitutes an emerging body of knowledge and theory to help us describe and evaluate stakeholder participation in environmental decision making (3, 6, 9-20). Most researchers traditionally define public participation “success” in terms of either the participatory process or its outcome (13). Process goals often focus on such parameters as fairness (equitable representation, empowerment) and competence (tools and knowledge for meaningful participation). Outcome goals tend to emphasize such parameters as trust in institutions and incorporation of public values (11, 13, 14). As Chess & Purcell (13) point out, organizations can significantly influence both process and outcome success. For example, certain government agency actions may encourage failure - dominating group dynamics, making citizens feel defensive, and condescending to participants. Agency actions that tend to promote success include providing technical assistance, encouraging participation, committing to follow recommendations, and providing neutral, competent facilitation (13).
Good Neighbor Dialogues In the early 1990s, as part of its efforts to strengthen the economic and environmental sustainability of industrial operations, the Center for the Study of Public Policy in Waverly, Massachusetts, developed the “Good Neighbor Strategy” (12). The goal was to provide a model that public interest groups and others could use to promote cooperative dialogue among plant managers and staff, workers, and local citizens about reducing environmental releases through pollution prevention. The strategy was aimed at obtaining a written, legally binding agreement committing the company/plant to specific environmental improvements. Citizens for a Better Environment-Minnesota (CBE-MN). During the 1990s, CBE-MN, an environmental advocacy group, used this model as a way to encourage selected Minnesota communities to form “Good Neighbor” committees. These committees were to work with local industries to secure implementation of P2 approaches that would reduce or eliminate the plants’ toxic chemical use. Negotiation between communities and local businesses centered on Minnesota’s Toxic Pollution Prevention Act (TPPA) of 1990, which requires companies to review their use and emissions of toxic chemicals and develop confidential P2 plans. Although failure to implement P2 plans carries no penalty, companies must file yearly pollution prevention progress reports with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The CBE-MN model differed from the original in that it advocated development of a nonbinding Good Neighbor agreement between a plant and local community, relying on social pressure and moral persuasion to foster companies’ compliance with Minnesota’s TPPA. CBE-MN used data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), established under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title 3), to identify candidate companies for Good Neighbor projects. All but one of these companies were among the state’s top emitters of the 17 TRI chemicals targeted by EPA’s 33/50 program for voluntary pollution prevention. Residents of communities near these 10.1021/es011272k CCC: $22.00
2002 American Chemical Society Published on Web 04/05/2002
facilities, typically members of identifiable local organizations, such as environmental groups, community action committees, the plant workers’ union, and the Chamber of Commerce (C of C), were recruited to form Good Neighbor (GN) committees. Once formed, a GN committee usually worked with CBE-MN to obtain letters of support from local and state officials, and then invited plant managers and staff to work collaboratively on a P2 agenda. Before beginning community-plant negotiations, CBE-MN often invited community participants to attend pollution prevention workshops that explained technical terms and issues. CBE-MN also offered to provide a technical advisor (a former vice president at a large multinational chemical corporation) to assist the committee and company with P2 and TRI-related issues. If a company accepted the invitation to join a Good Neighbor Dialogue (GND), the plant’s environmental staff met with CBE-MN and community participants to review the existing pollution prevention plan. The committee and the technical advisor then toured the plant with company personnel to identify P2 opportunities. The goal of each GND was to negotiate a signed Good Neighbor agreement between the company and the community, outlining joint environmental goals. Ideally, a follow-up plan would enable the committee to monitor progress, and the process would culminate with a joint press conference announcing the Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA). Data Collection. Five case studies were analyzed using data obtained through archival review of relevant records, questionnaire surveys of dialogue participants, and structured interviews with key players. First, we conducted screening interviews with CBE-MN staff to learn how they began a GND and to discern approaches used to target particular companies and select community participants. In a structured focus group and through interviews with CBE-MN staff, we identified candidate cases, including both perceived successes and failures, for further study. For our purposes, a “successful” GND was defined as one that completed all the steps in the process up to (but not necessarily including) a signed GNA. On the basis of a review of information in CBE-MN’s files, we selected five plants: two in rural/small town settings, one in an impoverished inner city neighborhood, and two in suburban or urban fringe settings. Two were family owned, and three were owned by large corporations. For our initial investigation, we chose a container plant and a foundry. Structured interviews with community participants and representatives in these GNDs explored several key issues: (1) preexisting conditions and motivations (e.g., perceptions of the company among GN participants and the local community; local knowledge of the company, its products, and processes; preexisting conflicts between community and company); (2) processes and resources (e.g., perceptions about agenda setting, decision making, technical assistance, and motivation for the GND); and (3) consequences of the GND (e.g., perceived environmental improvements and other benefits to the company, community, and CBE-MN). On the basis of the interview results, we devised a survey questionnaire to elicit responses from community and industry participants in three additional GNDs: a petroleum refinery, a munitions plant, and a cabinet company. The mail survey explored the same issues as the structured interviews in the two earlier cases. Some follow-up interviews were conducted to ensure that we understood participants’ perceptions and interpreted their questionnaire responses accurately. Table 1 summarizes the number of community representatives and plant personnel participating in these five GNDs, and the number surveyed. Minnesota Case Studies. Between 1991 and 1995, CBEMN approached 21 Minnesota communities about partici-
TABLE 1. Number of Community Members and Plant Staff Participating in Five Good Neighbor Dialogues successful GNDs
unsuccessful GNDs
container foundry cabinet munitions refinery no. of community members involved in GND no. of community members surveyed no. of plant staff involved in GND no. of plant staff surveyed
7
3c
5
8f
4h
6a
1d
4e
2g
3i
2
1
1
1
3
1b
1
1
1
3
a Could not contact Chamber of Commerce representative. b One left the company. c From community organization; community members took part in large public meetings; did not negotiate. d The others had left the organization and were no longer available. e One had died. f CBE contacted eight people who agreed to participate if company agreed. g Only two agreed to be surveyed; others were too little involved to be helpful. h Good Neighbor participants who joined CAP and tried to initiate GND. i Two GN participants moved away; could not contact one of these.
pating in GNDs; 12 declined; nine agreed to form Good Neighbor (GN) committees. Of the nine GN committees, two ultimately signed GN agreements with a local manufacturing plant. The other seven completed all steps except the signed final agreement. Here we examine five GNDs that provide examples of nominally successful (a container plant, a foundry, a cabinet manufacturer) and unsuccessful (a munitions plant, an oil refinery) projects. Signed GN agreements were negotiated with the container company and foundry, while everything except a signed agreement was completed with the cabinet manufacturer. The dialogue with the munitions plant never got off the ground, and the refinery dialogue ended after about a dozen meetings. Tables 2 and 3 describe important characteristics of the five plants and affected communities, respectively. Key process elements for each GND are summarized in Table 4. The Container Company dialogue was a win-win proposition for the plant and CBE-MN. Because of previous environmental problems, high TRI emissions, and concerns that the community viewed the plant as a polluter, company managers had already established a pollution prevention program that won awards and saved several million dollars. CBE-MN invited the Minnesota plant to take part in a GND as a way to publicize its environmental progress. After recruiting community members, CBE-MN submitted their names to plant managers to ensure the process would present them with no surprises. Plant managers and the GN committee met monthly for a year, and CBE-MN's consultant toured the plant and suggested additional P2 strategies. The dialogue culminated in 1995 with a signed GNA, a neighborhood open house, a Good Neighbor Day in the city, and public recognition of the company’s environmental progress. The Foundry dialogue began after the company, exempt from TRI reporting because of its small size, mistakenly filed a TRI emissions report. This information raised public health concerns among local residents, and a neighborhood organization contacted CBE-MN to find out how to shut the foundry down. CBE-MN instead urged the neighborhood group to try a GND as a way to save jobs, maintain tax base, and improve the plant’s environmental performance. Faced with public antipathy because of growing health concerns, the foundry’s owner agreed to the dialogue. During 1992-1994, CBE-MN and the community met regularly with foundry representatives. During this time, the company implemented pollution control and prevention strategies and VOL. 36, NO. 10, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
2131
TABLE 2. Important Characteristics of Five Minnesota Plants Involved in Good Neighbor Dialogues (1991-1997)a successful GNDs container type of plant
container manufacturer
corporate setting
owned by large out-of-state corporation 225
foundry custom castings, iron & steel recycling locally owned, operated since 1923 80
no. of plant employees 1990 TRI 246 030 lbs
