Making sense of public values: Environmental controversies for corporate decision makers

Every year I try to choose the “word of the year”—that is, the word that will be the most topical and overused in the news, politics, and business. Past “words of the year” were leadership, excellence, quality, and so on. This year's, without a doubt, must be values. Just listen to any political speech and you'll be sure to hear it! Magazine article after magazine article makes reference to values—family values, social values, public values, personal values, etc. Business is beginning to experience first-hand the power of this word and the controversy it engenders, especially in the area of environmental issues. Corporations already heavily scrutinized by the public on operational issues like facility expansion, pollution, emissions, product acceptance, etc., are struggling to assess how best to manage competing public values. What do we do when the public has one value and business has another? Or, how can choices be made between two operating needs that compete for the same budget? It is the dilemma posed by values in conflict that this article explores. Once the domain of scholars and philosophers, this timely topic is now demanding the consideration and awareness of everyone in the business world.     

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting,REDD+, and rewilding

ABSTRACT

Ecological democracy seeks environmentally sustainable ends through broad, active democratic participation. What happens when laws fostering participation in environmental decision-making and biodiversity preservation lead to differing results? What is best for biodiversity may not be what for local citizens believe is best. I examine conflicts and congruencies in the context of Biodiversity Offsetting, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), and the Rewilding movement. I ask questions that are legal (Who has what legal rights to speak for or against programs that enhance biodiversity?), epistemological (Whose expertise and knowledge matters when scientists and non-scientists don't agree?), axiological (Are some values objectively better, and why?), and normative (Whose opinions about biodiversity should count?). Many people have the right to participate in an ecological democracy: But when protecting biodiversity, who does and should have the right to be heard? I problematize the role that ‘local’ actors play in decision-making and describe the variegated role that experts – particularly biologists – play in ecological democracy when biodiversity preservation matters. To determine whose values and voices should be prioritized, I describe ‘deep equity,’ an axiological and normative groundwork for determining when biodiversity-promoting policies may be preferable even if affected citizens don't agree.     

The Magic Bullet Criticism of Agricultural Biotechnology

One common method of criticizing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is to label them as “magic bullets.” However, this criticism, like many in the debate over GMOs, is not very clear. What exactly is the “magic bullet criticism”? What are its origins? What flaw is it pointing out in GM crops and agricultural biotechnology? What is the scope of the criticism? Does it apply to all GMOs, or just some? Does it point to a fatal flaw, or something that can be fixed? The goal of this paper is to answer these questions and clarify the magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology. It is hoped that the results of this exercise will be helpful in advancing deliberation over the role GMOs and agricultural biotechnology should play in 21st century agriculture.     

Conservation Without Borders: Building Communication and Action Across Disciplinary Boundaries for Effective Conservation

Interdisciplinary approaches to conservation research and environmental management continue to garner interest among practitioners, academics, and students. Yet, cases of practitioners and researchers from different disciplines successfully working in concert towards an integrated conservation approach are rare. What is preventing practitioners of multiple disciplines from harmoniously working together? Why are practitioners and academics struggling to apply their graduate training to real world conservation? What is preventing the benefits of cooperation and partnerships between different disciplines addressing conservation from being realized? This special issue “Conservation without Borders: Building Communication and Action across Disciplinary Boundaries for Effective Conservation” asks readers to consider the numerous interpretations and implications of the phrase “Conservation without Borders” and to reflect on how different academic and disciplinary lenses can contribute to a more integrated approach to tackling conservation challenges. The articles that comprise this special issue offer readers insights into the ways in which different disciplines view conservation work and interdisciplinary approaches to environmental problems. Bringing these perspectives and approaches together in one place is a step towards improving communication across disciplines for the purpose of achieving more successful biodiversity conservation.     

Rising recreancy: flood control and community relocation in Houston,TX, from an environmental justice perspective

This article looks at issues of recreancy, environmental justice, and relocation as they relate to a flood control infrastructure project in inner city Houston. The main research questions were “What forms would recreancy take?” and “Can a project be environmentally just if recreancy is present?” Through the structural coding of 53 semi-structured interviews, recreancy was found even in a project where the sponsors used community cohesion as a guideline. This article illuminates the difficulties flood control project engineers face when working in local communities and argues that engineering issues are also social issues. Further, the relocatees within this flood control project voice some of the same concerns experienced by people relocated in other involuntary infrastructure development projects. The case outlined in this article could be used to better help those involuntarily relocated for flood control.     

Conservation of Biodiversity: How Are We Doing?

A question rarely raised in discussions on biodiversity conservation, but surely the biggest question of all, is “How much time do we have left before the mass extinction underway surpasses our best efforts to contain it?” This prompts a further prime question because—and unlike all other problems, whether environmental or otherwise—the biotic crisis threatens to leave a severely impoverished planet for millions of years ahead; “Why do we not undertake the necessary actions to get on top of the problem before it gets on top of us?”     

Environmental Harm: Political not Biological

In their fine paper, Evans et al. (2009) discuss the proposition that invasive non-native species (INS) are harmful. The question to ask is, “Harmful to whom?” Pathogens that make people sick and pests that damage their property—crops, for example—cause harms of kinds long understood in common law and recognized by public agencies. The concept of “harm to the environment,” in contrast, has no standing in common law or legislation, no meaning for any empirical science, and no basis in a political consensus other than might be drawn from the Endangered Species Act. As a generalization, the proposition that INS cause “environmental harm”—since this concept is empty of legal, scientific, and political meaning—must rest on definition, diktat, or diatribe. As Evans et al. suggest, however, the idea of “harm to the environment” is not always and certainly need not be arbitrary; it might gather significance in the context of a particular place through a political process that weighs economic concerns with cultural, religious, aesthetic, and other relevant beliefs, practices, and commitments that people who care about that place present. It is not clear, however, that adaptive management, which Evens et al. propose, will provide that democratic political process.     

The Ethics of Food for Tomorrow: On the Viability of Agrarianism—How Far can it Go? Comments on Paul Thompson’s Agrarian Vision

I consider Paul Thompson’s Agrarian Vision from the perspective of the philosophy of technology, especially as it relates to certain questions about public engagement and deliberative democracy around food issues. Is it able to promote an attitudinal shift or reorientation in values to overcome the view of “food as device” so that conscientious engagement in the food system by consumers can become more the norm? Next, I consider briefly, some questions to which it must face up in order to move closer in dismantling the barriers that inhibit the capacity for virtuous caretaking of the food system at various levels. Lastly, and more deeply, how successful might agrarianism be in inculcating citizenship values (ones that go beyond food ethics as a private affair), for the democratization of agricultural technologies? Might the Jeffersonian foundation to which the agrarianism (a la) Thompson appeals need something like a contemporary theory of justice in order to facilitate the reconstitution of our politico-moral selves? How can it help guide appropriate ruminations on the intra and intergenerational question, “What do we want the shape of our current and future social and political institutions to look like in relation to food?”     

Harmony Hurts: Participation and Silent Conflict at an Indonesian Fish Pond

Participatory environmental and resource management is premised on open communication to reach consensus. However, deliberate and open communication cannot adequately address silent conflict. This begs two questions. First, how is the existence of covert communication and silent conflict to be recognized and addressed? Second, how are the wider social relations and traditions that encompass communication and conflict to be described and explained? These questions revolve around communicative power. Communication of environmental knowledge is deeply embedded in social power structures, with direct implications for participatory resource planning and implementation. Ethnographic research conducted at a failed community-managed fish farming project in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia shows that a culture of harmony and respect for authority can silence environmental conflict in the hierarchical “community.” Three propositions are offered. First, communication amnesia and exclusion jeopardize participation. Second, cultures of harmony and silent conflict shape planning processes and outcomes. Third, the weak use manipulation and communication strategy to acquire a “voice” while preserving harmony. These propositions address five unresolved issues in participatory resource management: analysis of groups, contextuality, social relationships, nonparticipants, and informal communication. Power, tradition, and social networks affect the valuing of knowledge relative to the power of different individuals and institutions to communicate priorities, values, and needs. These factors are critical to the inclusion of both participants and nonparticipants.     

ISO 14000 and information systems—where's the link?

Two of the most frequently heard questions from environmental managers are “What should my company do about ISO 14000?” and “How can I use computer systems to reduce my staff's paperwork burden?” There are experts available to answer each of these questions, but thus far there has been little attention paid to how the two intersect and reinforce each other. This article explores this intersection and helps environmental managers implement information systems that have lasting value and, at the same time, support the ISO 14000 effort.     

Biodiversity laws: State experiences

The Western Governors' Association (WGA) includes both the public lands states with their issues and the plains states, which are 98% privately owned. WGA deals with most legislation affecting biodiversity, whether the effect is direct or tangential. It will probably not be possible, or desirable, for one entity to be in charge of biodiversity conservation. The Endangered Species Act, public lands laws, agricultural laws, water law, environmental laws, and funding legislation all affect biodiversity conservation and the responsibility for it. None of them on their own are enough, and most can cause harmful unintended consequences for biodiversity. The experience of western states in developing consensus principles for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act provides an example of common-sense ways to improve management of biodiversity, notwithstanding the complexity and large stakes involved. The WGA's proposed changes call for increasing the role of states, streamlining the act, and increasing certainty for landowners and water users. To achieve sustainable conservation for biodiversity, the better question is not “Who is/should be in charge?”, it is “How do we get this done?” To answer this, we need goals, guidance, and bottom lines from federal laws, and management and oversight at the state level, but they all need to support local on-the-ground partnerships. Sustainable conservation requires the active participation of those who live there. WGA's experience in coordinating the Great Plains Partnership as well as its work with watershed efforts shed light on what to expect. Multilevel partnerships are not easy and require a different way of doing business. The ad hoc, sitespecific processes that result do not lend themselves to being legislated, fit into organizational boxes, or scored on a budget sheet. They do require common sense and a longterm perspective.     

Environmental portfolio analysis: An integrated strategic approach to environmental management

As businesses strive to reduce costs and become more competitive, environmental costs and potential future liability issues continue to raise overhead expenses. The decision process is further challenged by the various interpretations of existing laws and the uncertainty of future applicable regulations and their interpretation. To make more informed business decisions and bridge the gap between the environmental and business perspective, organizations need to be able to see the overall environmental picture and how it affects the current and future business operation. This article presents a systematic approach to developing an organization's integrated baseline “environmental portfolio” with various business risk levels and expected costs. Utilizing computer simulation, sensitivity iterations are performed to show the results of different scenarios. These scenarios can include various probabilities of cost levels, permitting strategies, and litigation, as well as the success of new technologies. Management can then focus attention on the main driving factors and avoid spending too much attention on lesser items. An additional benefit to this process is that communication between the various segments of an organization are enhanced since their perspectives are clearly articulated as part of the analysis. Sensitivity analysis also provides the framework for a sanity check of the process and results. Are projected levels of success reasonable? What levels would be required to change the decision, and how likely are they to occur? What level of overall business risk associated with environmental issues is prudent? In addition this article shows how computer modeling and simulation can bring a valuable perspective to the decision-making process.     

Can ISO 14063 be a tool to plan the environmental communication strategy of a territorial area?

Over the past two decades, communication on environmental values, actions and performance has become an essential activity of organisations, because of the increased public concern and legislation related to the environment.

Stakeholders put pressure on companies to take environmental responsibility. In this framework, an effective environmental communication can generate value-added on companies' environmental work, and consequently, their competitiveness and profitability can benefit from communicating their environmental responsibility.

In 2006, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) launched a standard for environmental communication, ISO 14063. ISO 14063 should not be used for third-party certification purposes. Instead, it is intended to be used as a guideline and support companies to ensure successful environmental communication. The aim of this paper is to prompt a discussion about the applicability of the standard ISO 14063 not only to single organisations but as a tool to plan the environmental communication strategy of a whole territorial area. This is achieved by performing a case study relating to the Interreg IVC-funded project “Progresland”. The project involved three Italian and one Spanish natural areas and demonstrated that ISO 14063 could be a valid support to define and implement an environmental communication plan for a territorial area.     

新时代环境社会治理体系的构建和创新——中国环境科学学会环境社会治理专委会2020年年会综述

环境社会治理是现代环境治理体系和治理能力中的重要组成部分,但同时也是突出短板。2020年11月13日,环境社会治理专委会2020年年会成功召开,多位专家学者从多种角度围绕“新时代环境社会治理体系的构建和创新”进行了分享与讨论,对推动环境社会治理工作带来启示:一是环境社会治理是调整环境治理主体和客体之间关系的一系列制度手段,需要在新时代背景下完成从“物理”到“人文”的转变,体现平等参与的价值观。二是在转型期社会力量博弈变迁的背景下,环境问题须通过社会力量解决,并配套相应的环境社会治理新策略和手段,提高治理效率、降低治理成本。三是坚持系统性思维,以目的为导向、理清治理主体和客体作用,协调布局环境社会治理的制度安排,以环境社会治理核心要素、重点关注内容为抓手,构建环境社会治理体系。面对当前深刻变化的内外部环境,有必要进一步重点加强环境与社会相互关系与影响研究、环境社会风险防范体系研究、全民行动体系研究、关键理论和技术创新研究等内容。     

四川省2010~2019年突发环境事件时空分布特征分析

近年来,四川省高度重视环境应急管理工作,环境应急处置能力不断提升,但环境风险形势依然严峻,突发环境事件时有发生。通过对2010~2019年四川省10年突发环境事件进行统计分析,浅析四川省突发环境事件的规律特点,以期为四川省生态环境风险防控提供科学依据。研究表明,四川省突发环境事件呈现多发高发态势,6~8月为突发环境事件高发期;安全生产事故和交通事故次生的突发环境事件是主要事件类型;成都市和广元市是突发环境事件的高发区域;油类污染物和酸碱类污染物是主要污染物类型;跨界流域突发环境事件发生频率较高。应从流域突发环境事件风险评估、企业环境安全主体责任、环境应急物质储备体系和突发环境事件联防联控等方面加强四川省环境应急管理。     

FARMERS’ATTITUDES TOWARD GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN PREVENTING AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION1

ABSTRACT: Concern over the pollution of our lakes and streams has become a major issue in the United States. Sedimentation from sigricultural lands has been identified as a significant factor in water pollution. Some citizens suggest that government should force compliance with soil loss standards, while others suggest that we ask farmers to voluntarily comply. Related questions are “DO farmers think government should be involved in controlling erosion and protecting water quality?”“To what extent should government be involved?” What level of government should be involved? Federal? State? Local?“Why should pay for water quality projects?” Farmers from a small watershed in northeastern Indiana were interviewed before and after a major demonstration project. Their responses suggest that farmers feel that individual landowners should be responsible for controlling erosion and agricultural nonpoint source water pollution. However, over 60 percent of the study fanners indicated that the federal government should play an important role, in terms of both technical and financial assistance.     

Pragmatic ethics and the new consultant

Ethical, social, and environmental concerns are beginning to take hold in many businesses, often as an extension of total quality management. Many professional firms have eluded the global trend, but social and ecological realities are catching up. What will the new professional firm look like? This article looks at how firms are finding competitive advantage in old-fashioned integrity, combined with management techniques and a new scientific understanding of what it takes to successfully adapt in a world of limited resources. “Ethics is awareness of interdependence…” Aldo Leopold.     

Dissent and descent: tracing Canada’s environmental governance from regulatory beginnings to dismissal and reversals by the Harper government

Since Confederation in 1867, official Canadian settler government policy on the environment has sought to simultaneously preserve “wilderness” and exploit natural resources for market gain. In the 1960s, the nascent North American modern environmental movement pushed for stronger regulation on pollution and toxics – and a more institutionalised state-led response to environmental problems emerged. Throughout the last five decades, three principal “eras” of federal government reaction have emerged in response to mounting scientific evidence and public pressure to act on environmental issues. The first, from the late-1960s to mid-1980s, saw the development and implementation of early environmental policy and programmes. The second era, from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s co-occurred alongside the rise of the sustainable development paradigm, and is marked by the Canadian government’s attempt at leadership on the global stage. The third era, from the mid-2000s to 2015, demonstrates a shift from environmental regime-building and multilateral collaboration toward rollbacks and obstructionism. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the government of Canada reversed decades of progress and cooperation on the environment and sustainable development through its muzzling of government scientists, superficial co-optation of climate policy, rollbacks of environmental legislation and disparagement of environmental activists. In total, by shifting the federal government from a position of ineffective benevolence on environmental issues to one of contention and antagonism, the Harper government’s approach represents a departure from Canadian environmental governance norms and sought to remake the identity of Canada as an energy superpower inextricably tied to its oil and gas industry.     

Implementing ISO 14000: Overcoming barriers to registration

The new environmental standard, ISO 14000, is due for issue in January 1996. The standard is designed to address environmental management systems, life-cycle assessments, and international labeling and auditing standards. A major issue facing ISO 14000 advocates is “How can proponents of ISO 14000 get their enterprise to implement it?” And once implementation is started, “What can be done to enhance its chances of success?” The answers to both of these questions may be discovered by examining the self-interest of the parties within the enterprise. These parties will rightly ask, “Why should I support ISO 14000 registration? What's in it for me?”. Today's business climate is more competitive than ever. This is particularly true in the international arena. As a result, the competition within an enterprise for funds (the budget process) is becoming tougher than ever. Management is not going to register under ISO 14000 because they are altruistic. Companies will decide to register only if it is in their own best interest. That means, only if the decision maker can defend the decision to critics. This article presents approaches to gain support within an organization for implementation of ISO 14000 and to improve the chances of success once implementation has begun.