Essay on Pollution prevention practices in Oregon’s electronics industry| Science
Address all three of the following writing prompts. Your responses to your three chosen prompts should be at least 350 words each. No title page is needed, but be sure to indicate which writing prompts you are addressing at the top of each response. Each response needs its own reference page. Writing Prompts (respond to all three):
Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9701216688&site=ehost-live&scope=site End of citation–>
Section:
FEATURES
POLLUTION PREVENTION PRACTICES IN OREGON’S ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify pollution prevention strategies that are currently being used by the electronics industry in Oregon and to assess the industry’s interest in switching to less hazardous practices. A survey was distributed to 180 businesses, including all companies affiliated with the Oregon Electronics Association, and additional electronics corporations listed in Oregon phone directories. Forty-seven percent of the respondents indicated their organization had attempted substituting less hazardous compounds for those used previously. Factors influencing the movement towards cleaner practices included the desire to find safer products that work as well as current products, ethical concerns, and long term financial benefits. Common problems that discouraged the industry from changing to less hazardous practices included: (1) the new product did not function as well as the original material; (2) the respondents did not believe current practices were harmful; and, (5) initial costs were prohibitive. Representatives from within this industry are encouraged to share information about methodologies that have been successful, as well as strategies that may not have lead to intended goals; to clarify “green” terminology for use in this industry; and to establish a rewards system for r recognizing those who have instituted pollution prevention strategies into their operations.
Introduction
In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act that mandated industries to implement pollution prevention programs to decrease the amount and toxicity of hazardous products used in production processes (1). Pollution prevention reduces waste at the source, which decreases the cost of treatment, and also eliminates the undesirable practice of transferring pollution from one medium to another. Pollution prevention strengthens economic competitiveness by using raw materials more efficiently; thus, it promotes economic growth while protecting the environment (2).
With the implementation of pollution prevention practices, some manufacturers have attempted substituting less harmful chemicals in the production process. Although these substitutions are honest attempts at reducing pollution, cases exist in which the substituted chemical (which is advertised as being environmentally benign) is actually no less toxic than the original material (3). For example, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were considered safe for 40 years. Nontoxic, nonflammable, and noncorrosive, they replaced hazardous substances such as ammonia and sulfur dioxide. Scientists, however, discovered that CFCs were not benign; rather, the chemicals were rising into the atmosphere and insidiously eating a hole in the earth’s protective ozone layer (3). In addition, existing legislation does not clearly define what criteria must be met to label a product as “green” or “environmentally friendly” (4).
On a nationwide basis, the electronics industry generates a large amount of hazardous waste due to the use of solvents and heavy metals in the manufacturing process (1). The industry is characterized by the use of highly toxic compounds that are routinely handled by employees (5). For example, potentially hazardous materials utilized by the semiconductor industry include dopant gases, photoresist solvents, organic solvents, and hydrofluoric acid (6). Two commonly used chemicals in the making of computer chips are diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (DIGLM) and ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate (ECA). These photoresist solvents have recently been linked to miscarriages and other reproductive problems in chip factory workers (7,8).
In Oregon, the electronics industry has recently been identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as one of the top five polluters in the state of Oregon when measured in pounds of pollution produced (9). Despite the data suggesting that Oregon’s electronics industry produces large quantities of hazardous waste, little is known about the industry’s interest and/ or involvement in switching to less polluting practices. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to identify pollution prevention strategies that are currently being used in the electronics industry of Oregon, and to assess the industry’s interest in switching to less hazardous practices.
Methods
A survey querying pollution prevention practices was mailed to 180 electronics firms in Oregon. These firms were selected from listings in Oregon phone directories and from the American Electronics Association membership registry. Some firms were included in both listings, so a final list of 192 businesses was compiled after cross-checking both lists and deleting duplicate businesses. The survey was pilot tested with 12 of the 192 organizations, which were chosen at random from the final list. Those in the pilot group were excluded from data analysis. No changes were made in the actual content of the questionnaire, but slight modifications were made in the introductory letter as a result of the pilot study. The revised survey, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped return envelope was mailed as a unit to the safety engineer or manager of the remaining 180 businesses on the list. Respondents were asked to return the completed survey within two weeks, and a follow-up postcard was mailed to those firms not responding by the given deadline.
Responses were obtained from 75 (42 percent) of the 180 organizations. Of these, 7 percent returned the survey but declined to participate. Completed responses, therefore, were elicited from 62 (34%) of the 180 surveys distributed. Although this was considered to be a low response rate, we considered the response rate to be comparable to that of a pollution prevention study conducted by researchers who surveyed mid-sized organizations (100-1000 employees) that generate hazardous waste, in which “an amazing 40 percent responded” (10, p.13). Several reasons may account for this rate in our study. Respondents may have been reluctant to reveal any information about new products that replace hazardous products or procedures that are considered to be proprietary information. A second reason might be that although confidentiality was assured, firms might have been worried that disclosing information about their environmental procedures might somehow place them under greater scrutiny by state regulatory agencies. A third reason might be that the survey never reached the person in the organization best able to answer the questions. We found that the specific title for individuals responsible for environmental management varied considerably among these organizations.
The data were described using mean values, frequency distributions, and percentages. Microsoft Windows Excel Program Version 5.0 was utilized for graphic presentation of the data.
Results and Discussion
Industry demographics
The first section of the survey solicited information about the number of employees working at the facility. The responses indicated that 15 percent of the businesses employed over 500 people, 33 percent employed 76-500 people, 20 percent employed 21-75 people, 25 percent employed 6-20 people and only 8 percent of the respondents represented small companies of 1-5 employees at the facility. As a whole, these companies manufacture a wide variety of products, including circuit boards, cable assemblies, printers, software, temperature controls, laser equipment, and control panels. The majority of the businesses participating in this research were well-established; most have been in operation for over three years.
Fifty percent of the respondents revealed that their company recycles materials within the facility. Participants indicated that the products which were most likely to be recycled included cardboard (19 percent), office paper (18 percent), tin/aluminum (13 percent), newspaper (12 percent), and used chemicals (11 percent).
Businesses were asked how often they updated environmental management procedures. The vast majority of responses (73 percent) indicated environmental management procedures were updated yearly. Eighteen percent updated environmental procedures every 2-4 years and 5 percent allowed eight or more years to pass before addressing these procedures. Only 4 percent of the respondents indicated these procedures were never updated. These results suggest that because the electronics industry is relatively new compared to other industries, procedures are probably updated frequently as the industry quickly develops and adapts to changes in environmental regulations.
Hazardous materials production
To obtain a better understanding of the point in the processing stages in which hazardous materials are more likely to be produced, the following question was asked, “In your opinion, at your facility, where in the lifecycle of the manufacturing process is the largest quantity of hazardous materials generated?” The majority reported that the largest quantity of hazardous materials was generated early on in the manufacturing of the product. These results are in agreement with others who have discussed computer chip manufacturing and the potential of replacing hazardous materials with chemicals that are less hazardous and less likely to produce hazardous waste (1,11). When computer chips are being formed, hazardous chemicals are utilized to etch specific patterns on the chip to match designated circuitboards. This etching process occurs during the manufacturing process, and the etching chemicals are removed by the time the final product is formed.
In order to determine which chemicals used at the plants pose the greatest degree of environmental hazard, participants were asked to list the three most hazardous substances used at their facility. Responses to this question varied from common solvents such as isopropyl alcohol, which are generally accepted as having low toxicity, to highly carcinogenic compounds such as hydrofluoric acid, freon, ammonium dichromate, trichloro-acetate, photoresist solvents, and various heavy metals. As this list suggests, a wide variety of compounds are used by the industry, which makes producing a working model of less hazardous materials even more difficult for these businesses (1,5,6).
The participants also appeared to have held widely different interpretations of the term “hazardous” substance even though the term “hazardous” is routinely defined as substances that are flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Often, new products have not been tested for long term health or environmental effects and thus have not been fully categorized as to their hazardous properties (12). For example, a one percent sodium chloride solution is generally considered harmless, yet it is corrosive and toxic over extended periods of exposure (12). Researchers write about the confusion that surrounds the term “hazardous,” and whether or not chemicals that are hazardous to humans pose the same hazards to the environment (3,13-15).
Almost half of those completing the survey indicated they had attempted incorporating safer alternatives to the compounds mentioned above in their production activities. When questioned further as to the results of these attempts, respondents indicated that most often the product change was implemented. Reasons provided included that the new products worked well, were cost effective, and saved worker time. There may be other reasons for switching to these new products; however, the choices provided reflected current incentives demonstrated by other researchers (1,11,16,17). For example, some semiconductor manufacturers recently have abandoned the use of CFCs as a solvent (due to the ozone-destroying properties of the chemicals). This has resulted in lower costs and safer alternatives in the chip cleaning process (11).
Some experts suggest that pollution prevention options in the electronics industry should focus on process modifications rather than product substitutions (1). An example of a process modification might be to control crystal growth formations on the silicon chips so the need for sandblasting and cropping is greatly reduced. Another modification might be to computerize the wafer slicing process which would yield thinner and more uniform slices (1). Still other modifications might include selecting the least hazardous production process for operation or automating procedures so employee contact with potentially harmful products or processes is reduced (5).
Barriers to Pollution Prevention
Participants were asked to identify factors that might discourage their businesses from switching to less hazardous products or processes (see Figure 1). Slightly over one-third indicated that new products/processes did not work as well as the current product or practice. Eighteen percent did not believe their current practices/products were hazardous. Prohibitive costs of conversion was a response chosen by 14 percent of the participants; and, little or no pressure from regulatory agencies to switch was indicated by 3 percent of the respondents. Twenty-eight percent marked the “Other” category and wrote in reasons such as “no alternatives available,” “need time to evaluate,” or “must meet customer specifications.” These barriers are not uncommon; other potential barriers that have been previously recognized are timescale constraints, growth expectations from shareholders, and organizational barriers (18).
Defining a “Green” Product
Figure 2 reports how respondents would best define a “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly” product. Because there are no legal definitions of these terms, choices given in the survey reflected the variety of definitions that are frequently noted in the literature (4,18). Forty-two percent defined these products as those that contain no known hazardous chemicals; 19 percent defined “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly” products as those containing only organic material, while an equal number of participants supplied their own definition in the “Other” category. These unique definitions included: the product contains few hazardous chemicals and produces a minimum of hazardous waste; a product that can be managed and is not detrimental to the environment or to worker safety; a product that naturally decomposes without harmful by-products; meets EPA guidelines; a product which does not harm the environment; breaks down into safe substances; and a product with a recycled content greater than 20 percent. Ten percent of the respondents defined “green” products as those that contain ingredients whose effects are known and warning labels are provided; and nine percent believed “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly” products to be any products the manufacturer labels as such. These results are similar to information that has been presented in other studies and reiterate the need to standardize terms (4,15,19).
Recent efforts in Europe and in the United States have sought to standardize and certify “green” labeling. For example, the Blue Angel program, established in Germany in 1978, awards a seal of approval to products which are less harmful to the environment than others considered to be in the same category (20,21). The seal of approval alerts and encourages consumers to buy products that are less polluting and manufactured by industries that have adopted cleaner production processes. The Blue Angel program is completely voluntary, and a corporation must apply for use of the official label (20).
The Green Seal and Green Cross organizations in the United States provide a relatively unbiased evaluation of environmental product claims (22). Green Cross certifies the re-cycled content of packages and is beginning to use lifecycle analysis to assess all the environmental impacts of a product or package (22). Green Seal sets standards for specific products, certifies brands, and awards the “Green Seal” to products that meet certain standards (21). The founders of Green Seal include a group of scientists from academia, representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthWorks Press, the Council on Economic Priorities, Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The Green Seal organization is funded by private donations (15).
A follow-up question on the survey asked participants if their facility was presently using any “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly” products, as they had defined the term in the previous question. Sixty percent of the respondents indicated their organization did use these products. Participants were then asked to rank in order of importance the reasons that their corporations switched to less harmful products and/or processes. The highest ranking response was the category designated “Other”. Participants wrote in responses such as: safer to use, lower health insurance premiums, company mandates, worker safety, no treatment needed, saves resources, less hazardous to employees and the environment, meets toxic use reduction guidelines, and eliminated potential hazards. Ethical reasons were ranked second as their reason for switching to less hazardous products, followed in decreasing order by lower costs, better results, and public pressure. All of these choices reflect reasons that have been discussed previously (11,14,17,23,24).
A growing number of people no longer view being “green” as a cost, but rather as an opportunity to create new markets and products, thus creating a potentially wealthy business venture (11). Corporations utilizing pollution prevention strategies may, in fact, experience increased public support because community members, as well as workers within the facility, are exposed less often to potentially harmful agents (24). In some instances, grassroots organizations have pressured corporations to acknowledge environmental costs associated with manufacturing processes, and to acknowledge these hidden costs by asking companies to adopt lifecycle accounting procedures (25). Ethical factors influencing environmental behaviors have been discussed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (14), who reported that successful pollution prevention programs also must have an ethical component. In addition, they found that tapping into employee imagination and creativity was essential for the development of new products as well as the adoption of environmentally conscious behaviors within the organization. Higgins reiterates that companies should identify and support a champion — the individual who originated the idea and who has extensive experience with the process (22). This person should be given the responsibility and the authority to implement the change.
Respondents were then asked to list the trade names of three of the “green” products they have incorporated into updated environmental procedures and also list the more hazardous product(s) being replaced. Examples of substitutions included: (1) using hot water as an alternative to freon products and degreasers; and (2) substituting “eco” nuts, scrap office paper, butcher paper, and real popcorn for packing materials.
Reasons Given for Switching to Less Hazardous Products
While a previous question asked why the respondent’s particular facility switched to a “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly” product, a follow-up question, “In your opinion, what would be the best factor to encourage an electronics firm to switch to using a less hazardous product or process?” was asked to gather information as to what factors respondents felt would encourage the industry to adopt more environmentally conscious behaviors (see Figure 3). Twenty-nine percent indicated cost savings as the top motivating factor, whereas 20 percent reported safer products that worked better would encourage their individual firm to be more environmentally conscious. Ethical factors was chosen as a top motivating factor by 14 percent of the participating respondents. Only three respondents marked the response “more positive public relations.” While these results are generally supported by previous research, the results are contradictory to studies that have found public relations to be a very strong factor influencing pollution prevention activities (3,25). While this study showed that Oregon’s electronic firms appeared to put less emphasis on public relations than other reasons for incorporating pollution prevention practices, the fact that businesses are driven by cost factors to make changes also has been demonstrated by others (1,17).
Organization Incentives
When asked if their organization has received awards or recognition for utilizing pollution prevention strategies, only 11 percent replied yes. Eighty-nine percent reported that their organization had never received recognition for pollution prevention strategies. This particular point has been brought by Kleiner and others, who have explained the necessity of using positive recognition as a method of promoting environmentally conscious behaviors in other industries, and that financial rewards are particularly attractive (24,26,27). In fact, Higgins writes that “Recognition is a powerful motivator. Rewarding successes is a means of affirming an innovator’s decision to do something different; rewards encourage others to put in the extra effort to reduce wastes so that they also can be recognized and rewarded” (22, p.55).
Respondents also believed the industry should do more in the area of pollution prevention. Eighty-eight percent of the participants indicated that more progress should be made toward this goal. When asked about who should take the leadership in promoting pollution prevention, 55 percent believed that leadership in this area should come from the industry itself (see Figure 4). Fewer respondents (17 percent) indicated this leadership should come from regulatory agencies such as DEQ, EPA, or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Even fewer participants (7 percent) would like to see the leadership coming from independent consulting firms or worker groups within the company. Write-in suggestions provided by participants about others who should take the lead in encouraging pollution prevention efforts included providing tax incentives, investment credits, or scientific guidance. The results indicated that, of the companies that responded, these participants would like to lead themselves when it comes to pollution prevention. This information is substantiated by efforts seen in other industries. For example, Dow Chemical developed a pollution prevention program Waste Reduction Always Pays (WRAP) on its own accord, 3M instituted its own source reduction program called Pollution Prevention Pays (3P), and Intel has voluntarily eliminated the use of seven suspected carcinogens from all of the company’s processes. Intel received the 1992 Oregon Governor’s Award for adopting a corporate philosophy of pollution prevention and toxics reduction (28). These programs boast of the benefits of reduced chemical usage, decreased waste production, and increased profits (1,27,28).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Respondents from Oregon’s electronics industry who participated in this research indicated an interest in incorporating pollution prevention practices into their manufacturing processes. Many of the organizations have implemented or are experimenting with the use of less hazardous products and processes. Participants indicated that these changes are primarily driven by the desire to reduce production costs. For those who have yet to implement these practices, the main barriers to incorporating pollution prevention strategies into current processes are that new products or processes do not work as well as current practices, and that the costs of making the initial switch are prohibitive.
Although no legal definitions exist for the terms “green” or “environmentally safe/ friendly,” most respondents defined “green” or “environmentally safe/friendly,” products as those that contain no known hazardous chemicals. Other responses included defining these products as those which contain only organic materials, products which contain few hazardous chemicals and produce a minimum of hazardous waste, and products which naturally decompose without harmful by-products. The variety of responses demonstrates the existing confusion regarding the meaning of these terms.
Economic factors were viewed as the primary incentives that might encourage the industry to be more proactive in switching to less hazardous products or processes. Those participating in this study rated cost savings and the availability of environmentally sound products that would perform as well as original materials as primary incentives for making changes. Ethical considerations were a third reason for switching to less hazardous products.
The vast majority of respondents believe more efforts should be directed toward pollution prevention activities. Most would like to see leadership in this area coming from the industry itself rather than regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, OSHA, or the state DEQ.
Although the survey results should not be generalized to other industries or to the electronics firms who did not respond to the study, the following recommendations might be useful to other electronics companies, or other companies in general, who are exploring pollution prevention alternatives. First, the industry should organize a group of representatives from different electronics firms to address a variety of environmental concerns as well as to promote pollution prevention. This group might begin by defining such terms as “green” and “environmentally safe/friendly” as they relate specifically to the industry and share information about successful efforts as well as efforts that did not lead to intended goals. Because successful pollution prevention programs usually result from a trial, error, and correction process rather than a single insightful leap to perfection, success stories may be useful for companies within an industry that have similar technical issues and production facilities (22). As Higgins explains, pollution prevention alternatives can be generated in a brainstorming workshop in which management, production, and environmental personnel participate (22). Production people are closest to the waste generation process and can screen processes for feasibility. They also may want to implement process changes for other (than environmental) reasons and must buy into any change if it is to be maintained.
A second recommendation is that the industry be educated about the range of pollution prevention alternatives that are available. Pollution prevention methods can range from low-cost housekeeping improvements or adoption of best management practices through production changes or recovery of a useful product from a waste. General categories of pollution prevention strategies include housekeeping improvements, process modifications, material substitution, waste segregation, material recycling and reuse, and treatment to reduce discharge (22).
Another factor the industry identified as encouraging pollution prevention activities is the development of products or processes that work better and are safer to use. This industry should focus research and development efforts toward the manufacture of safer products and/or processes that may be effectively substituted for current practices. The industry may, for example, support demonstration projects that seek to determine if changes are practical for a production unit or an entire company and then provide for technology transfer and training within its organizational structure. The demonstration might include testing to determine the actual reduction of wastes, effects on production costs, ease of operation and maintenance, and effects on product quality (22). Technology transfer within an organization may be accomplished through hands-on workshops or informal training programs at successful production units (22).
Because this industry indicated financial assistance would motivate businesses to switch to less environmentally harmful products and/or processes, the industry itself should reward companies that adopt pollution prevention practices. Both private and public mechanisms should be available for recognition, such as grants, tax incentives, or even cash bonuses.
A final recommendation is that further research regarding pollution prevention in the electronics industry be conducted. Analyzing the changes in products or processes relating to pollution prevention that occur in the next few years may be useful. Another research area is to determine what types of changes are being made in the area of waste minimization; for example, is the industry moving toward product substitution rather than process modifications? Those responding to the survey indicated there is a need for new technology regarding pollution prevention. Further studies might investigate whether research and development facilities are currently addressing these problems, and if they are, what technology transfer issues exist that prevent the information from being readily available to members in the industry.
Corresponding Author: Anna K. Harding, R.S., Ph.D., Asst. Professor, 309 Waldo Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-6406.
FIGURE 1. Factors that discourage organizations from
switching to less hazardous products or processes
Cost Factors (13.6%)
New product/processes do not work well (36.9%)
Not believe current practices are harmful (18.4%)
Lack of pressure from government (2.9%)
Other (28.2%)
FIGURE 2. Industry definition of “green” or “environmentally
safe/friendly” products
Cost savings (29.0%)
Enforcement (12.0%)
Fewer injuries (12.0%)
Public relations (5.0%)
Ethical reasons (14.0%)
Better product performance (20.0%)
Other (8.0%)
FIGURE 3. Reasons given for motivating electronics firms to switch
to less hazardous products or processes
“Green” products (9.0%)
Warning label provided (10.0%)
< 50% hazardous (1.0%)
Contains organic material (19.0%)
No known hazards (42.0%)
Other (19.0%)
FIGURE 4. Industry’s opinion about who should take the leadership
in promoting pollution prevention
Regulatory agencies (17.0%)
Consulting firms (7.0%)
Industry itself (56.0%)
Worker groups (7.0%)
Other (13.0%)
REFERENCES
1. Theodore, L. and Y.C. McGuinn (1992), Pollution Prevention, New York, NY:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
· 2. Browner, C. (1993), “Pollution Prevention Takes Center Stage,” EPA J., 19(3):7-9.
· 3. Welter, T. R. (1991), “The Quest for Safe Substitutes,” Industry Week, 240:38-43.
· 4. Cohen, D. S. (1991), “The Regulation of Green Advertising: The State, the Market, and the Environmental Good,” Univ. of Br. Columbia Law Rev., 25:225-243.
· 5. Polakoff, P.L. (1988), “Despite Appearances, No Clean Bill of Health for Semiconductor Trade,” Occup. Health and Safety, 77(Sept):14.
· 6. Harper, S. (1986), “Unknown Variables: Assessing Risks in the Semiconductor Industry,” Occup. Health and Safety, 75(Oct):28-38.
· 7. Enders, J. (October 13, 1992), “Study Says Computer Chip Workers Risk Miscarriage,” The Oregonian, AM Sunrise Edition:D13.
· 8. Markoff, J. (October 12, 1992), “Miscarriages Tied to Chip Factories,” The New York Times, 49(117):A1.
· 9. Gurkewitz, S. (January 21, 1993), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Waste Management and Cleanup Division, personal communication, Portland, Or.
· 10. Hazardous Substance Research Centers (1995), “Fostering Pollution Prevention at Mid-sized Firms,” Centerpoint, 2(2):13.
· 11. Clark, R. A., J.L. Bavaria, J.L. Greeno, and R.N. Stavins (1994), “The Challenge of Going Green, Harvard Bus. Rev., 72(July/Aug):37-50.
· 12. Lu, F. C. (1991), Basic Toxicology: Fundamentals, Target Organs, and Risk Assessment, New York, NY:Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
· 13. Davis, J. J. (1993), “Strategies for Environmental Advertising,” J. of Consumer Marketing, 10(2):19-36.
· 14. Washington State Department of Ecology (1991), Waste Reduction: Strategies for a Sustainable Economy (Pub. No. 92-01), WA State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wa.
· 15. Southwest Research and Information Center (1993), “The Workbook: Sources of Information,” Consumer Affairs, 18(1):16-18.
· 16. Florio, J. (1993), “The New Jersey program,” EPA J., 19(3):31-33.
· 17. Stavins, R. N. (1992), “Harnessing the Marketplace,” EPA J., 18(2):21-25.
· 18. Peattie, K. and M. Ratnayaka (1992),” Responding to the Green Movement,” Ind. Marketing Management, 21 (2):103-110.
· 19. Schorsch, J. (1990), “Are Corporations Playing Clean With Green,” Bus. and Soc. Rev., Fall(75):6-9.
· 20. Kulik, A. (1993), “Differing Recycling Symbols Confuse German Consumers,” World Wastes, 36(2):14-19.
· 21. Freeman, L. (1991), “Ecology Seals Vie for Approval,” Advertising Age, 62:30.
· 22. Higgins, T. (1995), Pollution Prevention Handbook, Boca Raton, Fl:CRC Press, Inc.
· 23. Flavin, C. and J.E. Young (1993), “Will Clinton Give Industry a Green Edge,” World Watch, 6(Jan/Feb):26-33.
· 24. Breen, J. J. and M.J. Dellarco (April 14-19, 1991), “Pollution Prevention in Industrial Processes: The Role of Process Analytical Chemistry,” Paper presented at the 201st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Atlanta, Ga.
· 25. Jamieson, S. (1990),” Coping With the Green Revolution: Pollution Control in the 1990s,” Pulp and Paper Canada, 91(9):47-52.
· 26. Kleiner, A. (1991), “What Does it Mean to be Green?” Harvard Bus. Rev., 69(July/Aug):38-47.
· 27. Schneider, C. (1988), “Hazardous Waste: The Bottom Line is Prevention,” Issues in Sci. and Technol., 4(4):75-80.
· 28. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (1996), Beyond Waste: A Management Newsletter, 18(1):1-4.
~~~~~~~~
By Cynthia L. Jones, M.S. and Anna K. Harding, R.S., Ph.D. — NEHA members
