- Email: [email protected]
Reflecting on voluntary environmental partnerships: Lessons for the next century
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
Reflecting on Voluntary Environmental Partnerships:
Lessons for the Next Century By Thomas
S. Davis
The word “partnering” and the concept are everywhere these past few years, from corporate boardrooms to the White House. The concept, if properly applied, provides an excellent opportunity to leverage resources and experience so as to accomplish a project more effectively and efficiently than otherwise might be possible. Indeed partnerships appear to be a “win-win” for everyone, and indeed, they just might be. In this article, Tom Davis discusses his expe-
T
he concept
of partnership
and partnering
isn’t
new; its use derives in part from the “business partnership” where two people join together to accomplish
mental
a common
external
result of partnerships nerships”
objective.
relationships
Usually,
environ-
that are formed
are not business
as a
nor legal “part-
in the strict sense of the word, but thev are
people bound together to reach some common.goal. Corporate leaders, like Procter clr Gamble’s Deborah Anderson
and
Clair
Krizov
of AT&T,
frequently
speak on the subject. They feel that partnering
can be
used
in the
to strategically
position
a company
marketplace. New working partners
relationships
capitalize
backgrounds
with nontraditional
on the diversity of the respective
of the participants;
parties at the table
are able to leverage their creativity and generate a wider range of solutions while managing confrontation and avoiding
duplication
employees-often work-can
isolated
work much
of efforts. Corporate by the nature
of their
more closelv with key stake-
riences with partnering initiatives in an effort to
holders, such as regulators, community social groups, government agencies and public interest groups.
understand how partnering works best.
While
building
trust, an essential
ingredient
to suc-
cess, each partner learns from the others about how he/she would approach similar situations. There are a number of basic elements that initiators should consider in planning a successful partnership: commitment, trust building and early successes. These
Thomas S. Davis is president of Tom Davis Associates, LLC., an environmental affairs management consulting firm located in Washington, D.C. and Basking Ridge, New Jersey. He specializes in environmental external affairs, issue management, stakeholder involvement, process management and outreach activities to corporate, media, government and the environmental communities. Prior to starting his own company, Mr. Davis was director of Global External Affairs for AT&T and Lucent Technologies. Tom Davis has been involved with private sector environmental initiatives, including the formation of the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) for which he managed the annual conference for six years and was a member of the Board of Directors. Additionally, he was a founder of the Corporate EH&S Management Roundtable, the National Association of Environmental Managers (NAEM), and the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection, which became a model for future programs of corporate and government partnerships.
Winter 1999 (Vol. 6, No. 1) OElsevier Science Inc.1066-7938/99/$20.00+$6.00
elements
are detailed
in Exhibit
1 on page 56.
Fundamental Kinds of Partnering A review of some current
and past partnerships
helps to understand the values and the process. Partnerships take a variety of forms, including: Corporate-Government, Corporate-Environmental Organizations
Non-govemmental
(NGOs),
Corporate-Corporate, Educational
Institutions,
and
Govemmental improvement programs policies involving all stakeholders.
Corporate-Government
Partnerships-Revisiting
and
ICOLP
McDonald’s/Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) partnership is well known to many as an example of
55
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
how environmental
partnerships
can actually
work;
but another receiving less public attention-the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP)--’ mvo 1ve d a more complex set of participants dealing with a truly global concern.
ICOLP was
created in 1989 by teaming members of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with leaders in the electronics
industry.
most unusual nerships.
The
fluorocarbon
Currently,
it stands
as one of the
and viable business-government group,
primarily
funded
part-
by chloro-
users, was able to pool research
(CFC)
efforts and cooperate with many key players in the user and producer communities. This unlikely alliance of competing firms, such as AT&T, Northem Telcom and Motorola, joined with Dr. Steve Anderson of EPA to find solutions nating
ozone-depleting
were representatives the Departments
on reducing
substances. from federal
of Defense
governments,
trade
stakeholders.
By disseminating
and elimi-
Also present agencies
and Energy,
associations
and other technical
such as foreign vested informa-
tion and the message of “elimination” around the world, the electronics industry and EPA representatives were able to demonstrate cost savings and, just as importantly, the value-bottom-line value-to the partnership.’
cading type of change not normally available to environmental regulators. In this case, it was the champion who made the difference. Steve Anderson, one of the visionary leaders in EPA, was instrumental in supporting and nurturing the young organization. Relationships such as this one between EPA and AT&T can and do lead to subsequent example
The elements of successful partnerships include commitment and participation by both employees and senior management. With all stakeholders working jointly to develop an agenda, responsibility increases for all involved. Senior-level buy-in on all sides is vital. Partnerships often work best with a “champion” who can get the ball rolling-but the support of top level managers not only makes acceptance that much easier, it helps to guarantee commitment. This is similar to the dynamic at work when a corporate champion moves the environmental goals forward through the business units for overall corporate acceptance. In both situations, there is compromise and “give and take” along the path to eventual acceptance. Trust Building trust is essential if the partnership is to work. Developing atrusting partnership often requires a monumental use of human resources-relationship building through conversations and what may appear to be endless meetings. The secret is to focus not on the differences in beliefs but rather in the commonalties. An early “win” can help instiiionalize the process within each organization and move the partnership forward. The first win need not be a large one; it is more important that the participants see the possibility to achieve a result, a greater good, by working together rather than separately. Exhibit I
positive interactions.
of corporate-government
part-
nering is the Lucent Technologies Inc. (Lucent, the manufacturing spin off of AT&T) and EPA partnership on control of global greenhouse gases. In 1997, the Microelectronics Group of Lucent signed a voluntary agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases at its facilities that manufacture integrated circuits. Lucent will collaborate with the EPA to research environmentally responsible and costeffective solutions for controlling emissions of two major contributors (perfluorocompounds and hydrocarbons) that are believed to lead to global warming.
56
Commitment
Early Success
According to the EPA, the value of the ICOLP partnership was that it was able to create a contagious cas-
Another
Core Elements of Partnering
Corporate-Environmental
PlGOs
Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA spent considerable human capital in their attempts to partner with a leading environmentalist at a facility located in Texas. Their efforts paid off, and last year that person attended corporate environmental meetings in support of the firm’s activities, rather than in dissent. This partnership demonstrated that the company and the community should and could work together, even though the crucial relationship took a long time to mature.
CORPORATE
ENVIRONMENTAL
STRATEGY
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
Corporation-Corporation-The About
ten
years
GEM/ model
ago, the
world can support
Corporate
EH&S
and enhance
Through
a corporate
provides
facility field-trips,
Roundtable, a collection of forty senior corporate officers for environmental, health and safety combined
career guidance
forces to discuss their common
make the environment
problems and possible
solutions. One of the initial efforts was the early support of a group called The Global Environmental Management Initiative ognized
(GEMI). GEM1 went on to become rec-
as a source of innovative
information
through
its annual
and cutting conferences,
edge and a
corporate
to youngsters
speakers,
and
who have decided
to
Pfizer and others are reaching
out to the future environmental crs through the high school.
Leadership,
lessons.
their career focus. Firms like
Novartis, Bell Atlantic,
Still another,
classroom
advisory board, the high school
The
leaders and
Institute
COIISUIII-
for Conservation
a Washington-based
grass roots educa-
prominent organization dedicated to quality application in environmental management systems. GEM1
tional group, manages
M’as also the springboard
cation for fledgling environmental groups and newl) appointed managers of such groups. To their credit,
business”
solutions.
for many “business
GEMI’s
publications
have included primers on environmental lu)OO, and total environmental
Educational Institution
helping
over time
auditing, IS0
quality management.
a technical
program. This group specializes
assistance
the group is using the partnership decisions
grants
in management
approach
on the process and the approach
edu-
to make of an:arcl-
ing these grants.
Partnering
R wry unlikely and unique partnership is one being supported by the National Environmental Edu-
Government improvements Programs-Positive Changes in Compliance in Massachusetts
cation
Some state regulators are acting to remove roadblocks and allow for more flexibilitv in regulation
and Training
Foundation
(NEETF),
as it
attempts to promote “business helping business” through a series of mentoring projects and activities. Project Director
Debbie
value to industry Donnelly
leaders like Lockheed-Martin,
& Sons Publishing
the foundation ability
Sliter has demonstrated
R.R.
and 3M. The work with
and trade associations
of larger companies
its
showcases the
to reach out and help
smaller businesses achieve greater compliance for a cleaner environment. In addition to greening the suppl!. chain, there is community
value as small and micl-
size companies learn that being “green” is frequenth beneficial to the bottom line when cost savings are realizcd and technological processes are shared. Many academic programs in the environmental ficlcl have realized the value of partnering. The Emironmental Management and Policy Program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is itself a founder of a unique partnership.
l’hrough
their Corporate
Affiliate
Program, corporations, trade associations, media and environmental leaders come together to provide future environmental managers with first-hand experience and skills necessarv to make strong business cases fol- social and environniental responsibility In another educational initiative, The New York High School for Environmental Studies and AT&T’s Clair Krizov are demonstrating that the external
Winter 1999 (Vol.6, No. 1)
without
diminishing
strong complial;ce
goals. A ke!
example is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which recently reviewed the morass of regulations facing business were achieving
and found
ance was a staggering ‘I’he Massachusetts tal Protection
that some
little reduction
(DEP)
thirtv-three
Compli-
percent.
Department studied
l(,,OOO permits
in pollution.
the
of Emironmcnsituation
and
devised a performance-based set of standards that enable a company to annuallv certifv that the standards are being met. This certificate is signed by the owner or the corporate officer responsible for the plant, and the certifications are subject to spot check and review. ‘l’oday, compliance is around seventv pcrcent and climbing. The DEP staff is freed from the task of writing permits so thev can do what thev kno\fv best: assist companies \\.itli C.onipliancc. This example presents a major change in how a pollution problem is addressed ancl how to solve it. In Massachusetts, DEP Commissioner David Struhs and Deputy Allan Bedwcll called on the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the COIIscrvntion Law Foundation of Boston and other local environmental groups to build a partnership. At the
57
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
58
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
same time,
they approached
the business
commu-
leading environmental
and corporate
Industries
of Massachu-
Chemical
Technology as
question whether environmental protection as we have known it may have gone as far as it cm. This
well. Also joining the design team were Region I of EPA and the Boston Bar Association. This partner-
group senses that it is possible that the future of environmental legislation and regulation may well lie in a
ship had a common
new
nity through setts,
the
the Associated Massachusetts
Alliance among others, seeking their participation
goal: faced with a permitting
tem and process that was seriously broken, needed
sys-
the state
formally
concept,
approach
convenes
leaders. When
the forum
such
as Industrial
offers a non-adversarial
toric baggage of twenty-five of this effort is that a very disparate
group of organizations
and individuals
were, nonethe-
less, able to make it work. There have been meetings which national
environmental
the Massachusetts because
in
groups have defended
DEP to the EPA. Success came
the various stakeholders
were included
early
and often, and all felt some ownership
in the final prod-
uct. This situation
a value that can
also demonstrates
accrue in some partnerships.
If a group creates a favor-
able community of interest before a crisis arises, they will very likely have friends when they most need them.
Imagine
the results
Ecology. meeting
had the Massachusetts
and control the
thinking They
for National
forum
with
leaders
will begin
from
mental
plus years of command Policy will formally con-
around diverse
fifty
progressive-
stakeholder
a series of discussions
where the economy That
the his-
enforcement.
The Center vene
This ground
where people can come to the table without
a new way to ensure compliance.
The upshot
in early 1999, it will
protection, vital agenda
groups.
looking
at
has been on the issue of environand where it can go in the future. is shared by all the stakeholders,
unlike some other well-intentioned
similar activities
of the past.
In closing, remember
that in this world of buzz
DEP designed the program in secret and then called a press conference to announce their new program. No
words, “partnerships”
one would have-or could havesupported manner of developing the new certification
becomes institutionalized, it is our respective personal commitments that can and will make a differ-
it. This program
ance” or “teaming”
may become
ence in how our partnerships
greatly improved stakeholders.
Endnote
of the inclusion
of all the
rute Environmental
In the past several years, AT&T has formed sevunder the leadership
of Brad
Allenby and Clair Krizov, such as the imlovative partnership fomred with the Center for National Policy. This partnership brings together members of Congressional staffs, trade associations, regulators, and
Winter 1999 (Vol. 6, No. 1)
succeed.
*
1. CESE:ditor-in-Chief Bruce Piasccki’s seminal work, Corpo-
A New Agency For Partnering Involving All Stakeholders-The Center for National Policy eral strong partnerships
alli-
of tomorrow, but as the concept
may have taken a little longer and certainly it required some complex orchestrations, but the end result was because
the “strategic
Strategy:
The Avalanche
Since Bhopal, John Wiley and Sons,
of
Change
NewYork,1998, pp. 75-
05, discusses this partnership in greater depth and makes note that one of the values of such a partnership became evident several years later when AT&T won the Council on Economic Priorities’ Corporate Conscience Award for Environmental Responsibility. ‘The power of the result of this partnership is even more evident when one considers that AT&T’s environmental management was more frcquently asked, “what kind of cnvironmcntal problems can the phonic company possibh ha\,e?”
59
Reflecting on Voluntary Environmental Partnerships:
Lessons for the Next Century By Thomas
S. Davis
The word “partnering” and the concept are everywhere these past few years, from corporate boardrooms to the White House. The concept, if properly applied, provides an excellent opportunity to leverage resources and experience so as to accomplish a project more effectively and efficiently than otherwise might be possible. Indeed partnerships appear to be a “win-win” for everyone, and indeed, they just might be. In this article, Tom Davis discusses his expe-
T
he concept
of partnership
and partnering
isn’t
new; its use derives in part from the “business partnership” where two people join together to accomplish
mental
a common
external
result of partnerships nerships”
objective.
relationships
Usually,
environ-
that are formed
are not business
as a
nor legal “part-
in the strict sense of the word, but thev are
people bound together to reach some common.goal. Corporate leaders, like Procter clr Gamble’s Deborah Anderson
and
Clair
Krizov
of AT&T,
frequently
speak on the subject. They feel that partnering
can be
used
in the
to strategically
position
a company
marketplace. New working partners
relationships
capitalize
backgrounds
with nontraditional
on the diversity of the respective
of the participants;
parties at the table
are able to leverage their creativity and generate a wider range of solutions while managing confrontation and avoiding
duplication
employees-often work-can
isolated
work much
of efforts. Corporate by the nature
of their
more closelv with key stake-
riences with partnering initiatives in an effort to
holders, such as regulators, community social groups, government agencies and public interest groups.
understand how partnering works best.
While
building
trust, an essential
ingredient
to suc-
cess, each partner learns from the others about how he/she would approach similar situations. There are a number of basic elements that initiators should consider in planning a successful partnership: commitment, trust building and early successes. These
Thomas S. Davis is president of Tom Davis Associates, LLC., an environmental affairs management consulting firm located in Washington, D.C. and Basking Ridge, New Jersey. He specializes in environmental external affairs, issue management, stakeholder involvement, process management and outreach activities to corporate, media, government and the environmental communities. Prior to starting his own company, Mr. Davis was director of Global External Affairs for AT&T and Lucent Technologies. Tom Davis has been involved with private sector environmental initiatives, including the formation of the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) for which he managed the annual conference for six years and was a member of the Board of Directors. Additionally, he was a founder of the Corporate EH&S Management Roundtable, the National Association of Environmental Managers (NAEM), and the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection, which became a model for future programs of corporate and government partnerships.
Winter 1999 (Vol. 6, No. 1) OElsevier Science Inc.1066-7938/99/$20.00+$6.00
elements
are detailed
in Exhibit
1 on page 56.
Fundamental Kinds of Partnering A review of some current
and past partnerships
helps to understand the values and the process. Partnerships take a variety of forms, including: Corporate-Government, Corporate-Environmental Organizations
Non-govemmental
(NGOs),
Corporate-Corporate, Educational
Institutions,
and
Govemmental improvement programs policies involving all stakeholders.
Corporate-Government
Partnerships-Revisiting
and
ICOLP
McDonald’s/Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) partnership is well known to many as an example of
55
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
how environmental
partnerships
can actually
work;
but another receiving less public attention-the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP)--’ mvo 1ve d a more complex set of participants dealing with a truly global concern.
ICOLP was
created in 1989 by teaming members of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with leaders in the electronics
industry.
most unusual nerships.
The
fluorocarbon
Currently,
it stands
as one of the
and viable business-government group,
primarily
funded
part-
by chloro-
users, was able to pool research
(CFC)
efforts and cooperate with many key players in the user and producer communities. This unlikely alliance of competing firms, such as AT&T, Northem Telcom and Motorola, joined with Dr. Steve Anderson of EPA to find solutions nating
ozone-depleting
were representatives the Departments
on reducing
substances. from federal
of Defense
governments,
trade
stakeholders.
By disseminating
and elimi-
Also present agencies
and Energy,
associations
and other technical
such as foreign vested informa-
tion and the message of “elimination” around the world, the electronics industry and EPA representatives were able to demonstrate cost savings and, just as importantly, the value-bottom-line value-to the partnership.’
cading type of change not normally available to environmental regulators. In this case, it was the champion who made the difference. Steve Anderson, one of the visionary leaders in EPA, was instrumental in supporting and nurturing the young organization. Relationships such as this one between EPA and AT&T can and do lead to subsequent example
The elements of successful partnerships include commitment and participation by both employees and senior management. With all stakeholders working jointly to develop an agenda, responsibility increases for all involved. Senior-level buy-in on all sides is vital. Partnerships often work best with a “champion” who can get the ball rolling-but the support of top level managers not only makes acceptance that much easier, it helps to guarantee commitment. This is similar to the dynamic at work when a corporate champion moves the environmental goals forward through the business units for overall corporate acceptance. In both situations, there is compromise and “give and take” along the path to eventual acceptance. Trust Building trust is essential if the partnership is to work. Developing atrusting partnership often requires a monumental use of human resources-relationship building through conversations and what may appear to be endless meetings. The secret is to focus not on the differences in beliefs but rather in the commonalties. An early “win” can help instiiionalize the process within each organization and move the partnership forward. The first win need not be a large one; it is more important that the participants see the possibility to achieve a result, a greater good, by working together rather than separately. Exhibit I
positive interactions.
of corporate-government
part-
nering is the Lucent Technologies Inc. (Lucent, the manufacturing spin off of AT&T) and EPA partnership on control of global greenhouse gases. In 1997, the Microelectronics Group of Lucent signed a voluntary agreement to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases at its facilities that manufacture integrated circuits. Lucent will collaborate with the EPA to research environmentally responsible and costeffective solutions for controlling emissions of two major contributors (perfluorocompounds and hydrocarbons) that are believed to lead to global warming.
56
Commitment
Early Success
According to the EPA, the value of the ICOLP partnership was that it was able to create a contagious cas-
Another
Core Elements of Partnering
Corporate-Environmental
PlGOs
Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA spent considerable human capital in their attempts to partner with a leading environmentalist at a facility located in Texas. Their efforts paid off, and last year that person attended corporate environmental meetings in support of the firm’s activities, rather than in dissent. This partnership demonstrated that the company and the community should and could work together, even though the crucial relationship took a long time to mature.
CORPORATE
ENVIRONMENTAL
STRATEGY
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
Corporation-Corporation-The About
ten
years
GEM/ model
ago, the
world can support
Corporate
EH&S
and enhance
Through
a corporate
provides
facility field-trips,
Roundtable, a collection of forty senior corporate officers for environmental, health and safety combined
career guidance
forces to discuss their common
make the environment
problems and possible
solutions. One of the initial efforts was the early support of a group called The Global Environmental Management Initiative ognized
(GEMI). GEM1 went on to become rec-
as a source of innovative
information
through
its annual
and cutting conferences,
edge and a
corporate
to youngsters
speakers,
and
who have decided
to
Pfizer and others are reaching
out to the future environmental crs through the high school.
Leadership,
lessons.
their career focus. Firms like
Novartis, Bell Atlantic,
Still another,
classroom
advisory board, the high school
The
leaders and
Institute
COIISUIII-
for Conservation
a Washington-based
grass roots educa-
prominent organization dedicated to quality application in environmental management systems. GEM1
tional group, manages
M’as also the springboard
cation for fledgling environmental groups and newl) appointed managers of such groups. To their credit,
business”
solutions.
for many “business
GEMI’s
publications
have included primers on environmental lu)OO, and total environmental
Educational Institution
helping
over time
auditing, IS0
quality management.
a technical
program. This group specializes
assistance
the group is using the partnership decisions
grants
in management
approach
on the process and the approach
edu-
to make of an:arcl-
ing these grants.
Partnering
R wry unlikely and unique partnership is one being supported by the National Environmental Edu-
Government improvements Programs-Positive Changes in Compliance in Massachusetts
cation
Some state regulators are acting to remove roadblocks and allow for more flexibilitv in regulation
and Training
Foundation
(NEETF),
as it
attempts to promote “business helping business” through a series of mentoring projects and activities. Project Director
Debbie
value to industry Donnelly
leaders like Lockheed-Martin,
& Sons Publishing
the foundation ability
Sliter has demonstrated
R.R.
and 3M. The work with
and trade associations
of larger companies
its
showcases the
to reach out and help
smaller businesses achieve greater compliance for a cleaner environment. In addition to greening the suppl!. chain, there is community
value as small and micl-
size companies learn that being “green” is frequenth beneficial to the bottom line when cost savings are realizcd and technological processes are shared. Many academic programs in the environmental ficlcl have realized the value of partnering. The Emironmental Management and Policy Program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is itself a founder of a unique partnership.
l’hrough
their Corporate
Affiliate
Program, corporations, trade associations, media and environmental leaders come together to provide future environmental managers with first-hand experience and skills necessarv to make strong business cases fol- social and environniental responsibility In another educational initiative, The New York High School for Environmental Studies and AT&T’s Clair Krizov are demonstrating that the external
Winter 1999 (Vol.6, No. 1)
without
diminishing
strong complial;ce
goals. A ke!
example is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which recently reviewed the morass of regulations facing business were achieving
and found
ance was a staggering ‘I’he Massachusetts tal Protection
that some
little reduction
(DEP)
thirtv-three
Compli-
percent.
Department studied
l(,,OOO permits
in pollution.
the
of Emironmcnsituation
and
devised a performance-based set of standards that enable a company to annuallv certifv that the standards are being met. This certificate is signed by the owner or the corporate officer responsible for the plant, and the certifications are subject to spot check and review. ‘l’oday, compliance is around seventv pcrcent and climbing. The DEP staff is freed from the task of writing permits so thev can do what thev kno\fv best: assist companies \\.itli C.onipliancc. This example presents a major change in how a pollution problem is addressed ancl how to solve it. In Massachusetts, DEP Commissioner David Struhs and Deputy Allan Bedwcll called on the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the COIIscrvntion Law Foundation of Boston and other local environmental groups to build a partnership. At the
57
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
58
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY
CES FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
same time,
they approached
the business
commu-
leading environmental
and corporate
Industries
of Massachu-
Chemical
Technology as
question whether environmental protection as we have known it may have gone as far as it cm. This
well. Also joining the design team were Region I of EPA and the Boston Bar Association. This partner-
group senses that it is possible that the future of environmental legislation and regulation may well lie in a
ship had a common
new
nity through setts,
the
the Associated Massachusetts
Alliance among others, seeking their participation
goal: faced with a permitting
tem and process that was seriously broken, needed
sys-
the state
formally
concept,
approach
convenes
leaders. When
the forum
such
as Industrial
offers a non-adversarial
toric baggage of twenty-five of this effort is that a very disparate
group of organizations
and individuals
were, nonethe-
less, able to make it work. There have been meetings which national
environmental
the Massachusetts because
in
groups have defended
DEP to the EPA. Success came
the various stakeholders
were included
early
and often, and all felt some ownership
in the final prod-
uct. This situation
a value that can
also demonstrates
accrue in some partnerships.
If a group creates a favor-
able community of interest before a crisis arises, they will very likely have friends when they most need them.
Imagine
the results
Ecology. meeting
had the Massachusetts
and control the
thinking They
for National
forum
with
leaders
will begin
from
mental
plus years of command Policy will formally con-
around diverse
fifty
progressive-
stakeholder
a series of discussions
where the economy That
the his-
enforcement.
The Center vene
This ground
where people can come to the table without
a new way to ensure compliance.
The upshot
in early 1999, it will
protection, vital agenda
groups.
looking
at
has been on the issue of environand where it can go in the future. is shared by all the stakeholders,
unlike some other well-intentioned
similar activities
of the past.
In closing, remember
that in this world of buzz
DEP designed the program in secret and then called a press conference to announce their new program. No
words, “partnerships”
one would have-or could havesupported manner of developing the new certification
becomes institutionalized, it is our respective personal commitments that can and will make a differ-
it. This program
ance” or “teaming”
may become
ence in how our partnerships
greatly improved stakeholders.
Endnote
of the inclusion
of all the
rute Environmental
In the past several years, AT&T has formed sevunder the leadership
of Brad
Allenby and Clair Krizov, such as the imlovative partnership fomred with the Center for National Policy. This partnership brings together members of Congressional staffs, trade associations, regulators, and
Winter 1999 (Vol. 6, No. 1)
succeed.
*
1. CESE:ditor-in-Chief Bruce Piasccki’s seminal work, Corpo-
A New Agency For Partnering Involving All Stakeholders-The Center for National Policy eral strong partnerships
alli-
of tomorrow, but as the concept
may have taken a little longer and certainly it required some complex orchestrations, but the end result was because
the “strategic
Strategy:
The Avalanche
Since Bhopal, John Wiley and Sons,
of
Change
NewYork,1998, pp. 75-
05, discusses this partnership in greater depth and makes note that one of the values of such a partnership became evident several years later when AT&T won the Council on Economic Priorities’ Corporate Conscience Award for Environmental Responsibility. ‘The power of the result of this partnership is even more evident when one considers that AT&T’s environmental management was more frcquently asked, “what kind of cnvironmcntal problems can the phonic company possibh ha\,e?”
59