&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and
Toxics (7408)
EPA 745-B-99-008
May 1999
www.epa.gov
Constructive Engagement
Resource Guide:
Practical Advice for
Dialogue Among
Facilities, Workers,
Communities
and Regulators
-------
-------
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT
RESOURCE GUIDE:
Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities,
Workers, Communities, and Regulators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
June 1999
-------
itajiLs, Constructive Engagement Resource Guide is for al participants or
li-" 'I:;'" BPSSHSKSMSSMIfflMSiftESRaii,' ,,PK> , t j!i,i.s:-i •,VfU£iilri4l\'#satiit fc»!M*M«*it^v^f$'SjW)**8W«M*!fc'£!:
who are considering entering into a cooperative partnership or
'i—!^^
ZS&Si5SEB!i33iBSI&&&Sa&i&Z3SHii&SSi&:9W&SSK5t
ress a facility's or sector's impact on
worker and enYiffinmentai health: Participants or stakeholders may include
IBBI
racmty managers, faculty workers, local, state, ana leaerai government
iiljjlj Zjlllkjl 4 ! =!!! iHiiii! iis|4i|J!^ i^'-iisi liilSiiJf^^ !l>jii:,j^
fendies, arid community groups. This guide will help participants or
leholders make informed decisions onwhether to get involved in
to go about it. The guide provides
Icjl advicefang presents'case" studies.' Although many of the examples
le guide are from the computer and electronics sector, the guide is
• applicable to many industry sectors and types of facilities. You may
J«iit «t 11LLL/.// WWW.ClJa.ii^
copies of the Constructive Engagement
|i»'h ...... ;» !7ii*!iir«— 1|»^ ..... j'|!"il"!|i ...... Iflaip1;1;!!/"!1! ................. ,,,!. ............. -fc ....... ..... ...................... , ......... *-*,„ ,J7* ..................
Resource GuicJe (Hocument control number: EPA 745-B-99-0()8)
•. , -f\M ; i ' tr: f,f ifl'if Va)'1*; ""! ....... S-1!1 V, :«*'!* ....... "'i; '{fts: ...... tl ..... • .'" ;':: ',:':': i: y: '•:,' ..... ."> r-BW ......... !'.:;"!«" iiS* ...... . ':' si!**':'* Wisi,:1 . swv*'!::1-,'-' *: • ':'• :'"• " ....... •••
':?:| • '^'"i.^free of charge via regular mail, telephone, fax, or online.
f ....... , ......
l^^tiiopali .Service' Center |pr ,Errv;ir;onmebi5t Pu^ca^ons, |N§a|lP| . ......
' ' '':Jl '' "' -•";ii"-;v'1"; - • " -"i - '
;513;489-^
0nline Order: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/
-------
^ Constructive Engagement Resource Guide
^pc5 t^
o/ Contents
Acknowledgments ......iv
Executive Summary v
How to Use This Guide vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
The Evolution of Constructive Engagement 2
Constructive Engagement in the Computer & Electronics Industry 3
Stakeholder Roles in Constructive Engagement 4
Chapter 2: Constructive Engagement: The Concept and the Challenge 7
What Is Constructive Engagement? 7
Constructive Engagement Processes 9
Types of Issues 11
What Challenges Must Be Met for a Constructive Engagement to be Successful? 11
A Cautionary Note About Constructive Engagement 19
Chapter 3: Assessing Your Situation: Is Constructive Engagement For You? 23
Question #1. What Do You Hope to Accomplish? 23
Question #2. What Resources Are Required? 25
Question #3. What Are the Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement? 26
Question #4. How Do You Address the Specific Challenges Facing Your Stakeholder Group? . 33
Question #5. What Are Your Alternatives? 38
Chapter 4: Constructive Engagement Is For Me. What Do I Do? 45
1. Designing the Process 46
2. Identifying and Recruiting Participants 57
3. Participating in the Ongoing Process 66
4. Gaining Closure . . . or Managing an Open-Ended Process 72
Chapter 5: Lessons Learned 79
Twenty-Three Lessons 80
The Future of Constructive Engagement 85
References 86
Appendix 1: Case Studies 89
Appendix 2: Background on the Constructive Engagement Resource Guide 125
Appendix 3: Sample Forms... 129
Appendix 4: Resources 143
Appendix 5: Contributor Contact Information 149
-------
Acknowledgments
The Constructive Engagement Resource Guide was authored by CDR Associates of Boulder, Colorado,
as EPA subcontractors under contract 68W40001, administered by RESOLVE, Inc. It was developed
with input from members of the U.S. EPA Common Sense Initiative, Computers and Electronics Sector
Subcommittee Alternative Strategies Work Group. Below is a list of those individuals who contributed
to the development of the guide. (See Appendix 5 for contact information.)
Computers and Electronics
Sector Subcommittee
Alternative Strategies
Work Group
Dan Bartosh
Texas Instruments
Dallas, TX
Sheri Fairbanks
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Diamond Bar, CA
Nan Freeland
Clean Water Fund of
North Carolina
Raleigh, NC
Ken Geiser
Toxic Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, MA
Steve Harper
Intel Corporation
Washington, DC
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for
Occupational Safety and Health
San Jose, CA
Roger Kanerva
Illinois EPA
Springfield, IL
Lee Lockie
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Diamond Bar, CA
Raphael Metzger
National Coalition of Hispanic
Health & Human Services
Organizations
Washington, DC
Timothy Mohin
Intel Corporation
Chandler, AZ
Liz Moyer
Texas Instruments
Dallas, TX
Christopher Rhodes
Institute for Interconnecting
and Packaging Electronic
Circuits
Northbrook, IL
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
San Jose, CA
Dave Stangis
Intel Corporation
Chandler, AZ
EPA Staff
John Bowser
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Joe Callahan
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Karen Hoffman
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Steve Hoover
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Sylvia Horowitz
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
David B. Jones
U.S. EPA Region IX
San Francisco, CA
Judy Kendall
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Mike McDonell
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Janet Remmers
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
Tom Tillman
U.S. EPA
Washington, DC
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Bernard S. Mayer, Suzanne
Ghais, and Julie A. McKay of
CDR Associates researched
and wrote the Constructive
Engagement Resource Guide.
Bernard Mayer served as the
Project Director. Christopher
Moore of CDR Associates
facilitated the Common Sense
Initiative Computers and
Electronics Sector
Subcommittee.
Frances M. Lynn of the
Environmental Resource
Program at the University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill
served as a consultant to the
authors.
Editing: Gilah Langner,
Stretton Associates, Inc.
Design and layout:
Sarah McPhie,
Free Hand Press, Inc.
-------
» executive
As environmental, health, and safety issues gain public attention, government
regulation intensifies, and technology advances, cooperation among industrial facilities,
communities, workers, and government agencies has become more common.
Constructive Engagement is an approach that brings these groups together to establish
and monitor a facility's environmental activities through a cooperative, non-adversarial
partnership.
The Constructive Engagement Resource Guide arose from the Computers and
Electronics Sector Subcommittee of the EPAs Common Sense Initiative. The resource
guide examines the nature of Constructive Engagement and the opportunities and
challenges it offers to communities, industry, regulators, and workers. It presents a
practical discussion of how to evaluate whether to use Constructive Engagement and
how to create, and conduct an effective Constructive Engagement process. The guide
is targeted to the computer and electronics sector and related stakeholders, but the
advice presented is transferable to other arenas.
In preparing this guide, eleven diverse Constructive Engagement cases were
studied, some through a literature review, others through interviews with participants.
Several people involved in Constructive Engagement efforts were also interviewed to
develop this guide. The major lessons learned from this research form the foundation
of the resource guide.
Constructive Engagement takes many forms, including citizen advisory groups,
stakeholder negotiations, formal mediations, "Good Neighbor Agreement" processes,
oversight committees, and independent organizations. Constructive Engagement
activities have dealt with many issues including site location, facility operations,
emission and waste controls, worker health and safety, regulatory relief, site cleanup,
and pollution prevention.
Constructive Engagement offers an approach to improving communication among
stakeholders and for finding creative solutions to concerns about facility activities. It
can promote better relations among groups that have been at odds, and can offer a
mechanism for discussing impacts of facility operations. Constructive Engagement
can save all stakeholders time, money, and stress in the long run if used appropriately
and conducted effectively.
Constructive Engagement also poses challenges, and is not appropriate in all
circumstances. Defining a commonly accepted goal, finding a credible means of
initiating the process, and getting buy-in and participation from key players are
examples. In addition, it is important to develop a discussion and decision-making
process that is responsive to differences in power and cultural style. Other challenges
include providing access to credible information and expertise, ensuring good faith
participation, and keeping constituents and decision makers informed.
-------
Potential participants should consider both the advantages and disadvantages
of Constructive Engagement. In deciding whether to participate in a Constructive
Engagement initiative, it is important to consider what goals can best be served by
the process, what issues can be effectively addressed, what resources are required,
and what are the potential costs and benefits of participation. It is also important
to compare Constructive Engagement to alternatives such as unilateral action or
advocacy.
Constructive Engagement initiators and participants should be clear, explicit,
inclusive and collaborative in designing the process, identifying participants, and
gaining closure or managing an ongoing process. Specifically, decisions should be
made about what procedural guidelines to use, how much decision-making
authority the group has, whether to use a facilitator, and how to encourage equal
and active participation. Mechanisms for establishing rapport, sharing information,
and communicating with the public are also useful. When Constructive
Engagement decisions are made by consensus, it is important to handle
disagreements and build consensus without resorting to pressure tactics, and to
consider what to do if consensus cannot be reached. When the process is open-
ended, effort is needed to maintain enthusiasm and participation.
Many important lessons emerged from the cases, interviews, and experiences
explored in developing this guide. These include insights about the possibility of
a good process even with initial distrust and mixed motivations, the value of
preventive action, the importance of high-level support within participating
organizations, the limits of Constructive Engagement, and the importance of an
open process. Inclusiveness and participant diversity also emerged as success
factors, as did access to credible information and expertise, and effective means of
sharing sensitive or highly technical information. Often, the key to successful
Constructive Engagement is dealing with power inequities and empowering all
participants.
Constructive Engagement appears to have a promising future. In order for its
potential to be realized, more people must learn how to design, conduct, and
participate in these processes, and better funding mechanisms for Constructive
Engagement must be developed.
This guide should help people interested in Constructive Engagement
understand what is involved, what are the advantages and costs, how to decide
whether to participate, and how to conduct an effective process.
VI
-------
« how to imp this gnid
You can use the Constructive Engagement Resource Guide to learn about
Constructive Engagement in two general ways:
• In the chapters you will explore the issues and find practical guidance to
help you decide whether to participate and how to build your own
Constructive Engagement process.
• In the case studies in Appendix 1 you will find examples where
Constructive Engagement was used by stakeholders to collectively address
environmental issues.
If you learn best through stories and illustrations, you may want to jump to
the case studies first and then read some of the chapters for more clarity. If you
prefer to learn through concepts and step-by-step instructions, you may prefer to
read the chapters first and refer to the case studies along the way.
Chapters
There are five chapters in the guide:
• Chapter 1 introduces the concept of Constructive Engagement, its
evolution, its use in the computer and electronics industry, and the roles
of various stakeholders.
• Chapter 2 explores in greater depth what Constructive Engagement is
and is not, describes some typical Constructive Engagement processes,
and discusses some of the challenges of Constructive Engagement from
the viewpoints of various stakeholders.
• Chapter 3 provides guidelines to help you decide whether to become
involved in Constructive Engagement, including an overview of the costs
and benefits.
• Chapter 4 provides guidelines to help you design and conduct an effective
Constructive Engagement process. This is the "how-to" chapter.
• Chapter 5 summarizes the lessons and principles underlying the specific
guidelines in the resource guide.
Appendices
The eleven case studies presented in Appendix 1 are the main source of the guidance
and lessons presented in the chapters. The rich assortment of examples illustrate
different approaches and reflect the experiences of stakeholders who have
participated in Constructive Engagement. Briefly, the cases presented include:
\m
-------
• Lucent Technologies Microelectronics Group, Allentown, PA. A major
technology firm has used a Local Environmental Advisory Group to obtain
community involvement and participate in EPAs Project XL.
• Rohm and Haas, Bristol, PA. A Community Advisory Committe functions
as a key component of the plant's community relations program to promote
communications among the company, its workers, and the community.
• Shell Oil Company, Martinez, CA. After a large oil spill, a Community
Advisory Panel was convened to ease the permitting process for a large
facility expansion, and has since helped Shell's communications and
problem solving with the community.
• Sybron Chemicals, Birmingham, NJ. A Neighborhood Involvement
Council was established after a series of incidents at a manufacturer of
specialty chemicals.
• Vulcan Chemical Company, Wichita, KS. Vulcan's Community
Involvement Group originated in shouting matches over a planned
incinerator, but has since helped persuade the chlor-alkali manufacturing
facility to make significant environmental changes.
• Lead Steering Committee, Bartlesville, OK. A committee was convened
by the state Department of Health because of community concerns about
heavy metal contamination from a National Zinc smelter site.
• Intel's Project XL, Chandler, AZ. A stakeholder group reached consensus
after a long and arduous process, allowing Intel's semiconducter
manufacturing facility to participate in EPAs Project XL.
• New Bedford Harbor, MA. A multi-party mediation was held by the
Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution to determine how to clean up
the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site.
• Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center, San Jose, CA. A nonprofit
organization, established as a result of a settlement with the City of San
Jose, serves as an ongoing collaborative forum on pollution prevention issues.
• Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation, East Palo Alto, CA. A
Citizen Advisory Panel evolves from addressing immediate concerns about
Romic's hazardous waste recycling and disposal business to longer-term issues.
• Sheldahl, Inc., Northfield, MN. Workers from Sheldahl's circuit board
manufacturing facility joined with citizens in an effort that led to a binding
commitment by Sheldahl to a toxic use reduction plan for methylene chloride.
In addition to the case studies, the appendices include background on the
development of this guide, sample forms for use in planning and conducting a
Constructive Engagement process, a list of organizations, hotlines, and other
resources, and contact information for the authors and contributors to this guide.
We hope you find this guide useful, and we wish you success in your
Constructive Engagement experiences!
vm
-------
« rhaptpr 1
Introduction
Are you a member of a community environmental group deciding whether to engage
in a dialogue with a local manufacturing facility? Are you a plant worker interested in
joining discussions about environmental and health issues at the facility? Are you a
facility manager hoping to establish interactions with the community but not sure
how? Are you a government official who believes that bringing together industry and
community groups will lead to smoother permitting or site cleanup?
If you are one of these people, this guide is for you. It introduces you to Constructive
Engagement—any effort that brings together a diverse group to cooperatively discuss
a facility's environmental activities. Such a group includes representatives of various
stakeholders—individuals or groups who "have a stake" in these issues. Stakeholders
usually include facility managers, facility workers, government agencies, and
community groups or organizations. Through Constructive Engagement, a non-
adversarial partnership is formed in which each stakeholder has the capacity to
participate effectively.
Constructive Engagement issues and activities can vary. For example:
• A group of stakeholders negotiates how best to clean up a contaminated
industrial site.
• A facility-sponsored group meets periodically to provide input to the company
about the community's reactions to the plant's environmental performance.
• Negotiations between a manufacturing plant, its workers, and the surrounding
community lead to an agreement providing for increased community oversight
of the facility's environmental management.
• Negotiations involving a plant, various government agencies, and community
members lead to an agreement to streamline environmental regulations in
exchange for superior environmental performance.
-------
This guide will help you decide whether to get involved in Constructive
Engagement and how best to go about it. Through both general guidance and the
case studies (Appendix 1), it will help you address questions such as:
• What resources will Constructive Engagement require, in terms of time,
people, money, and expertise?
• How do I decide whether Constructive Engagement is better than the
alternatives?
• Who should participate in a Constructive Engagement process? How do I
get them to the table?
• How do I set up the process? What procedural guidelines will we need?
• How will we handle complex technical information?
• How will I know if some players are at a disadvantage?
• What makes Constructive Engagement successful?
This resource guide arose from the Computers and Electronics Sector
Subcommittee of EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI). CSI involved select
industries, environmental and public interest groups, state regulators, and others
to improve the environmental results and reduce the
Constructive Engagement is a economic impacts of EPA programs. The subcommittee
developed the concept of a facility-based alternative
system of environmental protection, with the objectives
of increasing facilities' environmental performance;
regulatory flexibility; and constructive engagement of, and
accountability to, communities and workers. (See
Appendix 2 for more details on the background of this
resource guide.) This guide is written with the computer and electronics sector in
mind, but you can transfer the lessons and advice to any Constructive Engagement
situation.
way to solve problems rather
than hide behind them.
The Evolution of Constructive Engagement
Many trends have stimulated the need for Constructive Engagement. Industry has
been developing rapidly since the 1800s, yet American society did not begin to
pay serious attention to the environmental effects of industry until much later. In
recent decades, the environmental movement has exploded, and in response to its
growing power and influence, environmental laws have been passed (from
municipal to federal) to reduce environmental degradation. In addition, science
has produced a richer understanding of our relationship to the ecosystem, and
sophisticated technologies have emerged to prevent pollution and remedy
environmental problems.
The results of these changes include:
• New industrial processes and materials whose environmental and health
impacts may or may not be known.
-------
• A more environmentally informed public that is willing to confront
polluters actively.
• A complex range of technical solutions to environmental problems.
Because of these changes, uniting stakeholders to discuss concerns and reach
solutions has become an attractive way to address environmental issues. Ignoring
conflicting interests and values of stakeholders can be costly, and cooperation
among multiple stakeholders can sometimes produce better solutions for everyone.
Constructive Engagement in the
Computer and Electronics Industry
The computer and electronics industry is a rapidly growing part of the United
States economy. It has a reputation for having a minimal effect on the environment,
workers, and communities. Even so, during the 1980s and 1990s, people have
become increasingly aware of the industry's environmental and health impacts.
For example, microchip production uses numerous chemicals and often requires
large amounts of water. Moreover, the fast-changing nature of the industry creates
market pressures to develop new products, using new methods, quickly. This makes
it more difficult to fully evaluate the safety of the manufacturing processes, and
increases the importance to industry of streamlining regulatory procedures.
For these reasons, the computer and electronics industry has sought models
to improve community relations and obtain community input into its
environmental planning. The Chemical Manufacturers' Association's Responsible
Care program has provided inspiration. Initiated in the 1980s partly in response
to the Bhopal chemical spill in India, this program urges chemical manufacturers
to sponsor Community Advisory Panels (CAPs)—company-sponsored,
community-involvement groups which discuss environmental issues and offer
input to a facility's environmental management.
The CAP model has been useful, but also remains controversial. Some
commend it for alerting companies to community concerns, promoting trust, and
providing opportunities for meaningful dialogue. Others criticize the model for
tending to exclude environmental organizations and for having little effect on
environmental performance.
About the same time CAPs were forming, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
processes, such as mediation, became more widely used. Several ADR models
have emerged for engaging stakeholders in cooperatively resolving environmental
disputes and meeting regulations. These developments have helped shape the
emergence of Constructive Engagement.
This resource guide offers a variety of Constructive Engagement processes.
Any model can be effective, but each has different goals and outcomes. By
considering a variety of possibilities, you can begin to imagine a model that will
support your situation and goals.
-------
Stakeholder Roles in Constructive Engagement:
Communities, Workers, Industry, and Government
This resource guide is written for four different stakeholder groups—communities,
workers, industry, and government.
Communities
How are the interests of the community represented in Constructive Engagement?
In some of the case studies (see Appendix 1), such as the Silicon Valley Pollution
Prevention Center and the Vulcan Chemical Community Involvement Group,
community participants represent organizations (local, regional, and national) and
coalitions. In other instances, such as the Sybron Chemicals Neighborhood
Involvement Group and the Shell Oil Community Advisory Panel, community
participants serve as individuals. Some Constructive Engagement efforts strictly
define who constitutes a community member. There are many different ways to
characterize community involvement.
Workers
How can workers participate in Constructive Engagement? Workers often share
community experiences and concerns about health, safety, and the environment.
In the Rohm and Haas case, for example, a large percentage of the facility workers
lived in the community where they worked. Their interests naturally overlapped
the two stakeholder groups (the facility and the community), and they served as a
bridge between the two. Similarly, in the Sheldahl case, communities and workers
served as valuable allies to one another. The Romic Environmental Technologies
Corporation case provides an example of a community-based approach to a workers'
health and safety campaign. It raises questions about regulations and their effects
on workers and communities, particularly because the two groups are protected
by separate sets of laws and regulations.
Workers play a unique role in Constructive Engagement because of their
relationship with the facility. On the one hand, they have a personal stake in the
economic well-being of the company, which sometimes leads to "jobs versus
environment" tensions. On the other hand, they understand facility operations,
and can lend a credible perspective to complement the management's view.
Sometimes, workers may hesitate to participate in Constructive Engagement
because of their concern for maintaining positive relationships with their employers.
In general, however, worker participation is important to Constructive Engagement.
Industrial Facilities
What incentives do companies have for participating in Constructive Engagement?
While each facility's experience is unique, notable trends surface in the way a
company becomes involved, their motivation, and the results of their efforts.
Through Constructive Engagement, companies often experience a shift in the way
they interact with the community, workers, and government agencies. For example,
Sybron Chemicals received complaints from neighbors about odors emitted from
its facility and reacted defensively. Now, through its Constructive Engagement
-------
process, managers actively involve citizens in detecting odors and identifying their
sources. Similarly, Lucent Technologies shifted from one-way to two-way
communication with the community. If you are an industry stakeholder, challenge
yourself to examine your company's traditional approach to solving problems,
and envision new approaches that involve your community.
Industry representatives find that Constructive Engagement is a way to solve
problems rather than hide behind them, and value Constructive Engagement as a
learning experience. Companies develop their
capacity for Constructive Engagement by engaging
in the process, learning lessons from the experience,
and then "going back for more."
When agencies are pulled in
different directions by competing
interests, Constructive
Engagement can help.
Government Agencies
Local, state, and federal agencies often participate in
Constructive Engagement. Several case studies
provide examples of government-initiated processes,
government programs that include stakeholder
participation, and other instances where a government agency plays a key role in
Constructive Engagement. For illustrations, see the Intel Project XL, Lead Steering
Committee, Romic Environmental Technologies, and New Bedford Harbor
Superfund cases.
Government agencies find Constructive Engagement valuable in many
situations:
9 Permitting: Collaboration among stakeholders can resolve obstacles to
issuing permits for facility expansion or upgrades.
« Clean up: Constructive Engagement has been used to facilitate remediation
efforts in contaminated areas, including Superfund sites.
« Regulations: Cooperation among government, facilities, and communities
can streamline regulations and improve environmental results. It can also
resolve disputes over enforcement of regulations.
In general, when agencies are pulled in different directions by competing
interests, Constructive Engagement can help. If you are a government official,
consider your regulatory role and whether Constructive Engagement might
enhance your efforts.
-------
-------
chapter 2
Constructive Engagement:
The Concept and The Challenge
What Is Constructive Engagement?
The use of Constructive Engagement has become increasingly popular in the last
several years in many industries, including computers and electronics. Constructive
Engagement is both a value and an approach to bringing communities, workers,
industry, and government together to address their mutual concerns.
As a value, Constructive Engagement is based on a belief in the benefit of bringing
together people with different points of view to communicate with each other about
the issues that concern them. The process is based on the
following specific values:
People affected by the operations of an industrial
facility have a right to know how the facility will impact
them and to influence how these impacts are
addressed.
The interests of all stakeholder groups are legitimate
and need to be taken into account in making decisions
about industrial siting and operations.
The best approach to promoting environmentally and community friendly
practices, along with economically healthy industries, will develop if all groups
have an opportunity to discuss their concerns and ideas with each other in a
collaborative and constructive way.
The interests of all
stakeholder groups are
legitimate and need to be
taken into account.
-------
• People with very different outlooks and goals can work together effectively
if they are motivated to find common ground and are given a credible
opportunity and the tools to do so.
• People need access to relevant information presented in a comprehensible
way in order to engage in constructive and meaningful discussions.
As an approach, Constructive Engagement processes are designed to provide
forums in which meaningful and timely discussions can take place among workers,
government regulators, industry representatives and community groups. Specific
activities include:
• The convening of a group representing a range of different interests to
communicate about the plans or operations of an industrial facility or a
group of such facilities.
• A series of meetings where participants discuss their issues, generally in a
small group.
• A set of clearly articulated goals and procedures for the process.
• An effort to conduct the discussions in a collaborative spirit in which
everyone has a chance to explain their concerns and consider ways in
which they may be met.
• A process for sharing and explaining important technical information.
Constructive Engagement is only one approach for community and worker
participation in regulatory or other decision-making processes. It is only appropriate
under certain circumstances. Constructive Engagement is NOT:
• Public relations: While a well-designed Constructive Engagement process
may be good for public relations, that is not its purpose. Constructive
Engagement is designed to address concerns in an open and forthright
manner. Sometimes this requires airing problems in a way that may not be
desirable (at least in the short run) for a company's public image. If a
Constructive Engagement process is convened mainly as a public relations
gesture, it is unlikely to be truly effective over time.
• Public hearings: Public hearings usually focus on obtaining one-time input;
Constructive Engagement promotes ongoing discussions. Constructive
Engagement is usually not a substitute for formal public notification and
input procedures. Sometimes these processes might be made superfluous
by a Constructive Engagement effort, but generally the requirement to
allow the public to comment on proposed permits and regulations is not
satisfied by Constructive Engagement activities.
• Public education: Education is a necessary part of all Constructive
Engagement efforts, and occasionally Constructive Engagement groups take
it upon themselves to engage in a wider public education effort. However,
Constructive Engagement is not specifically designed as a mechanism for
educating the wider public about a proposed action or an issue of concern.
• Public advocacy: Participants in Constructive Engagement are encouraged
to advocate for their interests at the same time as they listen to the concerns
-------
of others. However, Constructive Engagement is not designed as way of
building support for a point of view among the broader public.
• Lobbying: Constructive Engagement discussions can provide an effective
opportunity for presenting concerns or ideas to government officials. Their
purpose, however, is dialogue and joint problem solving. They are not
designed to put pressure on government regulators or policy makers.
These distinctions are critical. One of the biggest problems that a Constructive
Engagement effort can face is the inconsistent goals of participants and initiators.
Stakeholders may engage in the above activities while they participate in
Constructive Engagement. However, if they take part in Constructive Engagement
for these other purposes, the potential for effective results will considerably
diminish.
Constructive Engagement Processes
Many approaches to Constructive Engagement have been used in the computer
and electronics industry. Each Constructive Engagement process is different based
on its specific goals, participation, the form of representation, the convening
authority, the breadth of focus, decision-making
procedures, the group's formal authority, and the ^ -. AT . , , .
duration of the process. Typical processes include: G°°d Neighbor Agreements OTC
contracts between companies
and community groups.
• Citizen Advisory Committees. These .
committees have many names, such as
Community Advisory Panels, Community
Involvement Groups, Local Advisory Groups,
.etc. Citizen advisory committees include
members of the community in which a facility is located, and sometimes
representatives of broader constituencies as well. They are typically
convened and staffed by the facility to provide input about community
concerns. These are normally ongoing groups, who meet on a regular
basis and serve in an advisory capacity. Sometimes they are formed in
response to particular problems, and at other times they focus on
prevention and relationship building.
• Stakeholder Negotiations. Stakeholder negotiations are formal efforts to
negotiate around specific issues among representatives of different groups
or constituencies, such as local citizens' organizations, environmental
advocacy groups, environmental justice organizations, industry,
government, and labor unions. Stakeholder negotiations are typically
. convened by a public entity or regulatory authority to resolve controversial
issues. Occasionally, stakeholders meet to prevent a current issue from
developing into a major dispute. Some stakeholder negotiations relate to
site-specific concerns about a plant operation or proposed facility location.
At other times, the focus is on policy issues concerning regulations or
standards.
-------
• Formal Mediations. When other decision-making processes have failed,
groups have occasionally requested a neutral mediator to conduct a
negotiation process. This can lead to a formal, binding agreement, an
agreement in principle, a consent decree, or a consensus-based
recommendation to a decision maker.
• Good Neighbor Agreements. Good Neighbor Agreements are contracts
between companies and community groups, typically providing for
community access to information, inspections of the facility, accident
preparedness, pollution prevention, and/or non-environmental provisions
about jobs and local economic needs. In return, citizens' groups may agree
to end adversarial action against the company, generate positive publicity
about the company, or protect company trade secrets. These agreements
may be binding or non-binding. Binding agreements typically result from
negotiations following challenges to facility permits or from settlement
discussions following an industrial accident.
• Oversight Committees. When specific agreements or decisions have been
made that require ongoing implementation or action on the part of an
industry or community, oversight committees have occasionally been set
up. They usually review progress made in carrying out decisions, discuss
problems that arise, and report their findings to industry, community, and
government.
• Independent Constructive Engagement Organizations. There are some
interesting examples (see for example the Silicon Valley Pollution
Prevention Center case study) of independent organizations formed for
the purpose of organizing and promoting Constructive Engagement efforts
among communities, workers, industry, and government. These
organizations typically receive public or foundation support, but are
occasionally funded by industries as well. They usually concern themselves
with issues that go beyond a single facility, unless that facility is very large.
• Multi-level Interrelated Constructive Engagement Efforts. Constructive
Engagement does not occur in a vacuum. Typically, Constructive
Engagement efforts occur alongside other public involvement activities.
Often there are different Constructive Engagement efforts taking place
around the same issues. For example, a citizen advisory committee may
exist alongside a stakeholder negotiation or formal mediation.
The process of Constructive Engagement is creative and allows for variety in
design and operation for each situation. There are many variations on Constructive
Engagement, and within each of these examples, there are many different
approaches. New and creative approaches frequently emerge.
This guide suggests when different kinds of Constructive Engagement may be
appropriate and offers general advice on designing and operating a Constructive
Engagement process. It is not intended to limit your ideas about different
approaches that might be effective for you. For Constructive Engagement to work,
it must be tailored to each specific community, industry and regulatory situation.
10
-------
Types of Issues
Constructive Engagement efforts have addressed many issues related to how the
computer and electronics industry activities have affected communities and
workers, including:
• Location of new facilities
• Expansion of existing operations
• Regulations of many types of potentially harmful emissions
• Worker safety and health
• Regulatory relief efforts
• Traffic, noise, odor, and aesthetics
• Emergency notification and response
• Waste disposal procedures
• Regulatory initiatives
• Cleanup of contaminated sites
• Social issues such as housing and employment
• Pollution prevention
• Education and job preparation.
The nature of the issue helps shape the Constructive Engagement process.
For example, regulatory relief efforts generally require a stakeholder negotiation
process, while issues such as traffic and noise pollution are often handled by citizen
advisory groups. To determine the appropriate type of Constructive Engagement
process, it is important to be clear about your goal. If you want to have an agreement
among interest groups that they will support and carry out, stakeholder negotiations
are probably indicated. If your goal is to promote more open, informal, and
cooperative ongoing communications between a company and community, then
a citizen advisory process may be more appropriate.
What Challenges Must Be Met for a Constructive
Engagement Process to Be Successful?
General Challenges
For a Constructive Engagement endeavor to be successful, there are several key
challenges that must be faced:
• A clear purpose for the process must be articulated. While it is normal
for participants to have different goals, it is important to have a commonly
accepted understanding of the purpose for the process. The purpose
statement should identify the scope of issues to be addressed, the level of
decision-making (e.g., advisory input, recommendation, or decision), and
the anticipated time span of the effort.
11
-------
The amount of effort it
takes to engage in a
successful Constructive
Engagement process is
often underestimated.
12
A credible means of initiating the process must be established. How the
group is initially organized, participants recruited, a clear purpose
articulated, and initial staffing provided are critical. There are many different
ways to begin Constructive Engagement processes. Community groups
may request them, government entities may initiate them, or companies
may organize them. The credibility of the initiator and the convening
process creates credibility for the Constructive Engagement effort itself. If
the initiator is not credible, key potential participants may be lost, or
important groups may dismiss the output of the group.
Appropriate participation must be obtained. This may be the hardest
challenge of all. Participants must be credible, effective, cooperative,
committed, and diverse enough to accomplish the tasks of the Constructive
Engagement effort. They must be articulate, persuasive, and able to make
meaningful contributions. They must be able to forward their
interests in both an assertive and constructive manner. Other
issues to consider: Should participants serve as individuals or
as representatives of particular constituencies or organizations?
What role should regional or national interest groups play? How
should the facility be represented?
• Adequate resources must be provided to accomplish the
task. The amount of effort it takes to engage in a successful
Constructive Engagement process is often underestimated.
Sufficient resources are needed for staffing, expert consultation,
facilitation or mediation as appropriate, effective communication
procedures, and meeting facilities. Insufficiently staffed and
funded efforts can actually make matters worse by leading to delays, slow
responses to information requests, poorly drafted documents, and a general
sense that people's concerns are not being taken seriously.
• An effective process needs to be designed. The design should address
such issues as ground rules, conducting meetings, decision-making, and
disseminating information to participants.
• Mechanisms are needed for addressing power issues among stakeholder
groups. All stakeholders should be able to participate effectively so that
one set of interests does not dominate another. Different interests should
be adequately represented; discrepancies regarding access to funds and
technical expertise should be addressed; meetings should be scheduled to
encourage broad participation; the process should be clear, understandable,
accessible, and open; and participants should have meaningful influence
over both procedural and substantive issues.
• Frequently, attention must be given to a history of conflict or problematic
personal or organizational relations. Constructive Engagement processes
are often characterized by positive relations, but there may also be a history
of previous conflict. Sometimes, participants have been involved in legal,
political, or media battles, and occasionally these are ongoing. This dynamic
can put participants in the situation of worrying whether they can
effectively "make peace and make war" at the same time, a particularly
-------
troublesome issue if an effective process requires the disclosure of sensitive
information. In these situations, a relationship building or conflict
resolution procedure is often needed as an integral part of Constructive
Engagement activities.
• Sensitivity to cross-cultural issues needs to be built into Constructive
Engagement procedures. There are a variety of cultural issues that are
reflected in most Constructive Engagement activities. First, the cultures of
the corporate world, workers, community groups, advocacy organizations,
and government officials are very different. There are often class, gender,
age, and ethnic differences as well. Sometimes there are language and other
communication barriers that need to be addressed. A genuine Constructive
Engagement process must develop the capacity to bridge these cultural
differences. This involves more than lip service to diversity; it requires a
genuine appreciation for the way different groups approach dialogue,
consensus building, decision-making and conflict resolution.
There are also specific challenges facing communities, workers, industry and
government. While these may not be the exclusive issues of any one group, they
may be more prevalent concerns to one group than another.
Challenges for Communities
Many of the challenges of Constructive Engagement for communities arise because
of limited financial means and lack of technical expertise. Community groups
must decide whether to devote their limited resources to Constructive Engagement
endeavors. Resource issues frequently affect community groups' access to the
process. They often need outside support in order to participate in an effective
way. Other issues have to,do with representing, informing, and bringing along the
constituencies they represent. Specific challenges for communities include:
• Limited time. Even established and well-funded advocacy organizations
usually only have limited time to devote to Constructive Engagement
activities, which can save time in the long run, but tend to be very labor
intensive. The major asset of most voluntary groups is the donated time
of their members. If there are paid staff, they tend to be thinly stretched
among multiple commitments. Sometimes, project participation depends
more on whether anyone is willing to devote time to it than whether the
project is worthwhile. As a result, many community groups must make
difficult choices about allocating time and staff, especially if a group is
considering legal action or a public initiative as an alternative to
Constructive Engagement. Preparing for both at once is sometimes
impossible, making the decision to participate in Constructive Engagement
particularly risky from a community point of view.
• Funding and resource needs. Community groups often have little, if any,
funding to devote to a Constructive Engagement process, so they may
have to accept a process funded by other groups or devote time to
fundraising. Community groups need access to independent resources,
especially when they want to participate fully and do not want to depend
, on other participants to provide resources.
13
-------
14
• Developing technical expertise. Many community representatives develop
impressive levels of expertise about technical issues. Nonetheless, they
are usually not technical specialists. There are two related problems they
face in this respect: 1) interpreting and evaluating proposals based on
complicated data, and 2) judging the credibility of the data itself. Since
many efforts hinge on data, its credibility is a major issue that must be
settled to everyone's satisfaction. Credibility is enhanced if community
representatives have access to independent technical experts and if they
participate in designing new studies and collecting information.
• Distinguishing genuine Constructive Engagement efforts from public
relations gestures. Community groups are particularly concerned about
being used as "tokens," so a government agency or an industry can say
they received wide support or extensive public input for their actions.
Participants probably approach most Constructive Engagement initiatives
with a complicated array of motives. They often experience a genuine
desire to work together and they also hope to appear cooperative and
open to the public. Under these circumstances, it becomes especially
important to community participants to ensure they are not being "used"
primarily for public relations. How can you evaluate this objectively?
Perhaps the main motivation for a company or government agency does
not matter as long as everyone is genuinely trying to work on each other's
concerns. Assessing and cultivating the efforts others are willing to make
to address the community's concerns may be the real challenge.
• Accountability to constituents. Some very effective Constructive
Engagement efforts have floundered because representatives of important
constituencies lost credibility with their own groups. It is important for
representatives to keep their constituencies informed and to make sure
they do not become isolated from the people they represent. If meetings
are closed, information is confidential, and clear communication channels
between representatives and their constituents do not exist, this is difficult.
There are many ways to handle this issue, but it should not be ignored.
• Community organizing versus Constructive Engagement. Community
groups often use petition drives, demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns,
and similar advocacy actions to build support for an organization and focus
attention on an issue. It is harder to organize around participation in a
collaborative dialogue. Community groups sometimes need the time to
organize and coalesce before they can effectively focus on problem solving
or negotiation. This need can sometimes contradict the desire for prevention
or early intervention in potentially conflictual situations. If a community
group is primarily focused on galvanizing support among its constituents, it
may be hard for it to participate in Constructive Engagement activities.
• Dealing with in-group conflict. Voluntary organizations have different
accountability and decision-making structures than companies or
government agencies. As a result, they are often faced with a complicated
internal negotiating process when participating in certain types of
Constructive Engagement processes, such as stakeholder negotiations. In
-------
order to participate effectively they have to develop practical mechanisms
for addressing internal differences (including ideological ones) about how
to approach the issues under discussion. Otherwise they will have little
room to maneuver in the negotiation process. Most successful negotiations
require give-and-take on each side of the table as well as across the table.
Challenges for Workers
Worker participation in Constructive Engagement is often overlooked, even though
workers are affected by many of the same environmental concerns, exposures and
health consequences that communities are, and are intimately
connected to the actual facilities. In fact, legal limits on worker
exposure to many chemicals are not as stringent as those in the Clean
Air Act. Community groups and workers sometimes unite because of
a shared concern about an industry or governmental activity. Workers
share many of the challenges community groups face, such as limited
resources, and distinguishing genuine Constructive Engagement from
public relations gestures. However, workers also have unique
challenges, and sometimes workers' concerns conflict with those of
the community. Specific challenges for workers include:
• Fear of retribution. All workers, whether organized or
unorganized, deserve to be protected from retaliation for raising
difficult issues. Workers are legally protected from such
retaliation, but they may not be aware of their rights or
comfortable about the strength of the protection. Most
Constructive Engagement processes have ground rules that
address all participants' concerns about what they say and the
information they disclose. Workers still may have concerns
about whether their participation will adversely affect dieir jobs,
and need to be aware of how their activities might be perceived
and the consequences they may face. This concern is affected
by the type of Constructive Engagement process, the company's commitment
to genuine employee participation, and the general state of labor-management
relations at the facility.
• Jobs versus the environment. Workers depend on the economic livelihood
of the company for their jobs. Whether measures to improve environmental
performance substantially increase a facility's operational costs or whether
this is simply a perception, issues are sometimes seen as trade-offs between
environmental protection and job security. This presents a dilemma for
workers because they value their health and the local environment as do
neighboring communities, but they also need jobs. Furthermore, there
are chemicals identified in the Clean Air Act for which there are no
occupational limits. Workers should beware of decisions in which risks
are shifted to them in the process of improving environmental performance.
Sometimes worker participation in Constructive Engagement can help
bring about creative solutions that protect jobs, workers' health, and the
environment, but this is not always easy.
15
-------
• Maintaining independence from other stakeholders. Workers may find
themselves caught in the middle between company economic concerns
and the health and environmental concerns of neighboring communities.
Their support is often sought by competing interest groups. Workers should
remain vigilant about maintaining their independence, and should keep
their own interests clearly in mind, while they consider forming alliances.
• Worker organization. When workers are organized, participation in
Constructive Engagement is easier, and the above challenges less daunting.
Whether this is through formal collective bargaining units, workers'
councils, or other internal systems of bringing workers together, such
organization makes it easier to bring worker input to a Constructive
Engagement effort in a systemic way. It also can provide individual
employees a "shield" for voicing opinions that may not be popular with
management. Workers need to consider carefully whether there exists an
effective and protected method for allowing them to present their concerns
or ideas and reflect on the issues being considered in the Constructive
Engagement process.
• Collective bargaining agreements and Constructive Engagement.
Collective bargaining agreements frequently contain provisions that may
impact or be impacted by Constructive Engagement activities. For example,
collective bargaining agreements often contain procedures for worker input
on health and safety issues. It is important to make sure that neither the
process nor the outcome of a Constructive Engagement activity contradicts
the collective bargaining agreement. A collective bargaining process can
work very well with Constructive Engagement activities if attention is
given to their potential to enhance or to interfere with each other.
Challenges for Industry
Regardless of the genuine motivation companies may have for being "good
neighbors" and responsible corporate citizens, they must also be attentive to the
bottom-line business consequences of their activities. For the most part, the public
does not see the computer and electronics industry as a major source of
environmental concern. As a result, the prospect of engaging with community
groups, environmental advocates, and workers about potentially divisive issues
can seem like opening a "can of worms." It is natural to want to avoid controversy.
Specific challenges for industry in Constructive Engagement are:
• Opening an issue for public scrutiny. Since the computer and electronics
industry often has either a low profile or a positive public image in
communities, many managers would prefer not to attract attention or raise
concerns about their company. The question is: Will a Constructive
Engagement process serve more to stir up an issue than to resolve it?
While Constructive Engagement processes can focus attention on a
particular activity or potential impact in the short run, an on-going and
trusting relationship with community and workers' organizations can help
facilities deal with difficult issues when they arise in the future.
16
-------
Incorporating Constructive Engagement into a business or project
planning process. The computer and electronics industry is particularly
concerned with issues of "time compression." Will a Constructive
Engagement process speed up the time-frame for launching a new facility,
product, or process, or slow it down? While the alternative to Constructive
Engagement may be even more unpredictable, it is challenging to base a
business plan on the outcome of a process that is so variable and dependent
on individuals.
Sharing sensitive information. Effective Constructive Engagement often
requires discussions of potentially sensitive information. On the one hand,
withholding relevant information may make it difficult for a group to
discuss important issues and can also raise suspicions about company
motives. On the other hand, companies are
reluctant to share proprietary or unflattering
information in such an open forum. Before
committing to Constructive Engagement,
companies must assess what information they are
willing to share, what they want to keep
confidential and how this will affect the process.
• Assessing the credibility of community
representatives. Industries are sometimes tempted
to solicit the participation of community members
whom they view as sympathetic to them and then
to assume they have achieved a genuine
engagement with the public. Sometimes people
claim to speak for the community, when they have
a very particular viewpoint or little genuine
connection to the community at all. It is difficult
for industry to know who is credible with different segments of the public.
This is one reason why carefully identifying and recruiting participants is
so important.
• Empowering a Constructive Engagement structure. Industry must decide
how much authority should be given to a Constructive Engagement group.
Sometimes this is not at issue, but often there is some leeway in how
much power a group is granted. Will they be asked to make formal
recommendations? How much power will those recommendations carry?
To whom will the groups report? In practice, advisory groups are usually
quite comfortable with their role. Nonetheless, there is often a relationship
between the level of authority given to a Constructive Engagement group
and the amount of credibility the process has with the public.
• Funding the process. Sometimes a company is the only readily available
source of funds. However, if industry funds the process, the process may
be perceived as belonging to the company.
It is important for
representatives to keep their
constituencies informed and
to make sure they do not
become isolated from the
people they represent.
17
-------
18
Challenges for Government
Government officials often find themselves in multiple, and sometimes conflicting,
roles when dealing with public participation processes. Constructive Engagement
presents some particular challenges in this respect:
• Role as convening authority. Government agencies often have the authority,
prestige, and resources to get a Constructive Engagement effort going, but
they act as the convening authority. Under whose auspices should the
Constructive Engagement process take place? Government officials are
often caught between competing groups who struggle mightily to pull
them in opposite directions. Government agencies frequently have access
to most of the potential participants and often see themselves as being
neutral. However, this is a perception that is often not shared by other
parties. Government agencies usually have important interests of their
own. Regulations, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, sunshine
laws which require certain kinds of meetings to be open to the public, and
complicated contracting regulations come into play when government
officials initiate Constructive Engagement activities. When an activity is
sponsored by a government agency, participants sometimes feel that the
results should have official standing, even when a group is organized for
advisory purposes.
• Roles of individual agency representatives. Government employees can
have several roles in a Constructive Engagement process, so it is important
to clarify the role of each individual agency representative. Sometimes
government officials serve as staff to Constructive Engagement processes.
Sometimes they are participants who act as stakeholders, and sometimes
they facilitate Constructive Engagement activities. One responsibility of a
government agency is to represent the public interest, apart from its role
in organizing or conducting collaborative processes. These roles can be
conflicting. It is not unusual for government staff to split their
responsibilities, with some sitting in as participants and others as staff to a
process. Clarity of roles is especially important if the interests of a
government agency need to be represented in a Constructive Engagement
process. Trying to play too many roles at once can undercut the process
and the credibility of the official.
• Government funding. Government funding, as all funding, comes with
certain "strings" attached and accountability mechanisms. There are many
circumstances when it is neither politically nor financially feasible for
government agencies to fund a Constructive Engagement effort. On the
other hand, sometimes government provides the most neutral and
politically acceptable source of funds, and may actually be the only
participant with the necessary resources.
• Government as regulator, enforcer, and negotiator. There are times when
an agency's regulatory and enforcement role seems to contradict its role as
collaborative problem solver. It is important to know from the start how
government will use the output of a Constructive Engagement process
within the formal regulatory framework, so the group won't have mistaken
assumptions that could lead to distrust, suspicion, or cynicism.
-------
"Sunshine" versus confidentiality. Should Constructive Engagement
meetings be open to public attendance or should they be confidential?
Sometimes, Constructive Engagement processes are governed by
"sunshine" provisions, which require that policy-making meetings be open
to the public. At other times, even if there is no legal obligation to openness,
there is a significant public interest in having a "transparent" decision-
making process. On the other hand, private meetings can encourage certain
frank exchanges that might be more awkward in an open setting. Also,
there is sometimes confidential information that needs to be shared within
the Constructive Engagement group.
Representing the general public. Who represents the interests of the
general public? There is usually no shortage of people willing to claim
this role when controversial issues arise. Government officials may face
conflicting demands between representing the particular policies and
concerns of their agency and insuring that the general public is adequately
represented. Since participants in Constructive Engagement are not usually
chosen through an official public selection process, the general public is
not really officially represented. Normally, the public is assumed to be
represented through a balance of people representing key interests. This
assumption is not always valid, however, and this can put government
officials in an awkward position.
A Cautionary Note About Constructive Engagement
Constructive Engagement processes may have much to offer the various
stakeholders and the public at large. However, there are some significant potential
pitfalls as well.,Perhaps the most troublesome problem has to do with inequities
of power. Constructive Engagement requires participants to operate in a powerful
manner, so that no individual or group is overrun in the process. If a process is
not well constructed or if there are too many "hidden agendas," power
problems can easily arise. In some Constructive Engagement processes,
stakeholders from various sectors, are occasionally exposed to
considerable social and economic pressure to refrain from raising
significant concerns or to sign off on agreements despite their misgivings.
It is important to structure the process to ensure that all participants
are comfortable in raising their significant issues and withholding their
agreement until they are clear that their essential concerns have been
addressed. (For an example of the complexities of how this can play
out, see the case study on Intel Project XL in Appendix 1.)
Another concern is the time and resources required to conduct an
effective Constructive Engagement effort. Could these resources be better spent
in research, enforcement, environmental improvement, public education, or public
advocacy efforts? Clearly, the answer is sometimes "yes." Another issue is timeliness.
Constructive Engagement efforts take time. They can be used to delay
implementation of needed changes or impede work on a proposed plan. Sometimes,
the delay itself can prevent a potentially worthwhile development from taking
place at all. Such delays can be environmentally and economically costly. If there
19
-------
If there are too many
"hidden agendas," power
problems can easily arise.
is an alternative process that can occur more quickly, then the time that Constructive
Engagement takes can be a serious problem indeed. Furthermore, as with all
consensus-based activities, there is no guarantee of a successful outcome. There
are examples of Constructive Engagement activities that have not produced any
significant results.
As with any approach to dealing with complicated issues, the Constructive
Engagement process can be abused. All stakeholders should be alert to this
possibility. Participants could agree to be part of the process, but have no intention
of reconsidering or even reviewing their positions. Individuals might claim to
represent a group or to have decision-making authority from an organization when
the opposite is true. The process could be used to delay needed action or avoid
other responsibilities, or to thwart other stakeholders' advocacy activities. People
might participate primarily to promote their public image, or they could fail to
implement agreed-upon decisions.
For each of these potential problems, however, there is
also a potential benefit. Sometimes, more can be done to
empower individuals or organizations in a consensus-based
process than in a political or legal alternative approach that
favors people or organizations with financial resources and
political access. Often, it is more difficult to maintain
"hidden agendas" in a forum which encourages openness
and straightforward communication. Sometimes Constructive Engagement
dialogues help people separate their essential interests from more peripheral
concerns, so they can decide which issues are essential to raise and which do not
need to be decided in a consensus-based process. Under some circumstances,
considerably fewer resources are required to achieve certain goals through a
collaborative process than through the alternatives available to participants.
Constructive Engagement activities can sometimes move more quickly than other
alternatives and can rapidly lead to corrective actions, plan approval, or policy
development. While there is no guarantee of results in Constructive Engagement
efforts, there often is no guarantee in alternative procedures either, and the relative
openness of most Constructive Engagement processes can make them more
predictable than other approaches. While the process can be abused, it can also
lead to deeper understanding of others' goals and values, and therefore a greater
creativity and willingness to accommodate them.
It is important to be realistic about the potential pitfalls of Constructive
Engagement, and not to naively assume that collaborative efforts necessarily lead
to good results. On the other hand, it is also important to understand the problems
with the alternatives to Constructive Engagement. These problems have led people
to experiment with a variety of collaborative and consensus-based activities, such
as Constructive Engagement.
20
-------
Conclusion
There are many different approaches to Constructive Engagement; they all offer
ways for stakeholders to address issues of mutual concern. The issues outlined in
this chapter are not presented as reasons to avoid Constructive Engagement; they
are challenges that each group must face to decide whether and how to participate.
The many successful Constructive Engagement efforts that have taken place are
proof that these challenges can often be met and that by facing them, the
Constructive Engagement process becomes even more powerful and effective. The
rest of this resource guide helps you confront these challenges as you decide
whether and how to participate in Constructive Engagement.
Your first, and in some ways most important, challenge is to decide whether
to participate in a potential Constructive Engagement initiative at all. This challenge
is addressed in the next chapter.
21
-------
22
-------
Assessing Your Situation:
Is Constructive Engagement for You?
Constructive Engagement can provide a way for stakeholders to collectively address
important environmental issues, but how do you decide whether to participate in a
Constructive Engagement process? This chapter presents specific ideas, guidelines,
and tools to help you make your decision. It explores the question from the perspectives
of communities, workers, industry, and government, knowing each stakeholder group
has its own considerations.
Answering these questions will help you make a thoughtful, well-informed decision
about whether Constructive Engagement makes sense for you:
1. What do you hope to accomplish?
2. What resources are required?
3. What are the costs and benefits of Constructive Engagement?
4. How do you address the specific challenges that exist for your stakeholder
group?
5. What are your alternatives?
Question #1: What Do You Hope to Accomplish?
Whether you are a community, worker, industry, or government stakeholder, first
identify what you want to achieve and assess whether your goals are compatible with
the Constructive Engagement process. After you define what you want, you can
determine whether the process will serve your purpose. Because Constructive
Engagement processes vary, it is important to:
23
-------
24
• Identify the issues you want addressed. There is no set rule about what
you can and cannot address through a Constructive Engagement process.
Your issues may be ongoing or event-specific. They may be directly related
to facility operations or focused on community needs. Clarify the specific
issues you want to address, so you will be in a good position to assess
whether the process will meet your interests.
• Define your goals and objectives. Now that you know your issues, what
do you want to achieve? For example, if you are concerned about the
siting of a facility, is your objective to learn more about the siting? Provide
advice about how the siting should happen? Help to identify alternative
sites? Or prevent the siting? Clearly defined goals and objectives will help
you clarify your expectations and ascertain what needs to happen to make
your participation in Constructive Engagement worthwhile. If you do
decide to participate, they will also provide you with a way to measure
your success.
• Gather information about the process. Get enough information to know
exactly what you are committing to. If you are initiating the process, you
will likely have a good sense of what is involved; if not, gather details—
What are the goals of the Constructive Engagement process? What issues
will be addressed? Who initiated the process and who are the other
participants? What will your role be in the process and in decision-making?
(See Chapter 2, "General Challenges," for more information about the
issues you should consider.)
• Assess whether there is alignment between your goals and the process.
Of all the considerations you need to make, this one should "make or
break" your decision to participate. There is a degree of risk-taking involved
here because results must be projected. Realistically assess what
Constructive Engagement can and cannot provide, and decide if the
likelihood of achieving your goals is high. If a major gap exists between
your goals and the anticipated outcome of the process, discuss this with
other stakeholders. Perhaps you can change the process to better meet
your goals or maybe you need to reexamine them. If the process and your
purpose do not align, the wise choice for you may be to forgo participation.
The above steps focus primarily on self-assessment, as opposed to reflecting
on the motives, concerns, and interests of other stakeholders. However, it is
important that all participants' goals are compatible with the purpose of the
Constructive Engagement process, and that participants agree to the purpose of
the process itself. (These issues are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 4.)
Building Trust and Rapport: Is it One of Your Goals?
A common outcome of Constructive Engagement, particularly open-ended
processes, is better relationships between participants. For example, the Lead
Steering Committee process required community members in conflict to work
together in new ways. Participants gradually got to know each other, trust levels
increased, and unproductive antagonisms subsided. Community and government
agency representatives also formed closer ties. Though less tangible than other
-------
outcomes, these developments significantly impacted community relations,
relations between the community and the agencies, and, therefore, how the
community addressed the original issue of contamination.
Building trust and rapport may or may not be important to you. For some,
improving relationships among stakeholders is not a sufficient reason to participate,
but for others, building trust and rapport is a central goal. In general, relationship
building is most important when stakeholders are interdependent and have a long-
term interest in the future of their relationship. (Chapter 4 offers suggestions for
building trust and rapport during Constructive Engagement.)
Question #2: What Resources Are Required?
Participation in Constructive Engagement requires resources. What resources do
you have and how do you want to use them? Consider the following resource
categories:
• Staff—Are paid employees available?
• Volunteers—Community groups, in particular, rely on volunteers
to carry out the organization's work. Volunteers often undertake
their duties in addition to their jobs, so they are only available
evenings and weekends.
• Funding—Money is needed for meeting-related expenses,
technical assistance, and program costs.
• Skills and expertise—Collaboration is most successful when
participants have communication and negotiation skills and
understand the subject matter. While many Constructive
Engagement efforts provide technical assistance to participants,
some training may be necessary.
List your resource needs for the proposed Constructive Engagement activity
in each of the previous categories. After you have your resource list, ask yourself
the following questions:
• Which resources do I (or my group) have to provide?
• Which resources will be provided by someone else?
• Are these resources available on both a short- and long-term basis?
• Are certain resources available only for this Constructive Engagement
process and not available otherwise?
• When compared to the alternatives, is participation in a Constructive
Engagement process the best use of these resources?
• Is the anticipated outcome worth the investment of these resources?
Your answers to the above questions should provide you with a sense of whether
you have the resource capacity, in both the short- and long-term, to participate in
Constructive Engagement and whether doing so is a wise choice. (See "What Are
25
-------
the Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement" in this chapter for additional
guidance on resource use.)
Long-Term Considerations
One of the biggest challenges for stakeholders is maintaining support for
Constructive Engagement when business cycles and social trends fluctuate. When
business is booming, companies are more willing to devote resources to programs
that are deemed "nonessential" in harder economic times. For community
organizations, volunteers and financial contributions are more available when issues
are extensively covered in the media. For government agencies, resource availability
depends on government decision-making; budgets can be cut. Changes in the
economic, political, and social climate can increase or reduce the amount of
available resources. For this reason, consider resource needs and the factors that
could affect their availability over time.
Question #3: What Are the Costs
and Benefits of Constructive Engagement?
There are many ways you can evaluate the costs and benefits of Constructive
Engagement, although it may be difficult to quantify them because some are
intangible. Perhaps the hardest benefit to measure is the development of more
collaborative working relationships among participants. Over time, this may be
the most important benefit of Constructive Engagement. The most significant
intangible cost of participation may be the stress created
_,. .,77 ,7. , , by a change in the organizational culture of participants
Time is the largest direct cost ^ Con*mct^ En°agement often requirel
of participation and is the Even thoush the intangible risks and advantages of
J r r Constructive Engagement may be the most significant,
consider the tangible costs and benefits—these are usually
eflSieSt COSt tO measure. ^ criteria used to evaiuate the process. If you consider
the actual costs you spend on the process in terms of the
time and money (and perhaps the cost of the opportunities lost by not spending
those resources elsewhere), you can weigh these costs against the time and money
you save by not incurring legal and related costs in alternative processes. If you
are an industry stakeholder, take into account the money you save by shortening
the time it takes to initiate a new process, locate a new facility, and bring a new
product to market. Finally, consider the more rapid and complete achievement of
environmental and community benefits.
The next sections examine the costs and benefits of Constructive Engagement
from the dimensions of participation (occurring during the process) and outcome
(occurring as a result of the process). See also the sample worksheet in Appendix
3 detailing the costs and benefits of Constructive Engagement from an industrial
perspective.
26
-------
Participation Costs
Time is the largest direct cost of participation and is the easiest cost to measure
because it can be readily quantified. As an example, consider the time demands
of a typical stakeholder negotiation, consisting of convening, participating
in the process itself, and follow-up and maintenance.
The following formulas are rough estimates, based on assumptions for
the role of convenor, staff (this could be a government employee, industry
official, or anyone else who provides staff support to the process), participants,
and facilitator for a local, moderately-intensive stakeholder negotiation
process.
1.
2.
Convening: The process of bringing the parties to the table typically
takes anywhere from one to three months. The bulk of the preparatory
work is performed by the convenor who has to read many documents,
conduct interviews, produce reports, and hold conversations with
potential participants. The convenor can be a staff member or
someone brought in to conduct the process. If a convenor is hired,
the staff spends considerable time contracting with the convenor, reviewing
the convenor's work, and communicating with all of the involved parties.
Participants hold internal discussions and spend time deciding if and how
they want to participate in the Constructive Engagement effort.
A rough estimate of the average time involved for a convening process
would be:
Convenor
Participant
Staff
Participation in the Ongoing Process: Constructive Engagement processes
can last from two or three meetings to many years—the variation in length,
format, and intensity is great. For example, some processes have regular
one- to two-day meetings, with subcommittee meetings in between; others
involve two- to four-hour meetings on an intermittent basis. Participants
spend time preparing for, traveling to, and attending meetings. The
facilitator and staff spend time on those activities, and also provide
administrative support to the process. The facilitator can be a staff member
serving in that capacity, or someone hired to fill the role.
A typical format might require the following time commitment for each
cycle of plenary meetings:
27
-------
Participant
Staff
Facilitator
Plenary meeting
Plenary preparation and travel
Committee meetings between plenary
Committee preparation and travel
Plenary meeting
Plenary preparation and travel
Committee meetings between plenary
Committee preparation and travel
Other administrative support
Plenary meeting
Plenary preparation and travel
Committee meetings between plenary
Committee preparation and travel
Write up and distribution of minutes or reports
4
4
2
2
4
8
2
4
4
4
8
2
4
4
12
22
22
Assuming there are six cycles (bimonthly) of plenary and committee
meetings, the total time spent over one year would be:
ISP"
Participant
Staff
Facilitator
.BREAKDOWN
12 hours x 6 months
22 hours x 6 months
22 hours x 6 months
72
132
132
3. Follow-up and Maintenance: Normally, there is follow-up activity after a
stakeholder negotiation is completed to fine-tune written documents,
follow up on commitments, explain the results to others, and meet
periodically to review and update aspects of the agreement.
Assuming a moderate level of follow-up and maintenance for three months,
the time commitment might look something like this:
28
-------
*AcrivfifV™~
HOURS
4. Total Time Spent: Here is an overview of the total time commitment for the
steps outlined above:
Convenor 140
Participant 30
Staff 120
Facilitator —
72
132
132
16
24
24
140
118
276
156
TOTAlTHOURS
PERSON)
Participant
Staff
Facilitator
Attend meetings, hearings, public meetings, etc.
Review and comment on documents and other products
Miscellaneous follow-up activities
Attend meetings, hearings, public meetings, etc.
Review and comment on documents and other products
Miscellaneous follow-up activities
Attend meetings, hearings, public meetings, etc.
Review and comment on documents and other products
Miscellaneous follow-up activities
8
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
24
24
The above table illustrates the total amount of time required for one person
to participate in a stakeholder negotiation in the role of convenor,
participant, staff, or facilitator. To calculate the total amount of time
required of the process, it would be necessary to multiply the number of
participants by the total number of hours for each role. For example, a
stakeholder negotiation with one convenor, six participants, two staff, and
one facilitator would result in the following:
_
Convenor
Participant
Staff
Facilitator
TOTAL
LiM^lHlll
1 x 140 hours
6 x 118 hours
2 x 276 hours
1 x 156 hours
HOURSJ
140
708
552
156
1556
In addition to time, other sources of direct participation costs include:
• Travel expenses
• Meeting costs: facility, refreshments, audio visual
29
-------
30
• Production and distribution of materials
• Telephone and fax charges
• Education and training expenses
• Technical expert expenses.
In addition to the direct costs of participation, remember the less tangible ones.
For community groups, it can be practically and emotionally difficult to participate
in Constructive Engagement and advocate in more adversarial arenas as well. For
workers, the concern about retribution can be very stressful. For companies, there
is often a significant internal price to pay to change the prevailing organizational
culture. For many government officials, there is a fear that the scientific basis of
their work may be compromised through the process.
Participation Benefits
Why do many participants in a Constructive Engagement process say they would
do it again, in spite of the time and costs involved? The most prevalent answer is
that effective communication and good working relationships between government,
companies, workers, and communities are extremely important. Short-term costs
or risks pale in comparison to the long-term advantages of constructive
relationships. In theory, the benefits of good working relationships can be measured,
but in practice this is very difficult. Here are some other participation benefits:
• Company input. An opportunity to have in-depth and ongoing input into
company operations can be a great benefit for communities and workers.
There are many limits on what a company can be forced to do by
government regulators, but there are fewer limits on what a company might
agree to do to meet community concerns through a Constructive
Engagement process.
• Resource gains. Communities and workers are valuable resources because
companies learn things from them that they would not know otherwise.
This enables companies to develop appropriate responses, including
preventive approaches, to community and worker concerns.
• More neutral forum. Government officials are often caught in the middle
of competing pressures from industry, workers, and communities and also
face political demands from elected officials. Constructive Engagement is
not a panacea, but it can help key parties resolve their own issues, allowing
government officials to participate in a less politically-charged way.
Outcome Costs
The greatest outcome costs of Constructive Engagement result when the process
does not turn out as hoped and anticipated:
• Input vs. outcome. From a community and worker perspective, perhaps
the greatest potential cost is using a great deal of time and not addressing
the most pressing and genuine problems. It is very important, therefore,
for communities and workers to be realistic about the time commitment
and to assess the likelihood of a constructive outcome.
-------
• Unmet expectations. For a company, a potential risk is having the group
raise an issue for discussion (which might not otherwise be scrutinized),
and then raise expectations that cannot be met. If participants are
disappointed, they may call the legitimacy of the process into question.
• Uncertainty. Government agencies often have deadlines—typically judicial
or administrative—to bring certain problems to closure. Constructive
Engagement can help meet deadlines, but the timing of the process may
be unpredictable and sometimes can even stretch out a timeline.
Additionally, government regulators often feel like they are moving into
uncharted waters when they try to solve problems in a less familiar forum.
Outcome Benefits
It is extremely difficult to predict outcome benefits, but if participants have
considered the costs of an administrative, legal, or political process, they can
roughly calculate the comparative costs of different processes. Outcome benefits
can be realized by:
• Saved time and costs. There are savings, in both time and costs, in not
using public hearings, court processes, and complicated permitting
procedures. Constructive Engagement may reduce the time it takes to obtain
a permit, with additional revenue derived from the earlier production of a
product as the benefit. Likewise, there may be tangible financial gains to a
community from addressing an environmental problem more quickly (such
as improved property values or improved community health and welfare).
• More efficient business practices. If an agreement produces a streamlined
approach to reporting requirements, this can increase efficiency and
translate into lower production costs. Although companies usually draw
clear boundaries when it comes to input on their management practices,
stakeholders provide valuable insight that can enhance operations.
• Improved environmental results. Improving environmental management
practices is a main impetus behind Constructive Engagement activities.
Collaborative processes can achieve significant long-term environmental
and health benefits.
• Community building. Constructive Engagement processes often bring
diverse members of the community together who otherwise would not
work with one another. Further, the benefits a company brings to a
community are more likely to be maximized through Constructive
Engagement because the community can directly communicate its needs.
• Good relationships. Companies need good relationships with their
communities. Communities may not be able to prevent a company from doing
certain things, but they can make every permit application and every public
hearing much more difficult. Furthermore, bad community relations are almost
always bad for a company's public image. On a positive note, harmonious
community relationships can contribute to better worker relations, more rapid
permitting, and much higher morale for company employees.
31
-------
In the end, there are always both tangible and intangible costs and benefits to
every process dealing with public issues. It is often easier to put actual figures to
the costs than to the benefits. The Constructive Engagement approach is much
newer than most approaches, so while its potential benefits are great, the risks are
associated with moving into somewhat uncharted waters.
The following tables, developed by community and industry stakeholders who
contributed to this guide, summarize some general costs and benefits that industry
and community groups should consider. (For an industry representative's approach
to evaluating the costs and benefits of Constructive Engagement, see Appendix
3.) Workers and government stakeholders are encouraged to develop their own
comparisons of Constructive Engagement costs and benefits.
Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement for Industry
_________^^
Start-up costs and time required
Cost of recruiting community
participants
Meeting costs
Administrative labor and
materials costs
Internal labor costs—industry
reps
External labor: facilitator,
translator, technical assistance/
advice, technical studies, travel
32
May lead to fewer hearing requests;
faster permitting
Increased revenue from faster
permitting
Reduced cost of permit hearings
Avoidance of multiple layers of
complex and contradictory
regulations
Increased revenue from quicker
zoning change
Reduced cost of zoning hearings
Increased revenue from faster
process change
Reduced cost of permitting for
process change
Elimination of abatement/
operation restrictions
Better relations with community
and regulators
Improved worker productivity
Reduced time and expense of
adversarial processes
Improved community image
through increased communication
with public
Expanded knowledge base—
additional sources of information,
fresh perspectives, and new
solutions
-------
Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement for Communities
Time
Frustration/difficulty in
participation in stakeholder
process given short-term
economic pressures (time
pressures) that dominate the
computer and electronics
industry
Possibility of focusing on small
gestures rather than more serious
environmental problems
Some Constructive Engagement
programs may marginalize or
neutralize environmentalists
Lost opportunity for publicity or
precedents that may result from
adversarial processes
Increased accountability of the
industry to the community
(increased community input into
facility decisions that have
environmental and other impacts
on the community)
Increased knowledge of
environmental information from
industry
Improved health of citizens and
workers, without loss of jobs
Cleaner environment (superior
environmental performance)
Sustainable communities
Avoid having to engage in a costly
and time consuming adversarial
process
Clearer idea of community goals;
cooperative community spirit
Question #4: How Do You Address the Specific
Challenges Facing Your Stakeholder Group?
Chapter 2 presented specific stakeholder challenges when deciding to participate,
or actually participating, in Constructive Engagement. This section provides
guidance to help you address some of those issues.
Communities
To participate effectively in a Constructive Engagement process, your organization
or group must be in a good position to participate and view the process as legitimate.
Otherwise, your gains from participation will likely be minimal.
In both the Romic and Intel cases, the concerns of some community
stakeholders were so great that they decided not to participate in the Constructive
Engagement process. In the Romic example, while some community members
chose to become involved in the company's Community Advisory Panel, others
did not believe their goals could be achieved through the company-initiated process.
In the Intel example, some community organizations declined to participate because
they did not feel the Constructive Engagement process was fair, in terms of
community and worker representation, meeting accessibility, and the availability
of independent technical resources.
33
-------
34
To assess your situation, consider the following questions:
Readiness to Participate
• Is the timing right for your organization to participate in a collaborative
dialogue process? Is your group sufficiently organized? Examine your
organization and constituency, asking these questions:
• Is there sufficient institutional support for the effort?
• What kind of membership support exists?
• Is it enough to support the Constructive Engagement effort?
• Will more support come through another approach such as continued
organizing, activism, or litigation?
• Will participation be on an "even playing field" with other stakeholders or
do you need more membership support and/or resources for that purpose?
• Is there agreement on why you want to participate in Constructive
Engagement, i.e., your organization's goals?
• Is there an understanding of how participation in a collaborative effort fits
in with your organization's mission and long-term goals?
• Will your members view participation as "making deals with the enemy,"
"selling out," or co-optation?
• Will your constituency support your representative to the Constructive
Engagement process?
• Are there well-developed internal communication channels?
Concerns About Legitimacy of the Process
One of the biggest concerns of community organizations who participate in
Constructive Engagement is whether the process is legitimate. In other words, do
the other stakeholders genuinely desire collaboration or is the forum being used
for other purposes, such as public relations?
Determine whether your group views the Constructive Engagement process
as legitimate, or at least having the potential to become legitimate if changes were
made. If your constituency has doubts, you may experience in-group conflict over
participation. You can use the following as initial indicators that the process is
legitimate:
• The purpose of Constructive Engagement is well defined. The convenor
is explicit about the intentions of the process, or the stakeholder group
works together in developing common goals.
• Your role is clear; you know you are there to give advice, make
recommendations, reach consensus decisions, etc.
• A feedback loop exists, so you know how your feedback is used or why it
is not used, particularly when the group is advisory.
• Information is shared openly. Although this may be difficult to assess prior
-------
to meeting, pay attention to whether information requests are honored,
and credible independent technical assistance is available.
• The group functions independently. Participants, with or without
the assistance of a neutral facilitator, share the tasks of setting
agendas, conducting meetings, and organizing work.
• Process decisions are made by the group. Participants develop and
make decisions about ground rules, membership criteria, and other
policies related to the process itself.
You need to trust the fairness of the process, so the above elements should
be present to the extent necessary to establish that trust.
Workers
Workers often offer a big advantage in Constructive Engagement because their
interests overlap with facility management and the community. In the Sheldahl
case, workers wanted to reduce their exposure to the chemical methylene chloride,
which was also important to Northfield citizens. They also wanted to keep the
Northfield plant open, an interest of the Sheldahl company stakeholders.
Constructive Engagement provided an opportunity to address both sets of concerns,
and workers became a valuable link between the other two stakeholder groups.
If you are a worker at a facility, participating in Constructive Engagement is
probably a new experience. Whether Constructive Engagement is something you
are considering for the first time, or whether you have been involved in previous
efforts, here are some questions you might consider:
• What are your interests? To what extent are they similar to those of
management and to those of community groups? Is this the best forum in
which to pursue your interests?
• Is any group (management or community) trying to use you to support
their position? What do you stand to gain?
• What will your role be? Who will you represent?
• How will your work setting (team-based or not, unionized or not) affect
your participation?
• Will you be able to freely express your opinions, given the facility's culture
and level of commitment to employee participation?
• What safeguards will be built into the process so that you will not fear
retribution if you express disagreement with management?
• Is Constructive Engagement an opportunity to have more influence than
you would otherwise?
• Are workers at the facility reasonably united in their goals?
• Will you be able to choose your own representatives, or will management
pick them?
• Is there a way to make sure your representatives speak for the facility
workers as a whole?
35
-------
36
• Will representatives be allowed time during work hours to consult with
other workers in order to remain accountable to them?
• Can participation in Constructive Engagement be coordinated with the
collective bargaining process and agreement?
Industry
Consider your company. Can it support your participation in Constructive
Engagement? Review your company's organizational structure and analyze its
internal capacity to participate effectively in a collaborative process.
Organizational "Fit"
How well does Constructive Engagement fit within your organizational structure?
Where will Constructive Engagement "live" within your company? This guide
provides many examples of how Constructive Engagement fits within different
companies' organizational structures.
In the Sybron Chemicals case, the vice president of manufacturing convened a
team of top managers from different departments to develop and implement the
company's community relations program. In the Romic example, the company's
community relations program is centralized in a single department and overseen
by a manager of community relations. Both approaches contain advantages and
disadvantages. Your task is to determine how Constructive Engagement will be
integrated into the structure of your company.
The following questions can guide your assessment:
• Will the effort be the responsibility of one department or a joint endeavor
of several departments?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches?
• Who will oversee the effort?
• Who will manage the project on a daily basis?
• Who will serve as die company representative(s) in meetings, negotiations, etc?
• How will employees be involved?
• How will the outcomes be communicated to others in the company?
Internal Support for Constructive Engagement
In the majority of the case examples, including Vulcan, Romic, Shell, Lucent, Rohm
and Haas, and Sybron, high-level champions inside the company, at both the facility
and corporate levels, are crucial in initiating and sustaining company participation
in Constructive Engagement. Support from key managers, including plant
managers, also lends legitimacy to the process for the other stakeholders.
Representatives from community groups, in particular, believe top-level
management participation shows the company is taking the process seriously. Their
confidence in the process is bolstered by the presence of individuals with decision-
making authority and the power to implement decisions and recommendations.
-------
Flexibility
Chapter 2 poses the question of how much authority should be vested in a
Constructive Engagement effort. Company stakeholders sometimes experience
tension over how to be flexible while still working within
the boundaries of the Constructive Engagement process.
One of their biggest concerns is that the group will want
more influence over company policies and operations than
the company deems appropriate, particularly in situations
where community stakeholders serve in an advisory
capacity. For this reason, discuss decision-making authority
up front and know what will happen with the group's input.
If you do not demonstrate to the group that its concerns and contributions carry
any weight, participants may question the legitimacy of the process.
If you are a company stakeholder, you can further reduce some of the tension
by doing the following:
• Secure internal commitment and support for Constructive Engagement
prior to participation.
• Be clear about your goals and the goals of Constructive Engagement with
other stakeholders.
• Be clear about the role you want the group to play in your company's
decision-making.
• Select company representatives with decision-making and implementation
authority.
• Make sure communication channels among all stakeholders are well
developed, including the feedback loop.
• Determine whether the company is willing to adopt and implement the
recommendations of the Constructive Engagement process.
Government
If you are a government stakeholder, ask yourself what your reason is for being at
the table. In answering this question, consider your potential role, as well as the
larger context in which you operate.
Defining a Role
As you decide whether to participate, consider your potential role. Your presence
should add value to the process, empower the group, provide participants with
something they cannot access or achieve without your participation, and further
the goals of your agency.
You can serve many roles in any given Constructive Engagement process, so
your first step is to define what your role(s) will be. Are you there to:
• Provide information?
• Gather information?
• Serve as a moderating force?
Where will Constructive
Engagement "live" within
your company?
37
-------
• Help forge consensus?
• Set parameters on what the parties can do?
• Enforce regulatory obligations?
• Forward agency interests?
• Represent parts of the public?
• Help the parties implement their decisions?
Do you want to emphasize one particular dimension of your participation or balance
several roles at once? In either case, you will need to distinguish between the role
you want to play and the ones others will assume.
Your regulatory role will also influence your decision about the role you'll
play because Constructive Engagement is, among other things, a mechanism to
enhance regulatory frameworks, not a process for parties to use to delay or avoid
their regulatory obligations. If there is a conflict between your role as the enforcer
of environmental regulations and your role in Constructive Engagement, reconsider
whether participation in Constructive Engagement is appropriate.
Another potential role for government is convenor of the process. The Lead
Steering Committee case illustrates a situation in which two state agencies convened
a community committee to help facilitate cleanup of a contaminated site. They
assumed the role of convenor because the conflict within the
community was so great that intervention by another party was
needed. The state agencies were viewed as a legitimate convenor
because their presence was instrumental to the cleanup effort. If
you are contemplating a role as convenor of the process, you should
have a clear sense of why you are initiating the effort and whether
the other parties will view you as a legitimate convening authority.
As you decide -whether
to participate, consider
your potential role.
Political Considerations
Your decision to participate in Constructive Engagement will be influenced by
political considerations, both internal and external. Like any other endeavor, your
ability to effectively engage depends on whether it is politically feasible for you to
do so. Be realistic in your assessment.
There are three dimensions to this issue: 1) the internal climate, 2) the external
stakeholder environment, and 3) the broader political context. Will you get the
support you need from within your agency to carry through your efforts? Are
stakeholders pulling you in different directions and should you sort this out before
committing to Constructive Engagement? Are there broader issues, such as a
department or agency reorganization or an election that will impact you? These
are questions you should ask in assessing your political environment.
38
Question #5: What Are Your Alternatives?
Evaluate all of your options before deciding whether to engage in a Constructive
Engagement process. In some cases, Constructive Engagement may be the best
-------
option for all stakeholders. In other cases, it may not be the best way to achieve
your goals. Being aware of your alternatives enhances your ability to participate
wisely. If you enter Constructive Engagement knowing where you stand, you will
be in a better position to collaborate with others.
Communities
For communities, your alternatives to Constructive Engagement span a range of
options. Within the environmental community, and particularly within the
environmental justice movement, an ongoing debate exists over whether dialogue
processes ultimately result in a compromise of values and principles. The complex
issue of power influences this discussion. Within the larger context of your
organization's ideology and belief structure, this debate may play a significant role
as you consider your alternatives to Constructive Engagement.
Here are some of the main alternatives you might consider, including potential
pros and cons:
ALTERNATIVE
..«* ^iSid3«ai, .^.Jiii* _^._ .m A ut,^^^
TPROS
Take no further action on this
issue(s)
Continue current strategy
Increase levels of direct citizen
action
Use a formal mechanism—
litigation
No further resource
expenditures
Can focus on other issues/
campaigns
Can pursue original goals
without fear of compromise
Avoid having to adjust to
changes produced by
adopting a new strategy,
including different resource
needs
Can pursue original goals
without fear of compromise
Increased pressure on
company or agency
Issues are brought to the
wider public's attention
Can increase negotiating
power if collaboration
occurs in the future
Rights-based approach
Will likely result in a
decision
Can result in enforcement
of protection laws,
punishment of perpetrators
Unlikely to achieve goals
Issue may still be important
Resources invested already
are lost
May not make further
progress toward achieving
goals
Effort may not be
sustainable
Constituency may lose
interest
May require more resources
Conflict may escalate
Other stakeholders may be
less likely to consider
collaboration in future
Can be more costly than
other approaches
Less control of outcome
Interests may or may not be
met
39
-------
Workers
For workers, alternatives to Constructive Engagement exist along two dimensions:
follow traditional procedures—like individual grievances and collective
bargaining—or try to increase your influence through organizing and alliance
building. Your alternatives include individual strategies, collective approaches,
and combinations of the two. Like Constructive Engagement, some of your
alternatives may involve forging new ground.
Here are some of the main alternatives you might consider, including potential
pros and cons:
Take no action on this issue(s)
Pursue individual strategies
• follow grievance
procedures
Try to effect change within
company
PROS
CONS
No energy or time
commitment
Fears of retribution
eliminated
Can focus on other issues/
campaigns
Institutionalized
mechanism
Rights are protected
May result in individual
gains
Pragmatic
May be able to influence
management structures and
decision-making
Establishes a collaborative
atmosphere with
management—may be
useful for many issues
Most common approach in
non-unionized industry
• Unlikely to achieve goals
• Issue may still be important
• Resources invested already
are lost
• May not make further
progress toward achieving
broader goals
• Will not realize benefits of
collective action
Reliant on management to
be receptive to efforts
Does not incorporate the
concerns of other
stakeholders
Not as likely to receive
support from other
stakeholders
Continued on the following page
40
-------
iaa!!*!»w«wj«e:pH
sepiisssis^?;^^^
Step up enforcement of
occupational safety & health
laws/rules
• build alliances with other
stakeholders
• work with/lobby
government agencies
Other groups share
interests and concerns
External support
Collective strength
Increased pressure on the
company
Can increase negotiating
power if collaboration
occurs in the future
May not share all interests
and concerns with other
stakeholders; some may
conflict
Same "cons" as organizing
Use the collective bargaining
process (if unionized)
• Institutionalized
mechanism
• Utilize collective strength
• Outcomes are enforceable
Not customary to include
environmental issues
Limits opportunity to ally
with community groups
Organize to form unions or
other kinds of worker
associations
Collective strength
Increased pressure on
company
Can increase negotiating
power if collaboration
occurs in the future
Rights are protected
• May require more resources
• Tensions with management
may escalate
• Increased risk of retribution
• Climate (economic, social,
political) may not favor
organizing
• Time consuming
Industry
Participation in Constructive Engagement may be independent from other
activities, or it may be part of a larger initiative. Assess your alternatives by looking
at Constructive Engagement in terms of its compatibility with your company's
other public involvement efforts and activities. In many of the case studies,
Constructive Engagement is a component of companies' larger community relations
programs. For example, in addition to its Neighborhood Involvement Council,
Sybron Chemical's Community Relations Program includes an inquiry and
notification system to enhance communication between the company and the
adjacent neighborhood, a quarterly community newsletter, plant tours and open
houses, and training for community volunteers in odor identification.
41
-------
Here are some alternatives to Constructive Engagement you might consider,
including potential pros and cons:
Do not collaborate
Continue current strategy of
one-way communication
• lobbying and/or public
relations
PROS
No immediate resource
expenditures
Can focus on other
activities
Issue may be manageable
Degree of interaction with
other stakeholders is
sufficient
May influence public and
government agencies
May require less resources
than other alternatives
CONS
Public pressure may
increase
Issue may not "go away"
Bad publicity may affect
business
Same "cons" as listed
above, at a later point in
time
Prolonged time period may
result in more expenditures
over the long-run
Government
Consider your answers to the questions posed in this chapter. Your decision to
embark on Constructive Engagement will be heavily influenced by your goals and
anticipated role(s). These considerations should also influence your thinking about
your alternatives, including how Constructive Engagement efforts can be used to
enhance traditional approaches for obtaining stakeholder input.
Here are some alternatives to Constructive Engagement you might consider,
including potential pros and cons:
42
-------
PROS
aaE^«S';J^
Minimize involvement
^^^^^^^^i^^m&
No immediate resource
expenditures
Can focus on other
activities
Decrease risk of serving in
an awkward role or being
caught between parties
May still have a vested
interest in the situation
Issue may be important
Pressure from stakeholders
for action on government
agency level
Follow traditional procedures
for obtaining stakeholder input
• public hearings
• Staff is available and
familiar with process
• Procedures already
institutionalized
• Will eventually achieve an
outcome
• Adversarial relations
continue/may worsen
between stakeholders
Initiate litigation
Can result in enforcement
of protection laws,
punishment of perpetrators
Rights-based approach
Some stakeholders may
support effort
Approach is familiar, rules
are clear
• Huge resource expenditures
• Adversarial relations
continue/may worsen
between stakeholders
• Lost opportunity to
promote creative and
flexible solutions
• Lose control over outcome
Conclusion
If you approach Constructive Engagement with a strong sense of purpose and
realistic expectations, you will have a greater chance of success. Understand the
specific issues and challenges for your group, so you can decide whether
Constructive Engagement is the best way to achieve your goals. Before you commit
to a Constructive Engagement process, carefully assess your reasons for
participating, the resources you will need, and your alternatives. You will not only
maximize your gains, but also contribute to the success of the Constructive
Engagement effort.
43
-------
44
-------
« chapter 4
Constructive Engagement Is For Me.
What Do I Do?
If you've decided to move forward with a Constructive Engagement process, what do
you do next? This chapter provides guidance that applies to all major stakeholders:
workers, facility managers, government, and communities. Some of the guidelines,
such as designing the process and identifying participants, only pertain to process
initiators1, but everyone should be aware of them. Although the majority of cases in
Appendix 1 were initiated by industrial facilities, any stakeholder can initiate
Constructive Engagement.
This chapter is divided into four sections, following the process in roughly
chronological order. However, Constructive Engagement is less linear than this list
suggests. For example, designing the process and identifying and recruiting participants
can occur together, since stakeholders should have some role in designing the process.
Nevertheless, these stages are presented separately to make it easier to refer back to
them as you create your process:
1. Designing the process
2. Identifying and recruiting participants
3. Participating in the ongoing process
4. Gaining closure
Each section offers guidelines that apply to many different types of Constructive
Engagement processes, making frequent references to examples from the case studies.
1 In this chapter, the term "initiator" means the organization initiating and perhaps funding the Constructive
Engagement process. Some people use the term "convenor" instead. The term "convenor" can also mean a third-
party neutral hired to design the process and identify and recruit participants.
45
-------
Readers are also advised to consult Appendix 3, which contains sample forms for
charters, agendas, guidelines, and mediation.
1. Designing the Process
46
How will you design your Constructive Engagement process? Spend time
consciously and explicitly designing the process, and involve your stakeholders
to an appropriate degree. Making clear, deliberate decisions at this stage, ideally in
a collaborative manner with all stakeholders, saves time later in the process.
Purpose drives design. Stakeholders should agree on the purpose of the process,
and make sure design decisions flow from that purpose. For example:
• If the purpose is to resolve a controversy between two or more adversaries,
the process must include those adversaries, and should address all issues
contributing to the controversy.
• If the purpose is to recommend a particular decision that an array of
stakeholders will support, such as a decision about where to site a new
facility, it is critical that all parties with an interest in that issue be included.
There must be a way to provide the credible technical information necessary
to make the decision. It is also important that the ultimate decision maker
supports the process.
• If the purpose is to improve relations with the community over time, it
makes more sense to have an open-ended process, open to any issues the
group wants to discuss, rather than a time-limited process.
Establishing the Purpose
Develop a written purpose statement specifying what level of decision-making power
the group has, and on what issues. (See topics 1-3 on the Sample Procedural
Guidelines table on p.50.) It is frustrating, but common, to discover after
, several meetings that participants have different understandings of the
purpose.
To build stakeholder commitment to the process, develop the purpose
statement collaboratively, so stakeholders can see how the process will
help them reach their goals. Of course, if you are initiating Constructive
Engagement, you need to have a tentative purpose to recruit participants;
the group can work from your first draft. In defining the purpose,
participants should have roughly the same level of decision-making power
they will have when discussing substantive issues. For example, if the
group hopes to use consensus for making recommendations on the issues,
they should strive for consensus on the purpose.
Level of Decision-Making Power
The purpose statement should address the level of individual or group decision-
making power. There are generally three different levels of decision-making power
in Constructive Engagement:
-------
1. Individual input and feedback to decision makers. Participants may give
individual recommendations or ideas, but the group does not collectively
make formal recommendations. Citizen Advisory Committees and
Community Advisory Panels usually have this level of power.
2. Group recommendations. The group collectively makes formal
recommendations to a decision maker, by consensus or some other
procedure such as a supermajority vote. This is common in stakeholder
negotiations and formal mediations.
3. Group decisions. The decision makers are involved
as stakeholders, and the group makes decisions—
typically by consensus—which stakeholders are
bound to implement. This is typical in good neighbor
agreements and some mediations and stakeholder
negotiations.
How do you decide what level of decision-making power
is appropriate? Consider how important it is to have the stakeholders agree on
decisions. Also, many groups will not be willing to participate unless the process
offers them real influence. A process that seeks consensus of each individual
participant provides the strongest incentive.
Scope of Issues
The purpose statement should clearly identify which issues are inside or outside
of the group's scope. Does the group exist to address only a single issue? Any
environmental issues related to a facility? Or any issues concerning a facility and
the community?
Example: The Shell Oil Community Advisory Panel is open to any
issues concerning the plant and the community. The group has
discussed environmental issues as well as others such as the company's
charitable giving. In contrast, the collaboration between the Sheldahl
plant workers and community groups focused on the facility's use of
one chemical.
Establishing Procedures, Roles, Responsibilities, and Expectations
Like the purpose of the process, it is important for the procedures, the roles and
responsibilities of participants, and other expectations to be clear and explicit.
Here again, participants should have a voice in developing these expectations
similar to the level of decision-making power they have for the substantive issues.
The more initial conflict or distrust exists within the group, the more carefully
you need to design the process to ensure fairness and credibility. Distrust has
many sources. There may be distrust of the sponsoring stakeholder, a history of
bad relations, lack of prior contact or communication, a poor environmental track
record, or group differences such as race, ethnicity, or class. If trust is high and
relations are good, some procedural items can be addressed informally as the process
moves along. However, planning carefully and being open and explicit may prevent
unforeseen problems and promote inclusiveness, fairness, and trust.
Spend time consciously
and explicitly designing
the process.
47
-------
Creating Procedural Guidelines
Procedural guidelines differ from one process to the next, but many topics are
commonly addressed. These are shown in the accompanying table, along with
some sample guidelines. Some topics in the table may be unnecessary for you, and
you may address additional topics, or create guidelines not
mentioned here. Use common sense and your group's input
to decide which guidelines you need. Remember, the purpose
of procedural guidelines is to clarify the nature of your process
guidelines Can help a and avoid misunderstandings.
Written procedural guidelines can help a Constructive
Engagement process go smoothly. The act of writing them
forces the group to make clear, explicit procedural decisions,
and later, participants can point to the guidelines in order to
enforce them.
Written procedural
Constructive Engagement
process go smoothly.
48
Procedural guidelines can be more or less comprehensive.
• Ground rules usually cover only meeting conduct—avoiding repetition,
sticking to the agenda, allowing everyone to be heard, etc.
• A charter is broader, typically laying out the entire process design.
All groups should have ground rules at a minimum. A charter is essential in
situations of conflict or distrust.
Key Procedural Issues
The case studies revealed a few particularly important procedural issues. They are
discussed below, and topic numbers from the Sample Procedural Guidelines table
on pp. 50-54 are included.
• What commitments and boundaries will the initiator and the participants
set for themselves? Many facilities and agencies fear they will be asked to
give too much decision-making authority to the group. Participants may
also need to limit the scope of their roles. (See topics 2—4 in the Sample
Procedural Guidelines table.)
Example: Rohm and Haas managers have made it clear that the
Community Advisory Committee is not part of the plant's management
structure and does not make managerial decisions. In the Lead Steering
Committee, citizen members were concerned about their legal liability,
and limited their activity to what was included in the group's mandate:
providing input, participating in discussions, and making
recommendations related to the site cleanup.
• What exactly is required of individual participants? How much time is
required? What are their specific obligations? (See topics 5, 6, 8, and 15.)
Example: The Intel Project XL stakeholder groups held a total of about
100 meetings of the main group and subgroups over an 11-month
period. Many meetings lasted late into the night. In contrast, Lucent's
Local Environmental Advisory Group in Allentown meets bimonthly
for about two to three hours.
-------
• What is the feedback loop for the group's input or recommendations? If
the group's role is to offer recommendations or general input, the decision
maker needs to consider the input and also notify the group how the
input was weighed and acted upon (or not acted upon). (See topic 18.)
• How might the procedures be changed? Many processes suffer major
setbacks when initiators of the process change rules midstream, without
proper group input. (See topic 19.)
Example: The Lucent Allentown LEAG's charter states that "Changes
to the LEAG Charter will be made with the consensus of the group at
any meeting."
Many other issues are addressed in the Sample Procedural Guidelines table.
Process of Establishing Guidelines
The process for establishing guidelines is important. The more distrust or
controversy there is, the more open and participatory this process needs to be.
Example: In the New Bedford Harbor Superfund mediation, the
stakeholder group first met to jointly select the mediator. The first
meeting conducted by the mediator was entirely devoted to establishing
ground rules and procedures. In the Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention
Center case, it was important that a careful and
collaborative process was established to design the
mission, decision rules, participation structure, and
funding mechanisms.
A common way of establishing procedural guidelines is for the
initiator or the facilitator to draft guidelines and discuss them with
the full group at the first meeting to see if there are any objections
or suggested changes. This method balances expedience with
inclusiveness. Issues for the first draft can be obtained through
one-on-one interviews with selected participants before the first
meeting. The interviewer can ask the participants what they think
is procedurally needed for meetings to be productive, or can ask about specific
guidelines that seem troublesome (for example: "How do you think we should
handle information requests from the media?"). The most participatory way to
develop guidelines—and also the most time-consuming—is for the facilitator or
chair person simply to pose open questions at the first meeting, inviting discussion
and negotiation.
49
-------
Sample Procedural Guidelines
1. What is the purpose of
the forum?
2. What level of decision-
making power does the
group have?
3. What issues will be
discussed?
4. What issues will not be
discussed?
5. How long will the
forum continue?
6. When will meetings be
held?
50
To have two-way communication between the plant and the
community in order to improve relations, educate each other, and
build trust.
To obtain input from the community about the plant's
environmental impacts.
To find a consensus solution to the issue of .
To arrive at mutually satisfactory solutions to issues regarding .
To work together on .
To provide input, feedback, and reactions for consideration by
[decision-makers].
To develop [consensus/majority] recommendations that will be given
considerable weight by [decision-makers].
To make [consensus/majority] decisions.
The group will discuss how to clean up the XYZ site [or other
specific issues].
The group will address the plant's environmental impacts on the
surrounding community and on workers.
The group will address the plant's impacts on, and interactions
with, the community [not limited to environmental issues].
[Matters that are either non-negotiable, confidential, or outside the
group's purview may be outlined here.]
• The facility's financial and personnel matters will not be discussed.
• The agency's enforcement actions concerning other regulated
entities will not be discussed.
• Issues in the lawsuit will not be discussed.
• Individual complaints/claims against the facility/agency will not be
discussed.
The group will meet from [date] until the issue is resolved, but
no later than [date].
The group is created for a period of year(s), after which the
continuation of the group will be discussed.
The group is meeting indefinitely.
Meetings will be held the first Tuesday of every month, from 6:00
p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
The first meeting will be held March 1 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Future meeting times will be discussed at this meeting.
The group will meet Wednesday, September 1 through Friday,
September 3, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily. Additional meeting time
will be scheduled if necessary.
-------
7. How are participants
identified, and how can
group composition
change?
Participants are selected to represent a broad cross-section of the
community, diverse with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity,
occupation, level of education, and civic affiliation. Participation
is for a renewable one-year term. Future participants will be
selected by the Membership Subcommittee. The group will
include 20 to 25 participants.
Participants include representatives of the City Planning
Commission, the State Department of Environment and
Conservation, the local chapter of the Outdoors Club, the state
branch of the Ecological Defense Association, the Citizens
Against Pollution, the local Chamber of Commerce, the Jack of
All Trades International Union Local #1111, XYZ Co. corporate
headquarters, and the XYZ manufacturing plant. The addition of
other parties who seek to participate will be discussed and
decided by consensus within this initial group.
8. What happens if
participants miss
meetings?
Substantive decisions will not be made without the attendance
of at least % of the participants.
The group will not be expected to backtrack to revisit
information shared or decisions made due to a participant's
absence. Participants unable to attend a meeting are responsible
for getting updated.
Each representative may have one alternate, who will attend if
the primary representative cannot. Each primary representative
is responsible for keeping the alternate informed.
Each major stakeholder [listed elsewhere] may have three
representatives at the meetings, and is encouraged to have at
least two so that at least one is present when there are
scheduling conflicts.
9. How open or
confidential are the
discussions?
[Note: laws may affect the level of confidentiality allowed]
• Participants may inform others of the discussions, but may not
attribute comments to specific participants other than
themselves.
• Meetings are completely open to the public, and no
confidentiality rules are being observed.
• At the end of each meeting, the group will discuss and decide by
consensus what may be revealed to the public about the
meeting. If consensus is not reached, participants may only
reveal the general issues discussed and not the points of view
expressed.
51
-------
10. How open or restricted
is meeting
participation?
11. How will journalists
and mass media be
handled?
12. How will a record of
meetings be kept?
[Note: laws may affect the openness of meetings]
• Meetings are open to the public.
• Participation is limited to members selected by the Membership
Subcommittee.
• Meetings are open to observers. Observers are invited to make
statements or ask questions in the last 15 minutes of each meeting.
• Meetings are open to all residents of the and
neighborhoods.
[Note: laws may affect accessibility to mass media]
• Journalists are welcome like any other observers, but television and
video cameras are not allowed in meetings.
• All press interviews will be handled by .
• Members are free to speak to the press, following the confidentiality
guidelines, above.
• The group will decide by consensus when a press release is needed,
and a small group will be formed—with at least one member each
from industry, government, workers, and citizens' groups—to draft
the press release.
• All meetings will be videotaped and televised on local cable
channel .
The chairperson will appoint a staff member to take minutes at
each meeting and distribute them to all participants.
The facilitator will take public notes of the discussions on flip
charts.
Meetings will not be formally recorded; participants are free to take
notes on their own.
Meetings will be tape recorded.
The facilitator will draft a summary of each meeting and distribute
it to all members. Corrections to the summary will be invited at
the following meeting.
Meeting summaries are intended to keep participants and
alternates up to date only, and should not be released to the public
or the press.
Meeting summaries may be released to the public or the press, but
will not attribute any comments to particular individuals.
52
-------
13.How should
participants conduct
themselves during
meetings?
.J3flSB55RBSSESW«8HS*a«SSSS^
SAMPLE GUIDELINES
|ft>j?ffi;&lH5j^^ n*f
-------
16. How will decisions bt
made—consensus or
voting?
What is the definition
of consensus?
17. If decision-making is by
consensus, what happens
when consensus cannot
be reached?
18. What will be done with
the group's input or
product?
19.How will the guidelines
be changed?
Procedural decisions will be made by a majority vote of
participants present.
Decisions will be made by consensus, meaning every participant
supports the overall package of decisions/recommendations being
proposed.
Decisions will be made by consensus, meaning every participant
signs off on each recommendation.
Decisions will be made by a supermajority of 80% of all participants.
The group will not make any recommendations on which there is
not consensus.
In the event consensus cannot be reached, the final report will
include a description of the majority and the minority viewpoints.
The State Department of Natural Resources will give serious
weight to any consensus decisions reached by this group of
stakeholders.
XYZ Inc. will take the group's input into account when making
environmentally-related decisions.
XYZ Inc. will consider recommendations made by the group, will
inform the group whether and when the recommendations have
been implemented, and will provide an explanation if a
recommendation is not accepted.
These guidelines may be changed by consensus if at least % of
the participants are present.
These guidelines may be changed by a majority vote.
54
Meeting Logistics
Meetings should be "participant-friendly," to encourage participation, and keep
the energy and enthusiasm alive in the group. Considerations include:
• Meeting times, length, and frequency
• Meeting location and accessibility (access to public transportation, ease of
parking, lack of complex sign-in or security-clearance requirements,
accessibility to people with disabilities)
• Availability of food and drinks
• Availability of day care
• Method of information distribution (mail, fax, e-mail, web site)
• Accommodation of scheduling conflicts (must all participants attend all
meetings? Are alternates allowed?)
• Availability of translators and/or second-language written materials
• Reminder calls and other logistical support.
-------
Using a Facilitator
You may think of a facilitator as someone who runs meetings, yet some of a
facilitator's most important work is behind the scenes: designing the process,
helping select participants, developing ground rules, creating meeting agendas,
and troubleshooting between meetings. An independent facilitator can enhance a
meeting's fairness, balance, and credibility by managing the process from a neutral
perspective.
Example: The facilitator of Lucent Technologies' Local
Environmental Advisory Group in Allentown has helped increase the
plant managers' comfort in sharing information, has persuaded them
to invite environmental activists and union members, and wrote the
initial "straw" draft of the group's charter.
A facilitator may not always be needed. If a group can design a good
process, easily build trust, and develop good habits of meeting
management, it may be able to function well without a facilitator.
Tips for Community Groups in Constructive Engagement
• Recognize that the purpose and procedures of a Constructive
Engagement process are negotiable. Don't assume your only
choices are to participate under unfavorable conditions or leave.
• Watch to see if all stakeholders have a chance to participate
fully and that no one dominates. If the process does not seem
fair, raise your concerns or request that these procedural issues
be put on the agenda for group discussion, and try to persuade other
participants to support your position.
• If difficult technical information is presented only by industry or
government experts, request that an independent expert be provided, or
seek the help of colleagues who have more expertise.
• Finally, be conscientious in remaining accountable to your organization.
Advocate firmly for your group's interests, while engaging in problem
solving to find solutions acceptable to all stakeholders.
Funding Constructive Engagement
How will the process be funded? There are several considerations:
• Who has an interest in seeing the process happen? Practically, in many
cases, the initiator of Constructive Engagement also funds it. For example,
industrial facilities usually fund the processes they initiate. Similarly,
government often funds processes that aim to produce a recommendation
to a government decision maker.
• Who has the funds available? Sometimes those most interested in the
process may not be able to contribute funds—this is often the case with
community groups or workers.
55
-------
56
Example: In the Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center case, it
was important that there was significant funding available from, the
settlement of a Clean Water Act lawsuit. The environmental coalition
who filed the suit might not have been able to fund such an endeavor.
• How can all participants have a sense of control in the process? Groups
who help pay for Constructive Engagement may feel more "bought in" to
the process, both literally and figuratively. Moreover, concerns about more
powerful parties unduly influencing weaker ones can be resolved through
joint funding. However, there are other ways to achieve buy-in and ensure
equal control, such as involving all stakeholders in designing the process.
If multiple parties contribute funds, they may negotiate, around the same time
they make decisions about purpose and procedures, to determine how they will
share funding responsibility.
Building-In Evaluation
Evaluation is an important part of any Constructive Engagement process, both to
correct shortcomings and to adjust to changing needs and goals over time. Build
evaluation into the process design, rather than waiting until the end of the process.
An evaluation can be as simple as asking participants
what is working well and what can be improved. Invite
all relevant people to contribute their feedback—not just
participants but also initiators, facilitators, technical
experts, past participants, and anyone else who has been
involved. You can gather this input using full-group
discussion, individual interviews, or written
questionnaires. Compile their comments and discuss
with the group how to adjust the process.
If you want a more in-depth evaluation, you can probe
the following:
• What was the original purpose of the Constructive Engagement process as
a whole?
• What were the goals of each stakeholder or participant?
• How have these goals and purposes changed over time?
• How well is the process meeting these goals and purposes?
• What needs to happen for these goals and purposes to be reached?
• At the end of the process: What would you do differently if you had it to
do again? What lessons have you learned that will aid similar activities in
the future?
When should an evaluation be conducted?
• At a midpoint, if it is a closed-ended process, or
• At fairly regular intervals, if it is an open-ended process.
• At the end, so lessons can be drawn from the complete process.
An evaluation can be as
simple as asking participants
what is working well and
what can be improved.
-------
• After implementation of the agreement.is well under way, so evaluators
can assess the group's ultimate impact.
• Any time the purpose has changed, so the process can be adjusted
accordingly.
Example: Romic's Community Advisory Panel conducts an evaluation
once a year to assess the CAP as a whole, the facilitator, and the company.
CAP members complete written questionnaires, and an ad hoc
subcommittee compiles the results and writes recommendations. After
a review, these recommendations become the basis for modifications to
the CAE
Evaluation is the easiest element of a process to neglect, and resources may
limit how much you can do. Still, a simple evaluation is better than none.
2. Identifying and Recruiting Participants
Who will participate in your process? As you establish a way to choose participants,
remember that inclusiveness can determine fairness and credibility. Participants'
individual qualities and their accountability to constituencies are also important.
Base your participant selection criteria on the purpose of the process, the role
of the group, and the issues you will address. As a general rule, all stakeholders
should be represented. Specifically, the process should include all groups:
• Affected by the issue
• Whose support is needed for whatever decision die group is trying to make
• With whom it is important to build a relationship concerning the issues.
The Importance of Inclusiveness
Since conflict can be uncomfortable, it is natural to avoid our adversaries. However,
the point of Constructive Engagement is to bring together stakeholders who might
have competing goals, in order to improve understanding and reach solutions that
integrate opposing interests. If you only recruit participants who support your point
of view, you will have an easy-going, harmonious group. However, you will be less
likely to deal with the issues fully, and the process may not be viewed as credible.
Generally, as the process develops, stakeholders are often pleasantly surprised at the
positive relationships that form among participants with opposing views.
Example: Shell Oil Company's Community Advisory Panel includes
individual environmentalists, but does not include members of
environmental groups that protest the plant. The protesters continue
their adversarial activities against Shell, showing the CAP missed an
opportunity to resolve the protesters' complaints. In contrast, Lucent
Technologies' Local Environmental Advisory Group includes activists
from two local environmental groups, who have become committed
and cooperative members of the group rather than protesting the
Lucent facility.
57
-------
Welcoming the full
range of opinions and
interests is the best way
to gain broad support
for the group's -work.
Welcoming the full range of opinions and interests may take courage, but is
the best way to gain broad support for the group's work. Opposition to the group's
actions will probably be expressed inside the group and dealt with there. Initially,
this may create contentiousness and hard work for the group, but if the process is
open and proceeds according to the stated purpose and design,
trusting relationships will form.
58
Creating a Selection Process
The process by which participants are recruited or selected is at
least as important as the actual composition of the Constructive
Engagement group. The more contentious the situation or the
higher the stakes, the more the selection process should be explicit,
open, and independent. As the initiator, you may be tempted to
select the participants yourself, but you will have more credibility
if the selection process is collaborative and open. You can do a
number of things to achieve this:
• Use a facilitator to identify and recruit participants. The facilitator can
independently conduct interviews to determine whose participation is
appropriate.
• Publicize the Constructive Engagement activity and openly invite
participation or applications to participate.
• If the initiator is selecting participants, establish clear, written criteria for
selection.
• Form an initial steering committee that selects other participants.
• As potential participants are contacted, ask them who else should be
involved, and follow up on these leads.
• At the first meeting of the Constructive Engagement process, ask if
participants know of anyone who should be there but is missing.
Sometimes uninvited stakeholders create a natural check on participant
selection. If they feel they have been excluded, they may contact the initiators
themselves to request participation. Initiators need to stay flexible and change the
composition of the group if needed. Conversely, if no one shows interest in
participating, perhaps the issue has not generated enough concern or controversy
to merit dialogue. Still, it is better to identify all relevant groups up front, to create
a sense of fairness and avoid having to change the group later.
Dilemmas in Identifying Stakeholders
Many initiators of Constructive Engagement may face potentially controversial
questions about who participates:
• Should national or other non-local community groups participate?
• Should facility workers participate?
• How should the general public be represented?
-------
National Organizations
Communities are one of the basic stakeholders in Constructive Engagement. When
dealing with particular facilities, you can assume that local residents need to be
involved, either as individuals or as representatives of local organizations. Should
national (or regional or international) advocacy organizations participate as well?
The following considerations can help you decide:
• Whose support is needed? If a national group has the power to undo
what the process is trying to accomplish, consider involving the group
from the start.
Example: In Intel's Project XL stakeholder negotiations, national and
regional environmental and labor groups criticized the process and
the Final Project Agreement. They took their concerns to EPA
Headquarters, and also published an open letter explaining their
opposition. Having representatives of these organizations in the
stakeholder group might have enabled them to address their concerns
before they escalated into public opposition.
• Can a larger group with more resources bolster a smaller, local community
group, preventing it from being overpowered? Other stakeholders may
similarly rely on support from larger counterparts:
corporate offices support facilities, international unions
may support local unions, and government headquarters
offices support regional offices.
Example: In the New Bedford Harbor Superfund
mediation, the representatives of local citizens' groups
had difficulty understanding the technical
presentations on alternative cleanup technologies.
Using a government technical assistance grant, they hired a technical
consultant through a national environmental justice organization. This
national group played a constructive role in supporting the stakeholder
that was weaker in both technical knowledge and funds.
• Can a national group build bridges between conflicting groups?
Example: In the Sheldahl case, the differences between community
activist groups and the local Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union (ACTWU) were substantially bridged when a
representative of ACTWU's national union visited the area and helped
bring the union and community groups together.
• Finally, can a national group bring additional insights, knowledge, or
capability to the process? For example, they may bring lessons from similar
experiences elsewhere, or they may have significant public influence. Local
and national groups must, of course, work together cooperatively to
enhance and not undermine the efforts of the local group.
59
-------
National groups can participate in varying degrees. Your process might include
only local representatives of national organizations. Alternatively, national group
representatives could observe or even participate in discussions, but not in decision-
making. Your decisions about the inclusion of national organizations are extremely
important to the credibility of the process.
|ips for Facility Managers in Constructive Engagement'
or otherlegitimately
)ont assume you
ntial information such as financial or personnel data^ in
active Engagement Peopleunderstana that some information is
noweverThave the courage to share relevant information you may
•0BgB^BMMMMMI|nMMHMftMn*««>~ 4
be proud or, such as data on emissions or accidents This will go a
ig way*towarc! building trust anacre3ibility
ig about your concerns about the cost ana time required
movements, and seekhelp from the group in finding
_,£e S{a"|^e"£o]3er _
1 advocating within the corporation for
^^^^_^B^_^^__^«^HW^a>nBBBn_a>Hi^^^__B_i>-^Bii«ni»»±-»Bnf---~>'~~'™
iamental changes in production and operations that will prevent
Sllution and save costs in the long run.
seek help Irom the iacilitator on any sticky procedural questions.
,,en moreenrarrannuveimee] inme short-
;run.
60
Facility Workers
There are fairly few instances of worker participation in Constructive Engagement.
However, workers' interests, experiences, and knowledge make them an important
stakeholder group:
• Worker and community health and safety issues are linked—workers are
at risk for health and safety hazards from plant operations. Their experience
can serve as an indicator of community risks. Also, workers are on the
front line of safety protections in plant operations.
Example: Workers in the Sheldahl case shared an interest with the
community because they were exposed to the same chemical, in higher
concentrations.
• Workers can be a natural moderating influence between the company and
the community, since they are often residents of the local community, and
also have an interest in the company's viability.
Example: In the Sheldahl case, there was debate over how to reduce
workers' and neighbors' exposure to a toxic chemical. Workers
persuaded local community activist groups that a toxic-use-reduction
approach (the company's proposed method) was better for all
-------
concerned than the recapture-and-recycle approach the community
groups had initially advocated.
• Workers can provide information about plant operations, based on intimate
knowledge, and from a point of view independent from plant management.
Example: The workers on Lucent's Local Environmental Advisory
Committee helped community participants understand the inner
workings of the facility. Sheldahl workers could also discuss the effects
of different options for reducing emissions, because of their experience
in the facility.
Tips for Facility Workers in Constructive Engagement
participation by workers in Constructive Engagement is still fairly new.
---Try to get assurances in writing that you may express your opinion freely,
even if you openly disagree with management.
* Jo keep other employees informed and involved, work to develop a
"deniocratic selection ^method and process of accountability to other
^etnployees, if no such process already exists.
It jnay be useful to hold separate discussions with either facility
tmanagenlehf or c1>nrrnunitysgroups,lor both, to coordinate strategies. At
tinges] your goals^may be closer to those of the facility, and at other times,
(they may be closer to those of the community groups.
ST^ "You" may find that pollution laws that affect the facility's neighboring
communities may be more favorable than those that affect workers; this
l.cSn be a good argument to improve safety standards inside the plant.
Use your knowledge about facility operations to help find solutions that
3V protect health and the environment without endangering jobs.
The General Public
Should it be a goal to represent the general public? The answer depends on the
purpose of the process.
• For processes aimed at sparking dialogue and getting community input,
the answer is probably yes. Many of these activities aim to get a cross-
section of the community, including a sampling of nearby facility neighbors.
Even so, it is wise to consider informal leadership, and to involve those
who are influential, irrespective of formal status.
• For processes aimed at making a decision or recommendation, the answer
is less clear. These forums typically have organized groups represented.
Arguably, some of these do represent the general public. For example,
environmental issues usually affect the general public, which is why some
environmental organizations are sometimes called "public interest groups."
Elected officials (and, by extension, their staff) also represent the general
public, because they were elected by the public. However, both community
61
-------
It is advisable to
combine stakeholder
negotiations with
public meetings.
organizations and elected leaders could be perceived as having
interests and agendas separate from those of the general public.
For these reasons, it is advisable to combine stakeholder
negotiations with public meetings, so the public can be briefed about
the status and progress of the Constructive Engagement process.
Ideally, this should happen more than once in a lengthy negotiation.
If the first public meeting occurs just when participants are ready
to sign an agreement, unexpected public opposition could cause
carefully-negotiated solutions to unravel. Instead, the first public
meeting should occur early in the negotiations.
r Government
icials in Constructive Engagement
rocess to et areement amon stakeholders
'':i"!i:,Li;i!iii'! !ii
_ ^^
the authority of your agency, protecting jgublic ;
"
e Constructive Eneaeement process mav be aimed at '•.
ing input or a recommendation on that decision),
_ '
i^ .. j
and when ijeejLlQjfiekjpproval from higher levels.
issues in Cqnstructiye Enagement, issues about your role
:picityand discussed up ront — first within your agency,
„„__,„ — !kii»yitfiLtBtaiimiiMil^^
.en appropriate, with the other participants.
62
Getting the Best Representatives
Once you know what stakeholder groups are involved, the next question is what
individuals will represent these groups. Clearly, representatives should have
credibility within their own groups, and be knowledgeable, articulate
spokespersons. What additional skills are needed for Constructive Engagement,
and should participants be technical specialists?
-------
Skills for Constructive Engagement
Some processes have encountered trouble because of "difficult" participants who
advocated in a competitive rather than cooperative manner. On the other hand,
many stakeholder groups have been let down because their representatives were
more interested in accommodating other stakeholders than in being accountable
to their constituents.
The best representatives are both strong advocates and collaborative group
members. They can make a strong case for their own groups' goals, then work
with others to find ways to meet all the stakeholders' interests. This requires skills
in cooperative negotiation and problem solving.
Is Technical Expertise Helpful?
To what extent should participants be technical specialists at the outset of the
process? Although it may seem ideal if all participants walk into a Constructive
Engagement process fully informed, there are advantages and disadvantages of
having technically expert participants, particularly if the group is composed mostly
of at-large community members. A technically trained participant can help translate
jargon, and can help build trust by serving as an independent check on the
information provided by just one stakeholder. On the other hand, if a group has
different levels of expertise, the lay people may give up trying to understand the
information, relying instead on the specialists in the group. If most at-large
community representatives have technical expertise, it is questionable whether
they truly represent ordinary community members.
Examples: In the Vulcan case, scientific or technical background was a
criterion in participant selection. As a result, the group has high
credibility with the company, and can comprehend the voluminous
technical data. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the group is
truly representative of the community. In addition, the less-
knowledgeable members are more inhibited in expressing their views.
Finally, discussions about technical issues sometimes get mired in fine
technical points.
In contrast, Shell Oil Co. did not make technical expertise a major qualification
for membership in its Community Advisory Panel. As a result, members have
widely varying levels of technical comprehension, which is also true for the
community. However, some members tend to sit back and count on more
knowledgeable members to detect problems and raise concerns.
Of course, an important aspect of a Constructive Engagement process is to build
group-wide knowledge of relevant technical issues. For tips on conveying technical
information, please refer to the later section, "Participating in the Ongoing Process."
Choosing Representatives
It is up to each stakeholder group to choose its representatives. However, if you
are the initiator, you can explain to stakeholders the importance of sending
representatives with the right skills or the appropriate level of technical expertise.
63
-------
Getting Stakeholders to the Table
The previous sections discussed who should ideally participate, but how do you
get them to the table? A group may need to be persuaded either to initiate or to
participate in Constructive Engagement.
In general, it is best to use cooperative means to get others to the table—
persuading them that engaging in the process is a good idea. Using existing
relationships with other stakeholders will help. If, however, cooperative methods
fail, you may need to use adversarial tactics to get another group's attention—
especially if you are a less-powerful group trying to get a more-powerful group to
engage. Here are some more specific getting-to-the-table ideas:
Champions Needed
In getting any stakeholder to the table, ask whether the group has someone at a
high level of decision-making authority who strongly supports the process. Such a
"champion" is needed, especially within the initiating organization, to lend
credibility to the process and to implement group recommendations.
Examples: In the Vulcan case, the plant manager was an important
champion of Constructive Engagement. In the Lucent case, the ongoing
participation of the plant manager and the environment, health, and
safety officer have helped demonstrate the company's commitment to
the Constructive Engagement process.
Facilities
If you are trying to persuade a facility to initiate Constructive Engagement, either
a "carrot" or a "stick" approach may work, and a combination is best. In other
words, some facilities have initiated Constructive Engagement in response to
positive incentives ("carrots")—such as the prospect of establishing the company
as an environmental leader or getting regulatory relief. Other facilities have been
prodded by negative concerns ("sticks")—such as pressure from environmental
activists and neighbors, or a regulatory crackdown.
Examples: As an example of a "carrot" approach, EPA's Project XL
grants regulatory flexibility in exchange for stakeholder engagement
and environmental performance that goes beyond regulatory
minimums. The prospect of a streamlined regulatory process served
as an incentive for Intel to broaden its existing Constructive
Engagement efforts to participate in Project XL.
As an example of a "stick" approach, complaints from neighboring
residents and pressure from local officials helped lead Sybron to initiate
its Neighborhood Involvement Council.
As an example of a combination approach, Shell initiated its
Constructive Engagement effort both to avoid the kind of public outcry
it had weathered before, and to try to further its image as an
environmental leader.
64
-------
Community Groups
If you are trying to persuade community organizations to participate, you may
find that they must have a compelling reason. Often community groups run on a
shoestring budget, and they are invited to more processes than they
can attend. Like all stakeholders, they must be able to answer "What's
in it for me?" in terms of their own interests.
These interests, of course, may vary. Most people value the chance
to have meaningful influence on important decisions. Beyond that, for
community representatives, their goals may depend on whether they
participate as individuals or as representatives of organizations.
For those serving as individuals, their interests may include
learning about what is happening in their community, networking with
influential people, or participating in something useful.
Example: Members of Lucent's Allentown Local Environmental
Advisory Group, who participate only as private individuals, cited the
chance to learn about the Lucent facility, its environmental problems
and solutions, and its ways of working with regulators as the reason
they maintain their membership.
Representatives of organized groups often have "bigger" interests—to influence
company policies or operations in certain ways, to increase environmental protection,
or to bring about other changes that will advance their organizations' goals.
Example: In agreeing to help form the Silicon Valley Pollution
Prevention Center, the CLEAN South Bay coalition was enticed by
the opportunity to play a significant role in promoting pollution
prevention.
Of course, like sponsors of Constructive Engagement, potential participants
need to weigh participation in a Constructive Engagement process against the
alternatives. In some cases, the alternative is worse, and therefore, Constructive
Engagement will be an attractive idea.
Example: In the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site mediation, none
of the parties relished the thought of a protracted legal battle to address
cleanup concerns.
In other situations, the alternative is better than participation, in which case
they may not be willing to take part.
Taking No for an Answer
What happens when you know a particular group is affected by the issue under
discussion, but the group declines to participate? You may need to redesign the
process to make participation more worthwhile for that group. For example,
community groups with minimal resources may need to have some of their expenses
reimbursed. In addition, some groups may not feel participation is worth their
time if the goal is only to provide input. When juggling multiple demands on
their time, they may only want to participate if they can have a more direct role in
decision-making.
65
-------
Ask the stakeholders themselves what they need to make participation
worthwhile, and treat the process design as a negotiable issue.
Representatives or Private Individuals?
A final matter about identifying and recruiting participants is whether members
participate as representatives of particular organizations or as private individuals.
Generally, if the goal of the Constructive Engagement process is simply to get
a range of input, like many facility-sponsored Constructive Engagement forums,
it is usually adequate for members to participate as individuals. Membership in
such forums is usually intended to include a cross-section of the community
(although it may still be worthwhile to involve individuals from relevant
organizations).
On the other hand, if the goal is to produce an outcome that earns the support
of different organizations, those groups need to be formally represented. Their
representatives should attend as spokespersons and be accountable to the
organization, rather than participating as private individuals.
3. Participating in the Ongoing Process
Once the Constructive Engagement process is underway, some of the most difficult
procedural matters are behind you. The majority of processes—though by no means
all of them—go reasonably well once participants are face-to-face. Still, there are a
number of procedural issues that can make the difference between success and
failure, including:
• Setting meeting agendas
• Handling information needs
• Building trust and rapport
• Maintaining communication between participants and their constituents
or the public.
Each of these issues is discussed below.
Setting Agendas
There are no hard-and-fast rules about setting meeting agendas. For Constructive
Engagement processes designed to resolve a particular set of issues, create an agenda
that moves toward overall resolution. Two possible approaches are:
• Beginning with smaller, less contentious issues. Build early success by
resolving easier issues first. This approach is particularly suitable for highly
divisive disputes, because it helps build trust and momentum towards
resolving the tougher issues.
• Addressing the most central, important issues first. If the group is working
together well enough to handle tough issues early, this approach relieves the
66
-------
anxiety about whether there will be time for the central issues. Sometimes
the smaller issues resolve themselves once the major ones are addressed.
A facilitator or mediator can be extremely helpful in establishing agendas when
a fixed set of issues has to be settled.
For ongoing processes that focus on building relationships over time, agendas
can be set in several ways. The initiating organization can set the agenda, based
on the issues that prompted the process. (Other participants may not initially
know enough about the issues to propose agenda items.) A facilitator can also
propose agenda items. Participants can propose agenda items as they become more
informed, or they can ask questions that prompt the initiating organization to
devote time to that topic at a subsequent meeting.
Example: The Rohm and Haas Community Advisory Committee's
agendas are formed jointly, in advance, by members and the public
affairs manager.
It is always helpful to distribute agendas before the meeting, but it is essential
if members need to prepare. In more contentious gatherings, it is critical that
participants see agendas in advance, so they will not feel the initiating organization
is trying to catch them "off guard." Also, in processes where participants formally
represent larger stakeholder groups, receiving agendas in advance allows them to
get input from their constituents.
Handling Information Needs
One of the greatest challenges in Constructive Engagement is
handling the often voluminous, complex technical information.
This information can be:
• Scientific—such as the health effects of certain
pollutants,
• Engineering-related—such as available technologies for
pollution control,
• Operational—such as how some part of a facility works,
• Legal—such as the regulations affecting a particular kind of emission, or
• Financial—such as the costs of various cleanup alternatives.
It is essential for Constructive Engagement participants to have a common
base of information to make informed comments, recommendations, or decisions.
Sources must be credible. Different sources are appropriate for different kinds of
information. Ideally, there should be technical expertise from a variety of
viewpoints-—not just the viewpoint of a facility or government agency—in order
to present objective, or at least balanced, data. Assuring participants have access
to complete, comprehensible, and balanced information is an important way of
addressing power imbalances.
A few guidelines make the exchange of technical information more smooth:
In more contentious
gatherings, it is critical
that participants see
agendas in advance.
67
-------
68
• Allow time to exchange information. Acknowledge—both to yourself and
to others—that it is challenging to communicate technical information,
and allow plenty of time for it. Often the bulk of a Constructive Engagement
group's time is spent sharing data—formal presentations, question-and-
answer sessions, and impromptu explanations. This should be considered
time well spent.
• Share information openly. Sharing information openly, including
information that a stakeholder may not be proud of, helps ensure fairness
and build trust. This openness is a key factor in stakeholders perceiving
the process as genuine.
Examples: At the beginning of Lucent's Local Environmental Advisory
Group (LEAG) in Allentown, managers were nervous about opening
up to the public. A major turning point came when the plant had a
minor chemical spill, and the facilitator persuaded them to tell the
LEAG. LEAG members remarked that it seemed the accident was
handled well. They also offered suggestions, and pressed plant
managers for accident prevention plans. The members, including those
from environmental organizations, were pleased with this openness.
One environmental activist on the LEAG said she heard about a similar group
where a facility manager said, "We don't want to disclose that because we don't
want to alarm the public." She said if she had been there she would have responded,
"You just did."
Facilities sponsoring Constructive Engagement processes usually find they don't
get pressured or coerced into sharing sensitive business or financial information—
participants understand that some information is off limits. This fear has sometimes
been used as a rationale for not doing Constructive Engagement at all.
Alternatively, some facilities claim information is confidential business
information, when the truth is the information may just not be very flattering. As
mentioned above, being forthcoming in such a case helps build credibility.
• Make technical information easy to understand. There are several ways
to share technical data to make it easy to understand:
• Use plain English, rather than technical jargon, as much as possible.
• Use visual aids such as charts, graphs, and diagrams.
• Encourage questions, allow time to answer them, and acknowledge
that the information is difficult.
• If there are some participants who are more technically trained or
informed, welcome their help in explaining things to other participants.
• Conduct plant tours, site visits, or other hands-on events to put the
information in context and make it more real.
• Ask questions freely. If you are a participant with little technical savvy,
don't be shy. All participants should freely ask questions and otherwise
insist that information be made comprehensible. If you don't understand
-------
it, chances are someone else is also having trouble. Communicating
complex data is an expected part of the process.
Build in education or training. It may be worthwhile to have training or
education components as part of the process. Training could cover the
regulatory process, environmental laws, or any other topic participants
need to understand in order to make well-informed decisions.
• Consider using an independent expert. In particularly
contentious processes, an independent source of
technical expertise is useful. It is easy for people on one
side of an issue to feel that people on the other side are
trying to "snow" them with biased or misleading
information. An independent expert can help keep the
process fair by providing an objective view and helping
stakeholders grapple with complex issues. It may be
worth it for a facility or an agency to fund an independent
technical expert, even if they know their own data is objective and accurate.
The EPA makes Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) through the Superfund
program and also through Project XL.
Examples: Shell Oil has a standing offer to its CAP to pay for an
independent technical expert. So far, the group has not found an expert
necessary, but the standing offer enhances participants' confidence in
the fairness of the process.
In the Sheldahl case, the Air Toxics Study Group, formed of university
science professors, in effect served as an independent expert group.
This group worked closely with the neighborhood organization and
the union involved in the case.
In the Intel Project XL stakeholder negotiations, the question of
whether Intel would pay for an independent expert became an issue
of contention with outside critics of the process. EPA now provides
technical assistance funding in its XL projects, partly as a result of the
concerns raised during-this process.
Building Trust and Rapport
In most Constructive Engagement processes, trust and interpersonal relationships
grow naturally over time because people talk face-to-face and form a common
base of information and experience. This phenomenon sometimes surprises
skeptics who fear they can't reason with their "opponents." If you are concerned
about building trust, there are steps you can take:
• Encourage an atmosphere where disagreement is acceptable. Some people
are uncomfortable with conflict and likely to get agitated at disagreements.
Others express agreement only to keep the peace. Hiding disagreement
may build short-term harmony but not long-term trust. All participants
should encourage an open expression of views by listening attentively to
different opinions and probing the reasons behind them.
Use plain English, rather
than technical jargon, as
much as possible.
69
-------
70
• Share informal and unstructured time. Sometimes site visits, meals,
traveling together, or other opportunities for social interactions are worth
hours of well-constructed meeting time. Informal time allows for exploring
others' perceptions, and can help bridge serious differences.
• Be open with information. The earlier section "Handling Information
Needs" discussed how a willingness to share unflattering information about
one's own group can build trust.
• Withhold judgment of others' values. Government officials, facility
managers, workers, and community activists tend to have different values
and cultures. Accept that people with distinct values can still work toward
mutually acceptable solutions.
• State your true interests in ways others will understand.
• Have a genuine concern for meeting the interests of everyone at the
table. Continually probe the needs and concerns of other participants,
and ask variations of the question, "How can we meet your interests and
at the same time meet our own?"
Communicating with Constituents and the Broader Public
A significant challenge in Constructive Engagement is to keep constituencies
informed, and to communicate with the general public. The challenge differs
depending on whether participants represent organizations or participate as
individuals.
Participants Representing Organizations
The challenge is usually less difficult when participants clearly represent particular
organizations. In this case, they are likely to have procedures for communicating
with their groups. For example, representatives of facilities, government agencies,
and community groups with paid staff can distribute memos or e-mails to inform
colleagues about meeting progress, and they can hold meetings with colleagues
during business hours to exchange views and get input. Representatives of unions
and volunteer community groups can use letters, newsletters, and regularly-
scheduled meetings for the same purpose. Still, it is always a challenge to ensure
that all stakeholder groups are kept informed about the Constructive Engagement
process and that their concerns are adequately represented.
It is wise to take steps to make sure participants are bringing their constituents
along with the progress of the group, so there will not be a surprise, last-minute
refusal on the part of one stakeholder to accept the outcome. This might require a
discussion early in the process on how to ensure effective, ongoing communication
with constituencies.
Participants Serving as Individuals
Communication is even trickier in groups where participants serve only in their
individual capacities. (These are typically ongoing groups intended to get reactions
and input, but not to reach formal decisions.) In these cases, there are sometimes
procedural guidelines about participants communicating with their
-------
The Role of Culture
I How can cross-cultural issues be addressed in Constructive Engagement processes? This section
* provides an approach for acknowledging and bridging cultural differences. Cultural differences
pose challenges, but they are not insurmountable.
Acknowledge cultural differences. Your first step in addressing cross-cultural issues is to
E^, Acknowledge them. Cultural differences can be related to organizational culture, class, ethnicity,
" ,¥~age> religion, language, and gender. While some differences may be readily apparent, others
,i .are'more* hidden. Keep in mind that differences are a two-way street—when you notice
S!ff*"T frf-& "^j^J-J^^'^I^M, $>h$ * " i. " "* "* IL"" ~ ' ^ * «
Include an educational component in the process that includes developing an awareness of
cultural needs.
11 Check for_a balance in participation among all group members in order to create a "safe place."
If there is a cultural group that is reluctant to participate, ask what procedures might help
f * them feel comfortable, and make appropriate changes.
„ -Prgvide language translation services.
Lv^Use a facilitator who can help point out and bridge cultural differences.
"^ 1^ T ^ \Jl^"lnte*'l1\ ^ ^ ¥6V*'!?^11 "^jjg ft T JP aj^v * „ ^ i j, * " *,
Have th'e group develop ground rules that address procedural and communication issues.
• atte'ntibn*to when and where meetings are held.
and oral forms.
*" ^* fcx* 6-r^r^^ * ^> «
. long-term or intensive process, consider training in cross-cultural competence.
3&lis,t is just a beginning. Part of your group's work will include developing other mechanisms
5r addressirig cross-cultural issues and tailoring them to your situation. Your ultimate goal is to
i®!*;*^ ^.^'T'-J1,-H,iMi..S-li,-*;i'. Mi.^K.^n^a' .^ijBlifchll'i.iJ.lfe'.iM.'li:1,-, *-"J 1.-iJ,.
»
1
71
-------
"constituencies," but they have not always proven effective. Participants might
talk to a few family members or friends, but do not conduct any organized outreach.
Participants have cited several reasons for this:
• These forums are often sponsored by a facility, and participants do not
want to sound like corporate "mouthpieces."
• No organized mechanisms have been established for outside
communication to occur.
• Participants may not feel conversant in the technical matters involved.
Clarifying Communication Expectations
The mismatch between what Constructive Engagement initiators expect and the
role participants are willing to accept may point to inappropriate expectations. In
processes designed for input and feedback only, and not for reaching consensus
decisions or recommendations, the participants are often "at-large" individuals.
Facilities and government agencies may be hoping in vain that by talking with a
sample of the community, they are talking with the whole community. The bottom
line is that initiators of Constructive Engagement should not expect participants
to communicate actively with "constituencies," unless they are participating as
representatives of organizations.
How can Constructive Engagement initiators exchange views and information
with the general public? You may need to supplement the Constructive Engagement
process with other public communication strategies. These might include familiar
mechanisms for communicating to the public, such as press releases, radio
interviews, and news conferences—the usual domain of public relations
professionals.
Also, consider getting input from the public by offering:
• Public meetings, open to all
• A toll-free telephone comment line
• Polls and surveys—by phone or mail
• A web site with a place for people to register their comments.
These mechanisms need to be well publicized.
Keep in mind that public communication may need to be different in different
settings. Hanging notices on church bulletin boards, for example, may work
fabulously in an area with high church attendance, but may be nearly useless in
another area. People from the community can tell you how information gets around
the fastest.
72
4. Gaining Closure . . .
or Managing an Open-Ended Process
Some Constructive Engagement processes have a natural ending point (such as a
final consensus recommendation), so are closed-ended. Others continue over time,
-------
so are considered open-ended. How do you reach closure in closed-ended
processes? How do you maintain open-ended processes over time? How do you
know whether your process should be open- or closed-ended?
Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Processes
Whether a Constructive Engagement process is open- or closed-ended depends
on the purpose of the process. If it was established to make a decision or
recommendation on a particular issue(s), the process will have a natural ending
point after the decision has been made. On the other hand, if the goal is ongoing
feedback and input, an open-ended process makes more sense, although it is still
possible to set up the process for a fixed period (such as one year), and then assess
whether to continue.
Example: Intel's Chandler, Arizona, stakeholder group existed
for the purpose of reaching a Final Project Agreement for Project
XL. The process lasted less than one year. However, the same
Intel facility has an ongoing Community Advisory Panel that
began before and continues after the Project XL stakeholder
negotiations.
Combinations of open-ended and closed-ended processes are also
possible. For example, an open-ended process might devote a specified time
to decision-making on a specific issue, but then continue in a more open-
ended fashion.
Example: Lucent's Allentown Local Environmental Advisory Group
made part of its job to reach a Final Project Agreement for Project XL.
However, the group's broader purpose is to provide ongoing discussion
and input, so the process is open-ended.
More commonly, a process intended to be closed-ended will continue even after
the issue is resolved, perhaps because participants find the process beneficial in
ways that go beyond the original issues. In this case, an evaluation is needed to
clarify new goals, change the composition of the group, and decide whether an
open-ended or closed-ended process suits the new purpose.
Sometimes the purpose of a Constructive Engagement process changes
significantly over time. Some Constructive Engagement activities are designed to
address a particular crisis, but turn out to be useful beyond that crisis and so
continue to function.
Example: Vulcan Chemical's Community Involvement Group (CIG) was
originally formed to head off controversy surrounding a planned
incinerator, but soon after forming the group, Vulcan dropped the
incinerator plan. At that point, the facility decided to continue the CIG,
with the broader purpose of promoting two-way communication to
address concerns about the plant's environmental impacts.
Others may shift their focus more gradually.
Example: Romic's Community Advisory Panel initially addressed
specific health and environmental concerns surrounding the facility.
73
-------
Remember that the most
important thing is simply to
have a deadline.
Now, the bulk of its time is devoted to more broad-based issues of
how the company can function as a good corporate citizen. For
example, after a large earthquake, the CAP worked with the company
and the community to develop mechanisms to respond to other natural
disasters.
It is relatively easy to define crisis-oriented purposes (for example, "reach
agreement on the controversy"). For open-ended processes, new purposes can
emerge, and evaluation can help clarify them and provide insights for modifying
the process to meet new purposes.
Closing Out the Process
Deadlines
If a Constructive Engagement group is designed to produce an agreed-upon decision
or recommendation, it is important to have an appropriate deadline. Either a tight
deadline or the absence of a deadline can lead to failure.
• If the deadline is too soon, an impasse is likely. The important stages of
expressing strong feelings, exploring issues, exchanging data, and
developing options get shortchanged as participants feel they must jump
to decision-making. Also, rushing creates stress and anxiety, which hinder
constructive problem solving.
• If there is no deadline, participants may feel there is no compelling reason
to let go of their initial positions. Discussions may go on and on, and
eventually everyone may get frustrated at the lack of movement.
What is an appropriate deadline? Determine this case by case. Processes can
take anywhere from a few days to a few years, depending on the number, complexity
and divisiveness of issues, and the frequency and length of
meetings. If you are inexperienced with Constructive
Engagement, allow more time than you expect—you may
want to double or even triple your initial estimate. Ask
facilitators or those more experienced to help you set an
appropriate deadline. Remember that the most important
thing is simply to have a deadline, so it is better to
overestimate the amount of time you need rather than
underestimate.
74
Overcoming Disagreements and Building Consensus
As the end of a process draws near, the group must move beyond sharing
information and views, and begin reaching agreements. In consensus processes
(where the goal is agreement of all stakeholders or participants), there are many
ways to overcome disagreements:
• Identify whether the disagreement is held by a single individual or several
people.
• Make sure the dissenting participants express the underlying reasons for
their disagreement.
-------
• Ask the objecting participants for alternative proposals the whole group
might consider to overcome the objections.
• Have everyone express their views on the question without response by
other participants. Then test for consensus on the old proposal or a newly
modified one.
• Return to earlier steps of problem solving to determine if any new, mutually-
acceptable options can be developed.
• Decide whether it is an objection the whole group should consider, or
whether it is one that could be worked out by a sub-group and then
presented to the whole group for approval.
• Break into small groups to discuss the question and to develop new
proposals.
• Consider making the result non-precedent setting, temporary, or trial.
• Suggest a break or postpone the discussion to a later date, allowing people
time to consider the objection and alternatives.
• Break down the decision into pieces, so consensus can be reached on parts
of it, if not on the whole package.
Last-Minute Objections
When many areas of agreement have been reached, and the group is coming close
to a consensus, some participants may suddenly reverse their consent and raise
new objections. This behavior may seem irrational, but is actually common and
arises from facing the realities of closure. For the first time, participants may truly
think about the implications of their consent: Are they selling out? Is the agreement
fair? Can they convince their constituents it was the right decision? More generally,
change can be frightening.
This last-minute doubt is normal, but what can you do? You might need to
circle back to earlier stages in the process and revisit issues, so participants can
relive the thought process that led them to the decision. This helps them reassure
themselves that the proposed agreement is sound and acceptable to their
constituents. On the other hand, the new objections may be real, and the group
must discuss them as new issues and modify the proposed agreement.
Even if no new objections arise, a renewed level of tension may replace some
of the relaxed atmosphere and warm relationships. Again, this is normal and does
not necessarily mean that the group's achievements are unraveling.
Impasses and Alternatives to Consensus
Sometimes, despite everyone's finest efforts, consensus cannot be reached. If this
is the case, there are several ways to proceed:
• Those with the objection may simply block consensus, and your group
may disband without a final decision.
• Those with the objection may allow the group to record the disagreement,
but proceed with the majority view.
75
-------
• Those with, the objection may "stand aside" and not block consensus,
thus allowing the group to proceed. Standing aside can release those who
object from any involvement in implementing the agreement.
• Those with the objection can prepare a minority report describing their
concerns and submit it to the decision maker for a final decision.
Example: The New Bedford Harbor Superfund case ended with a
majority and a minority recommendation, in spite of a strong
agreement-in-principle about what would be the ideal outcome (an
outcome that was not technically feasible). A single document
described all the areas of consensus, and also detailed both the majority
and minority views. This document was submitted to the EPA for a
final decision on cleanup of the site.
• The individual who disagrees may decide to leave the group, releasing the
group to move ahead.
Maintaining an Open-Ended Process
For ongoing groups, where the goal is input rather than decision-making, a big
challenge in the long-term is apathy and low attendance.
Example: The Shell and Romic Community Advisory Panels have
struggled to keep attendance high, and have addressed this in part by
recruiting new members.
How can you keep participant energy and attendance high?
• Ask for a limited time commitment (such as one year), which may or may
not be renewable. This way members can gracefully leave and new members
with fresh enthusiasm can join.
• Hold meetings less frequently, such as once every two or three months.
Unless there are urgent issues to address, this should be adequate.
• Hold meetings at convenient times and locations, and provide food.
• Make reminder calls to members before each meeting, or whenever
members have reading assignments or other preparation to do.
• To help with all of the above, have a designated coordinator from the
initiating organization to serve as point-of-contact between meetings.
76
Conclusion
Constructive Engagement is a challenging, and often demanding, process, but
offers great potential rewards. It can also be a lot of fun. There is no one right way
to "do" Constructive Engagement. The approaches and considerations discussed
in this chapter are meant to guide you, but not to constrict your thinking.
Whatever approach you select, it will be important to be clear about the purpose
of the process, and then to design the process to meet those goals. Inclusiveness is
important, and can be achieved in a variety of ways. When initiators work with
-------
other stakeholders to design the process, decide who participates, create guidelines,
determine funding, and set agendas, there is a greater chance that difficult decisions
can be made in a collaborative manner. Assessing the process throughout enables
participants to collectively shape the effort and adapt it to changing needs and goals.
77
-------
78
-------
, chapter 5
Lessons Learned
Constructive Engagement can be a powerful tool for community groups, workers,
advocacy organizations, industry, and government agencies. Constructive
Engagement can provide a forum for each group to promote its individual interests
and find creative ways to achieve common goals. Constructive Engagement forums
can help promote better communication and a higher level of understanding of
each other's needs and perspectives. They can help overcome a perception that
the needs of one group can only be met at the expense of another. They can
encourage everyone to take a long-term view of the issues they are facing and to
get past the stereotypes, mistrust, and insensitive practices that may have
characterized past relations and activities. The benefits of these processes have
become increasingly clear to participants from all sectors. As a result, there is
likely to be a significant increase in Constructive Engagement activities in the
years to come.
Effective Constructive Engagement activities require more than good will and
a desire to work together; they also require appropriate procedures, structures,
and skills. Perhaps most important, they demand a clear vision of the purpose of
the process, its potential benefits, and likely costs. Constructive Engagement is a
potentially valuable, but demanding process that is not appropriate under all
circumstances. Perhaps the most important decision potential participants in
Constructive Engagement will make is the initial determination about whether to
participate at all. All participants should enter into Constructive Engagement with
an understanding of why they are there and how they can be effective. If the
resources a Constructive Engagement effort requires are going to be well spent,
the process should be designed to allow each participant to be a powerful, well-
informed; and involved player. The process should also allow personal relationships
to develop, conflicts to be addressed thoroughly, and groups to coalesce.
79
-------
Twenty-Three Lessons
Good processes can emerge
from mixed motivations.
80
During the process of compiling this guide, a number of themes emerged. These
are offered as the primary lessons learned about Constructive Engagement:
• Good processes can emerge from mixed motivations. The desire to avoid
bad publicity or a lawsuit can be as powerfully motivating as the
opportunity to achieve a positive outcome. However, if the process is to
succeed, positive motivations and goals need to ultimately develop as
well. Participants need not be motivated by a clear vision of the potential
positive benefits of a Constructive Engagement process in order for it to
succeed. There are many examples of Constructive Engagement activities
that ultimately led to positive results, but started with at least some of the
stakeholders participating for damage control or defensive purposes. In
these cases, however, a positive vision also emerged and members
understood they had a lot to offer each other through their joint efforts.
• Ideally, the time to initiate Constructive Engagement is before a major
incident, but sometimes it takes a crisis to create the momentum
necessary to get adversaries to talk or to awaken interest in an issue.
The consequence of this, however, is that more work will be necessary
to build trust and open up communication.
Constructive Engagement efforts are often initiated after
a public controversy about facility activities or plans. In
these cases, it often is necessary to spend considerable
effort to repair relations in addition to resolving the
specific issues involved. Sometimes, this has led to the
creation of a more cooperative and effective structure of communication
among different groups than might otherwise have developed.
To initiate and sustain a Constructive Engagement effort, it is crucial for
the initiating organization to have a champion with a high level of decision-
making authority who shows ongoing commitment to the effort. A
Constructive Engagement effort is likely to be ineffective or cosmetic at best
without active support from major players inside the initiating organization.
These players need not be the formal leaders, as long as they have significant
decision-making authority. Other stakeholders are more likely to view the
process as legitimate if they know there is active support for it.
When undertaking Constructive Engagement, resources devoted should
match the expectations for the process. If they do not, the initiator should
either cancel the process or re-evaluate the purpose, scope, or nature of
the process. Constructive Engagement can only achieve its potential if
adequate resources, including time, are devoted to the process. A well-
intentioned but inadequately supported effort can lead to failed
expectations and worsened relations. Consider the resources available when
deciding how ambitious the process should be.
Constructive Engagement does not serve all purposes. Some purposes
are better served by a different process, such as unilateral action or
advocacy. Constructive Engagement provides a mechanism for all
-------
participants to address their issues, but it is not an end in itself. The decision
to initiate or join such a process should be based on a careful assessment
of its potential costs and benefits. Individuals or groups who decide they
do not want to participate should not be condemned. Instead, their
concerns should be listened to, and they should be responded to with
respect. If Constructive Engagement becomes a value independent of its
potential benefits, it may become a divisive force and fail to achieve its
potential as a collaborative tool.
The purpose of the Constructive Engagement activity should drive the
process. A process that is constructed just for the sake of having a process
is unlikely to be effective. Instead, it should be designed to meet specific
needs and to achieve desired outcomes. All participants should clearly
understand the purpose of the process and evaluate it with this in mind.
Ideally, the goals of the process should be defined collaboratively by all
stakeholders. At a minimum, the goals should be explicit and have the
agreement of all participants. Collaboratively defining
the goals ensures that the process belongs to everyone,
not just the initiator. This is particularly important
for consensus-building processes. However, for some
short-term processes intended to elicit input only, it
is acceptable for the purpose to be established by the
initiator only. Nevertheless, the purpose should be
explicit so that all participants know what it is and
can choose to participate accordingly.
Different participants may have different goals, but
all goals should be compatible with the purpose of
the Constructive Engagement process. Compatibility of goals does not
necessarily mean uniformity of goals. Industry may be interested in more
flexible permitting procedures, whereas community groups may be focused
on decreasing industry's environmental impact. However, if they do not at
least share the overarching goal of working together to help each other
achieve their goals, then Constructive Engagement is unlikely to succeed.
If potential participants have goals that are fundamentally incompatible
with a Constructive Engagement effort (for example, if a community group
is committed to shutting a facility down, or if a facility wants only to
communicate to the public), then a Constructive Engagement effort may
be ill-advised.
The purpose of the
Constructive Engagement
activity should drive
the process.
It is important to define and agree on roles, responsibilities, and decision-
making procedures at the outset, and to change these only through an
agreed-upon, decision-making procedure. The structure of the process is
ideally established collaboratively with all participants, but at a minimum
should be made clear and explicit to all participants. One of the best ways
to ruin a Constructive Engagement process is to establish expectations at
the beginning, then change them midway without going through the
established group decision-making procedure.
Trust among stakeholders does not need to exist for a successful process
81
-------
trust tends to develop.
82
to be convened, but the process needs to be trustworthy from the
beginning. Stakeholders often question their participation in a dialogue
with people or organizations whom they do not trust. Yet sometimes this
lack of trust among groups whose activities affect each other and whose
interests overlap is the most important reason to initiate a Constructive
Engagement process. Trust does need to develop for the process to attain
its potential, but it does not need to be present from the beginning. The
initiator must be clear and honest about the purpose, goals, and
expectations of the process. Group members must come with an intention
to participate in good faith, give the process the energy and time it deserves,
and avoid premature judgments about each others' behavior and motives.
• The less trust there is, or the more complex and
Once a group begins tO significant the issues, the more important it is to negotiate
the structure, ground rules, membership, and goals, and to
together Successfully have a neutral convenor and facilitator. The lower the trust
and higher the stakes, the more important it is to ensure that
all participants have a powerful role in determining the process
and structure of the group. Under these circumstances, a group
designed and run by one stakeholder is not only less likely to
succeed, but can actually breed greater mistrust, even with the best of
intentions. Using a neutral and credible facilitator and convenor can be
especially valuable under these circumstances.
• Once a group begins to work together successfully, trust tends to develop
whether or not building trust was an expressed goal. At the same time,
building effective communication and decision-making processes is a
more realistic (and therefore more effective) goal than developing trust.
As important as the development of trust may be, it is usually not effective
to approach this as an explicit goal of the process. Trust will develop, as
appropriate, out of effective communication and fair decision-making
procedures. Participants may not be willing to agree to building trust as
an initial goal, and they are often understandably skeptical about whether
trust will emerge. Furthermore, trust as a goal is an elusive target, whereas
good communication and decision-making procedures are not.
• Diversity issues should be recognized early. Differences in how
participants work and communicate affect the process. Communication
methods must be tailored to the different communication styles of
participants and their constituencies. When Constructive Engagement
processes do not allow for a variety of communication styles, educational
levels, and linguistic needs, important contributions are lost and
participants are not empowered. Participants who feel excluded or
uncomfortable with a process will not always indicate their discomfort,
but they will often cease to attend or remain in the background. To prevent
this from happening, the process must help raise awareness about these
differences and develop ways to address them.
• The credibility of a process is enhanced by the participation of people
who have contrasting perspectives. It is, therefore, better to welcome a
-------
broad range of participants—including adversaries—than to focus on
creating a harmonious group. By and large, it is smarter to risk the
challenges of a contentious group than to exclude potentially important
participants. All groups who have a stake in the outcome should be
included. Conflicts can be resolved, issues addressed, and mutually
acceptable decisions reached, but only if key interests are represented and
if key people are brought together. Any agreement made without the
support of key stakeholders is unlikely to be durable and lasting.
• If there are significant groups who decline to participate, the initiator
should re-evaluate the process and procedures, reaching out to the groups
and encouraging their input to improve the process. There is seldom
one person whose participation alone can make or break a Constructive
Engagement effort, but if a key group declines to participate, the process
will not be as strong. It is important to talk to groups that decline to
participate in order to understand their refusal and to evaluate whether to
redesign the process so that their issues can be addressed. Sometimes, it
will still make sense to proceed without a group, but the potential of the
process will then be limited in proportion to the significance of the missing
groups constituency.
• The logistics and mechanics of the process should
promote inclusiveness. Practical matters significantly
affect participation. For example, meetings should be
held in an accessible location, food should be provided,
stakeholders should be given adequate notice, all
participants should be encouraged to voice their views,
and workers should be protected from retaliation for their
participation.
• If the purpose of the process is to make group recommendations,
stakeholders should be formally represented. If a process is only intended
to elicit input and feedback, people can participate in their individual
capacities. However, if the group's purpose is to ensure various
constituencies' interests are reflected in die recommendations, and to obtain
the support of different groups for the outcome, a more formal
representative process is necessary.
• Constituent groups vary widely with respect to how they are organized
and how they wish to be represented. It is important to clarify who is
participating as an individual and who is taking part as the representative
of an organization. Representatives of groups or organizations should
be clear about how they will communicate with their constituents.
Confusion about who is in a representative position can quickly breed
mistrust in a group. If representatives do not keep their constituent groups
adequately informed, significant problems can also develop. The method
of communication between participants and their stakeholder groups needs
to be established in the beginning.
• A successful process must have credible sources of information. For
important, controversial information, it is helpful to have a range of
83
-------
A fair process should
lead to a result that
perspectives, including an independent source of information. Many
people identify this as the single most important factor in building
credibility for a process and allowing all participants to play a meaningful
role. Sometimes, for information to be credible, it needs to be developed or
confirmed by a source independent of the facility or government agency.
Many community organizations are concerned that without independent
expertise, information, and advice, community members are at a great
disadvantage. Independent expertise is one of the best ways to empower
community participants to play a significant role and to understand the
consequences of the decisions they are making. When members have fears
about the impacts of the decisions or recommendations they are considering,
independent experts can assist them in assessing these impacts in an objective
and, therefore, credible way.
Openness of information is vital to a successful process, even if the
information is sensitive. Sharing relevant information is a significant
indicator of good faith intentions. This is especially true when
there is a history of conflict. While industry is often concerned
about divulging sensitive information, there were no reported
incidents in the case studies of information being misused.
Furthermore, groups did not request information when they
understood a legitimate need to maintain confidentiality.
provides benefits to all
participants.
84
• In order to address differentials in power, resources should
be available to enable effective participation by all stakeholders.
This may include: a) information presented in an easy-to-
understand manner, b) education or training for participants,
c) translation, d) funding for participants' travel or time, and/
or e) access to independent expertise. All stakeholders need to have the
resources to participate meaningfully. Some participants—often those from
community groups—have fewer resources. For the process to fully include
all participants, stakeholders should work together to find ways to make
sufficient resources available to all group members.
Participants should have genuine influence, consistent with the type of
Constructive Engagement process and the expectations established. For
example, if the goal of the process is to provide input to decision makers,
the decision makers should report back to the group to let them know
how their input was considered. If the goal is to make decisions by
consensus, consensus should be used for setting the goals and procedures
of the process, as well as for arriving at the final outcome.
The most successful Constructive Engagement processes result in
outcomes that benefit all stakeholders, and do not shift risks to more
vulnerable groups. A fair process should lead to a result that provides
benefits to all participants. There should be a balance, for example, between
achievement of regulatory flexibility and environmental, health, and safety
improvements. Similarly, groups with less political power, such as low-
income and minority groups, should achieve outcomes as beneficial as
those achieved by more powerful stakeholders.
-------
The Future of Constructive Engagement
The future of Constructive Engagement looks very promising. These efforts are
occurring more often in the computer and electronics industry. They are happening
because participants realize that the best way to address contentious issues facing
industry, workers, regulators, and communities is usually by working together
and acknowledging their many common goals. Constructive Engagement efforts
will not solve all problems, prevent all conflicts, or mend all relations. Genuine
differences remain among industry, government agencies, community groups, and
workers that will occasionally have to be resolved through legal or political means.
Still, Constructive Engagement offers an interactive process of communication
and decision-making that can be both meaningful and beneficial for all participants.
Its potential is just beginning to be realized.
In order to achieve this potential, several developments are necessary:
• More people need training in how to organize, conduct, and participate in
Constructive Engagement. Potential participants need to learn the skills
and processes that can help make Constructive Engagement efforts more
successful. With more trained participants and facilitators, these processes
can be more effective.
• Better funding and contracting systems are needed to make
the publicly funded initiation of such efforts simpler and more
available. Currently, government contracting procedures can
be daunting and potential initiators are sometimes discouraged
by the complexity of this process.
• Participants in Constructive Engagement activities should be
encouraged to document their experiences and share the
lessons they have learned.
• More reviews about organizing and using Constructive
Engagement are needed. This is still a relatively recent
development that requires more research, evaluation, and discussion in
order to use past experiences to improve future activities.
The appendices to this report contain additional information useful in
considering Constructive Engagement activities. In addition to case studies in
Appendix 1, Appendix 3 contains a variety of sample forms for use in planning
and conducting Constructive Engagement. Appendix 4 contains a listing of federal,
state, and nonprofit organizations, hotlines, and other resources that could be
helpful in pursuing Constructive Engagement.
We hope the Constructive Engagement Resource Guide is part of a much
wider effort to understand and promote the effective use of Constructive
Engagement.
85
-------
86
REFERENCES
Chemical Manufacturers Association, "Advisory Panels: Options for Community
Outreach," Washington, D.C.
Chess, Caron, Stephen K. Long, and Peter M. Sandman, Making Technical Assistance
Grants Work. New Brunswick, NJ: Environmental Communication Research
Program, Rutgers University, 1990.
Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Emond, S. Glenn Sigurdson, and Barry D.
Stuart, Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting Principles into
Practice. Ottawa, Ontario: National Roundtable on the Environment and the
Economy, 1996.
EPA Common Sense Initiative Auto Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee
Alternative Sector Regulatory System/Community Technical Assistance Project
Team, "U.S. Automobile Assembly Plants and Their Communities: Summary
of Community and Plant Environmental and Economic Issues Obtained
Through an Electronic Literature Search," Final Subcommittee Support
Document, March 27, 1997.
EPA, Office of the Administrator, "People, Places, and Partnerships: A Progress
Report on Community-Based Environmental Protection," EPA-100-R-97-003,
July 1997.
EPA, Office of Policy, "Better Decision Through Consultation and Collaboration,"
Draft 1998.
EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, "Community-Based Environmental
Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and Communities,"
September 1997.
EPA, Office of Reinvention, "Project XL Stakeholder Involvement: A Guide for
Project Sponsors and Stakeholders, EPA-100-F-OO-OOl, February 1999.
EPA, "Report of the Common Sense Initiative Council's Stakeholder Involvement
Work Group," June 3, 1998.
Harrison, Myron, M.D., "Why We Need the Precautionary Principle," in the Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition website, http://www.svtc.org.
INFRASTRUCTURE, "The INFRASTRUCTURE Resource List," Irving, Texas, http://
www.infras.com.
Lewis, Sanford and Diane Henkels, "Good Neighbor Agreements: A Tool for Social
Justice," Social Justice, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1995.
Lynn, Frances M., Presentation, "Constructive Engagement: What Do We Know?
What's Left to Discover?" CSI Computer and Electronics Subcommittee
Alternative Strategies Work Group, April 1998 meeting.
Lynn, Frances M., George Busenberg, Nevin Cohen, and Caron Chess, "The
Chemical Industry's Community Advisory Panels: What's Been Their Impact?"
unpublished paper, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
-------
Rutgers University Center for Environmental Communication, Cook College, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec.
Smith, Ted, and Leslie Byster, "The Challenges of Environmental De-Regulation
in the Era of Globalization," in Semiconductor Fabtech: New Technological
Developments in the Semiconductor Industry. London, UK: ICG Publishing, 1998.
Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, "Best Practices for Government
Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes,"
January 1997.
Stewart, Thomas E., Dynamic Networking, Martinez, California. Information
developed by Dynamic Networking on forming Community Advisory Panels.
87
-------
88
-------
Case Studies
This appendix provides case studies using Constructive Engagement and are
organized according to the type of process. The collection is diverse; each case
study illustrates a unique set of issues and lessons. Taken as a whole, themes
emerge and you can identify what you can expect to accomplish through successful
Constructive Engagement.
Table of Contents Page Number
Citizen Advisory Committees
• Lucent Technologies Microelectronics Group's Local
Environmental Advisory Group: 91
A Company Takes the Advisory Group Plunge—Allentown, Pennsylvania
• Rohm and Haas' Bristol Plant's Community Advisory Committee: 95
Promoting Communication Between a Company, its Workers,
and the Community—Bristol, Pennsylvania
• Shell Oil Company's Community Advisory Panel: 97
A Friendly Sounding Board—Martinez, California
• Sybron Chemicals' Neighborhood Involvement Council: 100
Building a Relationship With Neighbors—Birmingham, New Jersey
• Vulcan Chemical Company's Community Involvement Group: 102
A Single-Issue Forum Expands—Wichita, Kansas
89
-------
Oversight Committees
• The Lead Steering Committee:
A Community Takes on Heavy Metal—Bartlesville, Oklahoma
105
Stakeholder Negotiations/Formal Mediations
• Intel's Project XL Stakeholder Group: 107
A Difficult Consensus on Difficult Issues—Chandler, Arizona
• New Bedford Harbor Superfund Community Forum: Ill
Progress Without Complete Consensus—New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts
Independent Constructive Engagement Organizations
• The Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center:
A Constructive Engagement Center—San Jose, California
114
Multi-Level Interrelated Constructive Engagement Efforts
Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation: 117
Collaboration and Confrontation in East Palo Alto—East Palo Alto, California
Sheldahl, Inc.: 121
Citizens' Groups, a Labor Union, and a Company Cooperate—Northfleld, Minnesota
90
-------
Lucent Technologies Microelectronics
Group's Local Environmental Advisory Group:
A COMPANY TAKES THE ADVISORY GROUP PLUNGE — Allentown, Pennsylvania
Lucent Technologies' Microelectronics Group has
run Local Environmental Advisory Groups
(LEAGs) at its facilities throughout the world since
1996, including its Allentown, Pennsylvania plant.
A LEAG provides input and recommendations to
a facility about its environmental management
plans and results. This case illustrates:
• How a company benefits from including both
friends and adversaries in its community
involvement group.
• How a company's disclosure of sensitive
information to a group may be less scary than
expected and can help build trust.
• How skeptical activists were recruited and
then continued to participate.
• How the LEAG maintains high attendance and
enthusiasm.
Background
Lucent Technologies' Microelectronics Group
developed a business-wide Environmental Manage-
ment System (EMS) as part of its efforts to meet
the voluntary International Organization for Stan-
dardization (ISO) 14001 standards, which require
companies to incorporate environmental manage-
ment systems into all aspects of their operations.
At the same time, through implementation of the
EMS, Lucent sought to participate in EPAs Project
XL (XL stands for "Excellence and Leadership").
Project XL is an alternative-compliance program
which offers regulatory flexibility in exchange for
1) a plan for achieving "superior environmental
performance," i.e., better results than full compli-
ance with existing regulations would produce, and
2) stakeholder involvement in developing and
implementing the company's participation plan.
According to EPAs Steve Hoover, it took a long
time and considerable pressure from EPA and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Pro-
tection before key staff at Lucent fully grasped the
concept of public involvement as expressed in
Project XL. Once they realized it entailed much
more than one-way communication to the pub-
lic, "Lucent finally got the message and started to
ask exactly what we meant by community involve-
ment," said Hoover. "... they finally got on the stick
and developed the LEAGs."
Goals
The Allentown LEAG is one of Lucent Micro-
electronics' most successful advisory groups.
According to its charter (which was discussed and
accepted by the members), the group's purpose is
to "gather a diverse group of community represen-
tatives and facility personnel in order to exchange
ideas and respond to concerns regarding environ-
mental activities at the facility."
Participants
The LEAG has 20 members, representing a diver-
sity of views. Included are three Lucent employ-
ees—the manufacturing director and two union
representatives—who do not participate in making
group recommendations. The union representatives
were included at the urging of the facilitators. Other
members include environmentalists, business
people, scientists, civic group members, emergency
response professionals, and facility neighbors.
Members are only asked to serve for one year, but
the vast majority have renewed their membership.
The LEAG has its own member selection committee,
although company personnel chose the initial
members from people who responded to an open
invitation in local newspapers.
Guidelines from Lucent Microelectronics
headquarters ask LEAG organizers to create a
diverse group that includes detractors as well as
friends. Initially, facility managers, such as Envi-
ronment, Health, and Safety Manager Debra
Wenger, were nervous about inviting potential
91
-------
adversaries, such as vocal environmental activists,
into the group. Eleanor Winsor, lead facilitator
from the firm Winsor Associates, helped manag-
ers overcome their fears. Wenger now feels that it
is better to have potential foes at the table rather
than outside the process. Their participation has
proven valuable, stimulating useful discussions,
rather than making meetings more difficult.
The environmental activists in the group also
had concerns to overcome. Tom Kerr of Wildlands
Conservancy explains, "I was skeptical in the be-
ginning, but not enough to keep me away." He
worried about being "manipulated," but this has
not been his experience. Pat Smith of Clean Wa-
ter Action said "1 thought it would be another dog-
and-pony show," but found otherwise. "They're
trying to reach out to the community, be open
about what they're doing ... I believe Lucent is
honest in saying they want to simplify permitting
and regulatory processes, but also move towards
environmental impact improvement."
While members are chosen to represent a
broad range of interests and affiliations, they offi-
cially participate in their individual capacity. The
charter contains a ground rule, "Members should
exchange relevant information with non-group
constituents," but there are no formal mechanisms
for implementing this rule.
Procedures and Issues
The LEAG usually meets bimonthly. Ground rules
are established in the charter, and an independent
facilitator is present. The meetings are informal
and fairly amicable, although members sometimes
openly disagree with each other. Meetings are open
to the public, with time set aside at the end of the
meeting for observers to speak.
Originally, the two-and-a-half hour meetings
began at 7:00 pm, with no meal served. However,
members complained they didn't have time for
dinner, so the meeting time was changed to 6:00
pm, and a light supper was offered at 5:30 pm.
Use Stoll, a plant employee designated as LEAG
coordinator, said she was initially concerned that
providing a meal might look like Lucent was "buy-
ing" the participants. However, she now sees the
meal as a form of customer service, and finds that
the meal puts members in a better frame of mind
to listen and provide input.
The group discusses issues including the EMS,
chemical use and die Toxics Release Inventory, some
air quality issues, and water consumption and dis-
charge. LEAG members also took a plant tour in
which employees pointed out aspects of the facil-
ity that could potentially affect the environment.
Role of the LEAG
The role of the group is strictly advisory. Jerry Fields
of PPL Inc. (formerly Pennsylvania Power and Light)
says members "review and evaluate [Lucent's] ideas
. . . We're dieir conscience, diough diey're already
very conscientious. We're a check on their think-
ing." Facilitator Eleanor Winsor explains, "The com-
pany keeps control of the decision-making process.
No one questions that or objects to it."
Challenges
Public disclosure. According to Eleanor Winsor, one
challenge was Lucent's nervousness about opening
up to the public. "We did a lot of hand-holding to
develop their comfort level." A major turning point
came when the plant had a minor chemical spill,
and, according to Winsor, "They were panicked."
Winsor continues, "We worked with them, and
when they shared the information with the LEAG,
members responded, 'Well, it looks like you
handled things well.' Lucent couldn't believe it was
such a non-issue. The LEAG offered suggestions
and asked 'how will you prevent this in the fu-
ture?' They were very constructive." Member Tom
Kerr concurred: "It was in effect [Lucent] blow-
ing the whistle on themselves. If my son came to
me upset and said, 'I got a B-B gun and shot a
bird,' the effect of him telling me would be pow-
erful. It's kind of the same... It's healdiy for people
to admit their mistakes, to admit they're human,
and invite us to help keep them clean."
So far, the members have not requested
information that the company considers too
sensitive to reveal. The charter stipulates that,
"Issues associated with confidential business
information or trade secrets, personnel information
or legal questions will be outside the group's scope of
discussion." Overall, however, sharing information
92
-------
openly has been an important trust-builder. One
member recently revealed that he had asked for
certain information early on just to test whether
the company would provide it! (They did.)
Technical information. Many group members
found it difficult to digest and respond to complex
technical information. Member Tom Kerr has dealt
with this mostly by relying on other group mem-
bers with more technical expertise. He originally
hoped Lucent could use less technical language,
but acknowledges that might be costly. Member Pat
Smith remarked, "I can always raise my hand and
say I don't understand" and receive a better expla-
nation. She pointed out that using plain English,
taking time to explain, using charts and visuals,
and offering plant tours have all helped.
Publicity. Smith points out a different area in
need of improvement: "I'd like to see more press
about what's happening at Lucent." The goal of
heightening public awareness about pollution and
its prevention would be served by such publicity.
Smith also notes that other companies might be
inspired by Lucent's example to involve the com-
munity in their environmental planning.
Costs
Most LEAG costs are absorbed by Lucent. The plant
manager, Nick Khoury attends most of the meetings.
The two union representatives participate, and others
from the company, such as environmental engineers,
attend when they are needed to make presentations
and answer questions on particular topics. Other costs
include a newspaper ad for each meeting,
refreshments, the facilitator's fees, and the time of one
Lucent employee, IlseStoll, who serves as coordinator
and point-of-contact for the LEAG. Stoll does
considerable between-meeting work including: 1)
reminding members of upcoming meetings and action
items, 2) arranging for catering and room set-up, 3)
reminding them to read minutes, and 4) regularly
thanking members for dieir participation.
Member costs essentially consist of the time to
attend meetings, read minutes, and do follow-up.
A few members give additional time on the
membership committee, and occasionally activities
are planned which require some preparation. For
example, one member was asked to, give a
presentation about his organization.
Outcomes
The LEAG has provided many benefits to the
company.
• According to Debra Wenger, the LEAG is
"building a good will account with the
community . . . you hope you never have to
call upon it. It's been a challenging growth
exercise for our organization ... It broadens
our perspective and keeps us on our toes."
• It helps keep environmental issues at a high
priority for the company, according to Wenger.
Members cite different benefits for themselves:
• For members, the opportunity to learn about
Lucent's actions—and to hear other members'
reactions—is an important participation
benefit. The plant is a major business in
Allentown, so its actions can affect the whole
community. Specifically, Pat Smith of Clean
Water Action sees her participation as
furthering the goal of greater public awareness
of industrial facilities and the toxics they
generate. Dan Koplish of the Allentown City
Water Department and Jerry Fields of PPL Inc.
both take interest in Lucent's innovative way
of working with regulators on environmental
compliance (particularly through EPAs Project
XL) and its approach to working with the
public. They are also interested in the plant
as a major customer of water and power. Tom
Kerr of the Wildlands Conservancy
participates in part to learn what makes some
companies more inclined than others to
balance environmental considerations with
profit motives.
• Members also gain a chance to network with
other influential people, and in some cases,
to promote their organizations.
• Finally, members derive satisfaction from
seeing their input taken seriously.
The LEAG has also contributed to substantive
changes:
• With the help of the LEAG's input, the company
is reducing the usage of water and water-
treatment chemicals, thereby reducing discharges
of treated water into the nearby Lehigh River.
93
-------
• The LEAG discussed and agreed to the plant's
Final Project Agreement for Project XL. Under
the agreement, the plant will conserve large
amounts of water, while benefiting from a new
water discharge permitting procedure.
Success factors
Several factors have contributed to the LEAG's
success:
• Although the EMS establishes a few basic
requirements for all LEAGs, they are otherwise
locally controlled. For example, each LEAG
selects its own members, establishes its own
charter, and chooses what issues to address.
• The company's willingness to invite environ-
mental activists has contributed to a credible
balance of views on the LEAG. However, all
members must be local, according to the
company-wide guidelines for LEAGs. Thus, any
representatives of national environmental
organizations must be from a local chapter.
According to Lucent's Ted Polakowski, this is
intended to ensure that the representative shares
a concern for the community as a whole, not
just a particular issue.
Both the professional facilitator and Lucent's
LEAG coordinator (Use Stoll) have been
crucial to the smooth functioning of the
LEAG. The facilitator keeps the meetings on
track, encourages the plant to be open with
information, offers advice on membership,
and helps build meeting agendas—all in the
interest of an open, fair process and building
trust among all parties. Use Stoll's between-
meeting contacts and reminder calls may be
the reason for regular attendance of over 90%,
and for generally high enthusiasm and morale.
The top management of the plant is as
committed to the LEAG as the environmental
staff, showing the LEAG that the whole plant
is committed to environmental responsibility.
According to facilitator Eleanor Winsor, plant
manager Nick Khoury actively participates by
listening, interacting, and treating the
members as peers. Winsor feels this is crucial:
"You have to have the commitment at the
top—it's extremely important, and it has to
be sincere. If there's no commitment, people
see right through it."
Note: The charter for Lucent's Allentown LEAG is
included in Appendix 3.
Sources
Harris, Paul, "Beyond ISO 14000: Lucent
Technologies Blazes Trail to Reg Relief,"
Environmental Management Today, Vol. 7 No.
1, 1996.
Lucent Technologies Microelectronics Group,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, LEAG News Update,
September 24, 1996.
Lucent Technologies Microelectronics Group
website, "Local Environmental Advisory
Group, Allentown, Pennsylvania," last
updated 1998, http://www.Lucent.com/micro/
Leagpage.html.
Local Environmental Advisory Group, Lucent
Technologies, Allentown, Pennsylvania,
"Charter and Nomination Form."
94
Polakowski, Ted D. and Laurence Mach, "ISO
14000 Certification: Lucent Technologies
Microelectronics Group's Strategic Choice,"
Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 4 No.
2, 1996.
Interviews
• Jerry Fields, LEAG member, July 21, 1998.
• Steve Hoover, EPA Headquarters, August 12,
1998.
• Tom Kerr, LEAG member, July 13, 1998.
• Ted Polakowski, Corporate Environmental
and Safety Officer, Lucent Microelectronics
Group, July 1, 1998.
• Pat Smith, LEAG member, July 14, 1998.
• Use Stoll, LEAG coordinator, Lucent
Allentown plant, July 20, 1998.
• Debra Wenger, Environment, Health, and
Safety Manager, Lucent Allentown plant, July
9, 1998.
• Eleanor Winsor, facilitator, July 22,1998.
-------
Rohm and Haas' Bristol Plant's Community Advisory Committee:
PROMOTING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A COMPANY, ITS WORKERS, AND THE COMMUNITY
— Bristol, Pennsylvania
The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) at Rohm
and Haas' Bristol plant convened in 1986 after a series
of events led leaders to conclude that the company
needed to rethink how it was communicating with the
public. Since then, the CAC has functioned as a
component of the plant's Community Relations
Program. This case study illustrates:
• How a company-initiated collaborative
process serves as an important link between
the company, workers at the plant, and the
surrounding communities.
• How a company developed internal mechan-
isms to communicate more effectively about
community health, safety, and environmental
concerns.
Background
The two communities of Bristol and Croydon
border Rohm and Haas' Bristol plant in eastern
Pennsylvania. The chemical company's corporate
office is in Philadelphia; it has 22 subsidiaries
located in the United States and 27 others
throughout the world. The Bristol plant is one of
the company's largest facilities, with both a
manufacturing and a plastics research operation.
The materials manufactured at the Bristol plant
are commonly used by other companies in their
production of consumer goods.
The Bristol plant opened in 1917 and has a
long history with the surrounding communities.
While a large portion of its workforce resides in
the area, the relationship between the plant and
the local communities has, at times, been
characterized by a high degree of conflict.
Contentious labor-management relationships
existed in the early 1970s. In 1983, the company
and the local communities became involved in a
highly publicized dispute over waste disposed
from 1952 to 1975 in a Bristol site landfill. Cleanup
of the landfill followed, but the company's
credibility was questioned during the process.
The events at the Bristol plant, and at other
Rohm and Haas facilities in the U.S., led company
leaders to believe they had reached a crisis point
and needed to examine company practices for
managing community relations. The result of their
effort was a shift within Rohm and Haas, chang-
ing the way the company works with neighbor-
ing communities and in how it involves workers
in the process.
Goals
The Bristol plant established its Community Re-
lations Program with several goals in mind. High-
level managers, both at the corporate and local
levels, want the plant to be seen as a positive force
and valued member of the community. They be-
lieve there is a direct correlation between how the
company is perceived by the community and its
economic performance. The company depends on
community cooperation to attract employees and
to carry out many of its activities. Managers also
believe that the company can serve an important
role by providing information to the community.
The Bristol plants CAC was created to help
the company achieve the goals of its Community
Relations Program. The CAC meets monthly, and
the meeting agenda is developed in advance by
CAC members and Rohm and Haas' public affairs
manager. The Bristol plant's CAC is chaired by the
mayor of the Bristol Borough, and includes a num-
ber of local elected officials. Participants also in-
clude representatives from local and regional
groups such as the League of Women Voters, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the Croydon Civic
Association. Although a community representa-
tive serves on the committee, the group is intended
less as a forum for citizens than for identifiable
interest groups. Environmental groups are not
represented on the CAC, but the public affairs man-
ager says this is because diere are no environmental
organizations in the immediate area.
When the CAC was initially formed, plant
95
-------
96
managers selected the committee members. Now
the participants themselves elect new representa-
tives when their three-year terms expire or when
a member leaves the group. The Bristol Plant Man-
ager and the Manager of Public Affairs play active
administrative roles in the advisory group.
Role of the CAC
The by-laws of the CAC state that it serves as an
advisory body. According to the Manager of Pub-
lic Affairs, the CAC's role includes identifying key
community issues and providing the plant with
an opportunity to talk about its activities. Manag-
ers at the plant view the CAC process as a way to
discuss issues in a positive, informal manner.
Managers stress that the CAC is not part of the
plant's management structure and does not rule
on managerial decisions. The company wants to
avoid having the community determine its priori-
ties, but wants the community to be assured that
the company is acting with their concerns and
interests in mind.
The Bristol plant's CAC addresses issues raised
by participants and also responds to issues pre-
sented by the company. The CAC has discussed a
proposed solid waste incinerator, remediation of
a landfill, and the location of a truck terminal.
The truck terminal issue was brought to the CAC
by the company after a community attitude sur-
vey identified it as a community concern.
Managers at the Bristol plant participate in
CAC meetings, update the CAC on current affairs,
and lend their administrative support to the CAC.
Opinions vary on the degree to which the com-
pany considers and responds to the CAC's input.
Plant managers say that generally the CAC's com-
ments are a factor in company decision-making.
When possible, plans are modified to meet CAC
concerns. The company, however, has not always
acknowledged when the CAC has influenced its
decisions.
Outcomes
There have been several outcomes of the CAC
process:
• The company's positive experience with its
Community Relations Program has led to more
openness with the community and its workers.
The CAC has given managers at the Bristol
Plant a better sense of community issues,
including what information the surrounding
communities need, how the company can
provide the needed information, and what it
takes for the community to feel comfortable
with the company's activities. Managers at the
Bristol Plant report that they are now better
equipped to anticipate community concerns
and, as a result, address them in a proactive
manner. This approach has been part of an
overall culture shift within the company.
The Bristol plant developed internal commun-
ication mechanisms to make it easier for the
company to know and respond to community
concerns. Managers are alerted directly about
any CAC issues that relate to their operations.
The Plant Manager holds monthly meetings
with employees to relay the concerns of the
CAC and discuss other community relations
issues. Departmental and staff meetings are
also used to communicate information about
community needs and concerns.
Employees of the Bristol plant serve as ambass-
adors to the community. Plant employees play
an important role in facilitating commun-
ications between the company and the
surrounding communities. Because workers,
as community members and employees, serve
in a dual role, they serve as conduits for
information about plant activities and
community issues.
The CAC has made recommendations for how
the company could work with the community.
For example, the CAC asked the company to
inform the community about the incinerator
issue. To accomplish this task, the CAC
suggested that the company run ads in the
local paper to explain issues over which there
was public confusion. Another example is
that, at the suggestion of the CAC, the
company instituted a policy of contacting the
township and police dispatcher whenever a
situation arises that could prompt complaints,
concerns, or questions from the surrounding
communities.
-------
The Bristol plant conducted surveys in 1985,
1988, and 1990 to assess long term community
attitudes about the plant. Survey results are in-
conclusive as to whether community relations
activities improved public perceptions. Measuring
the impact has been difficult when a general dis-
trust of the chemical industry exists and more
Source
This case study was adapted from Caron Chess,
Michael Greenberg, Michal Tamuz, and Alex
Saville, "Building Trust from the Inside: Behind
the Scenes of the Risk Communication Program
public attention has been focused on environmen-
tal issues in recent years. Also, it is uncertain
whether relations would be worse if the Bristol
plant's community relations activities had not
taken place. Nonetheless, the Bristol plant's efforts
have led to better communication among the com-
pany, its workers, and the community.
of Rohm and Haas' Bristol Plant," Environmental
Communication Research Program, Rutgers
University, November, 1992.
Shell Oil Company's Community Advisory Panel:
A FRIENDLY SOUNDING BOARD — Martinez, California
Since 1990, Shell Oil's manufacturing facility in
Martinez, California has operated a Community
Advisory Panel (CAP), which was originally
formed to ease the permitting process for a large
facility expansion. The group continues to serve
as a vehicle for Shell to address community con-
cerns. This case addresses the following issues:
• How a CAP can serve as a sounding board for
the company's plans and persuade the
company to make positive changes, even if it
is not inclusive enough to resolve all
controversy surrounding a plant.
• How a CAP might shy away from taking
formal positions or recommendations.
• How a company learned to be more forthcoming
about sensitive information with its CAP
Background
Shell thought it had a good reputation in Martinez,
but certain factors showed that its good standing
in the community was precarious. Foremost, Shell
had a large oil spill in 1988, leading to protests by
environmental activists and heightening commu-
nity environmental awareness. In addition, numer-
ous professionals were moving into Martinez, and
this population had less appreciation than the
existing working class population of Shell's role
as a large employer.
In the early 1990s, Shell made plans for a
billion-dollar upgrade and expansion to launch its
Clean Fuels Project, a facility to produce
reformulated fuel. Shell feared this could lead to
community protests and anger. A county supervisor
suggested the idea of a CAP, and at the same time,
the Chemical Manufacturers' Association was
promoting the idea of CAPs in general. The idea
sat well with Shell managers and their desire to be
leaders in the environmental arena.
Goals
The goal of the CAP was to improve company re-
lations with the community through two-way
communication. The CAP's main function is to
sensitize the company to troubling or important
community issues, and to serve as a sounding
board for messages that Shell wants to relay to the
rest of the community.
97
-------
98
Participants
Shell selected participants to create a cross-sec-
tion of the local community. The CAP has 12 mem-
bers, including a scientist, two environmentalists,
a businessperson, a school board member, two
Shell retirees, an employee of the County, and a
high school student. The group also includes the
plant manager and other managers from the facil-
ity. The three neighborhoods surrounding the
plant are represented. Initially, five participants
were selected by the mayor and the county super-
visor, then those five recruited the other seven.
Role and Procedures of the CAP
The group has an advisory role and operates in-
formally and amicably. The group agreed to keep
all meetings closed to the public, to encourage
honest communication. Shell has been very open
with communication, and has spent considerable
meeting time presenting information to the other
members. The CAP has a professional facilitator.
Overall group dynamics have been congenial and
trusting, and consensus has come easily.
Decisions are intended to be made by
consensus, but in practice the group does not
generate formal recommendations or positions. At
one meeting, the members present reached a
consensus decision to formally oppose an
environmental group's proposal for a county-wide
"community inspector" position. During a later
public hearing, Shell cited this consensus, and CAP
members who had not been present for die decision
reacted angrily. Another member, who had been
present, spoke up at the public hearing and said
she changed her mind on the matter. After this
uncomfortable chain of events, die CAP decided to
avoid taking positions. Instead, they express a
variety of views, questions and concerns, and the
company responds based on all of the feedback.
The CAP has urged Shell to hold several public
meetings. CAP members attend, but do not
actively participate. There are no frequently used,
formal mechanisms for CAP members to obtain
input from the broader community.
Costs
Shell has not kept separate records of CAP costs,
but direct costs include food for meetings, photo-
copying, and the facilitator's fees.
Issues Addressed
Central to CAP discussions are environmental is-
sues, such as the Clean Fuels Project facility and
discharge of selenium into a strait. However, the
group also addresses other issues, like company
philanthropy and ways of effectively communi-
cating with the community.
Challenges
The CAP has coped with several challenging situ-
ations.
Disclosure. In one case, the company did not
fully tell the CAP of a controversy surrounding
its vapor recovery system, until the controversy
became public. After the CAP complained, the
company learned to be more forthcoming with the
CAP about potentially controversial issues.
Technical information. Another challenge is the
wide discrepancy among members in understand-
ing technical information. Some members rely on
their more knowledgeable colleagues to detect
problems and raise concerns. Other members seek
assistance from people they know outside the CAP,
and Shell has a standing offer to pay for an inde-
pendent technical expert.
Attendance. Maintaining participants' interest
has been difficult, so the CAP voted to add new
members to raise enthusiasm.
Communicating with the broader community. In
the beginning, the company hoped that CAP mem-
bers would actively communicate with the broader
community to elicit the community's views. How-
ever, CAP members feel it is inappropriate to serve
as conduits for communication in this manner,
worrying that they may be seen as company
spokespersons.
Failure to address some viewpoints. Several local
environmental groups have continued to press the
company for greater accountability. These groups
are not represented in the CAP. While the CAP rep-
resents a range of segments of the community, it
does not aim to build consensus across the full range
of interests in the community or to draw in Shell's
strongest detractors. Rather, it functions harmoni-
ously and informally to provide community input,
serve as a sounding board for the company's ideas,
and improve Shell's communication and problem
solving with the community.
-------
Outcomes
The CAP can claim a number of accomplishments:
• The group persuaded Shell to hold a public
meeting at an early stage of planning for the
Clean Fuels Project expansion, and provided
input on various aspects of the expansion,
such as landscaping and traffic flow.
• The CAP helped bring about an annual "report
card" meeting, where representatives of all the
agencies regulating Shell gave a public
presentation on Shell's environmental
performance.
• The CAP helps Shell communicate to the public
more effectively. The CAP works with Shell on
brochures and presentations to make sure
these communications are easy to understand
and do not sound defensive.
• The CAP has encouraged Shell to target more of
its philanthropic giving to the local community,
including schools.
• The CAP played a moderating role in a local
dispute, when a neighbor of the plant complained
about asphalt being spread on the ground near
the plant (an erosion-control practice). With
nudging from the CAP, the company agreed to
restore the area by removing the asphalt.
• The CAP helps the company welcome and use
community input rather than fearing it. Shell
managers say they think about the CAP's
reaction—and, by extension, the public's
reaction—before making major decisions.
Shell managers also say they are now "less
afraid of the public."
Success Factors
A number of factors have helped make the CAP
successful.
• The commitment and participation of the
facility's top management have been key.
• A professional facilitator and the ability of
group members to resolve internal conflicts
have also been helpful.
• Shell's willingness to pay for an independent
technical expert has increased trust.
• Finally, it was beneficial to form the CAP at a
time when there was not a crisis—this made
building good relations easier.
However, the exclusion of environmental repre-
sentatives defines the limits of the CAP's ability to
resolve important issues.
Source
This case study was adapted from Nevin Cohen,
Caron Chess, Frances Lynn, and George
Busenberg, "Improving Dialogue: A Case Study
of the Community Advisory Panel of Shell Oil
Company's Martinez Manufacturing Complex."
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Environmental
Communication, Rutgers University, 1995.
99
-------
Sybron Chemicals' Neighborhood Involvement Council:
BUILDING A RELATIONSHIP WITH NEIGHBORS — Birmingham, New Jersey
100
The Sybron Chemicals Neighborhood Involve-
ment Council (NIC) was established in 1989, a
year after a series of incidents compelled the com-
pany to examine its environmental practices and
relationship with the surrounding community.
This case study illustrates:
• How a company overcame a crisis of public
confidence through its community relations
efforts.
• How a community engagement process was
used to build a lasting relationship between a
company and its neighbors.
• How a company narrowly defined who it
considers to be a community stakeholder, and
how this approach affected the community
engagement process.
Key Events
Sybron Chemicals, a manufacturer of specialty
chemicals, has 17 facilities worldwide. The
company's headquarters and one of its plants are
located in Birmingham, New Jersey, a semi-rural
community 20 miles east of Philadelphia.
It was at the Birmingham facility in October
of 1988 that Sybron accidentally released forty
pounds of ethyl acrylate, an extremely strong-
smelling chemical, into the air. Within two hours,
citizens began calling local officials to complain
about the smell. Several area residents went to the
hospital for treatment of eye irritation. Because
the local fire department lacked information about
the situation, they evacuated 60 residents from
their homes and took them to the local fire sta-
tion. This incident was featured prominently on
the local news the next day.
Two other incidents occurred shortly after the
ethyl acrylate release. The following day, another
spill occurred. Although it was much smaller,
those living near the facility could smell the chemi-
cals. Several months later, there was a flash fire at
the plant in the middle of the night. Two workers
were severely injured. Local residents were awak-
ened by the sound of medical evacuation helicop-
ters. Together, these three incidents profoundly
changed the company's image in the community.
Sybron had maintained a low profile in the
community, but now found itself faced with a crisis
of public confidence. Township officials convened
public accountability sessions, and members of the
public called for the plant to be closed. A group of
citizens traveled to Washington, D.C. to speak
with elected officials about their health and safety
concerns. New Jersey's Senator Lautenberg called
for an investigation of the plant. On the state level,
the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) scrutinized the company's
regulatory compliance, and demanded that it
conduct an environmental risk assessment.
Deciding to Collaborate
As a result of these events, the Vice President of
Manufacturing convened a team of top managers
to develop and implement a community relations
program. The team hired an outside public rela-
tions consultant to advise them on risk communi-
cation and management issues. In working with
the consultant, the team came to believe the
company's survival was partially dependent on de-
veloping a positive relationship with the surround-
ing community. A community relations program
was viewed as necessary to achieve the company's
overall goal of staying in business and growing.
The goal of Sybron's Community Relations
Program is to build a relationship with the
community; the company wants to demonstrate
that it cares about its neighbors. To this end,
Sybron's Community Relations Program has several
parts: the Prompt Inquiry and Notification System
(PINS); the Neighborhood Involvement Council
(NIC); community surveys; a quarterly community
newsletter; plant tours and open houses; and
training for community volunteers in odor
identification and reporting. Company managers
-------
consider all of the components integral to
communicating with the community; the program
as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Participants
Sybron strictly defines its neighbors as the 600
residences located within 1.5 miles of the plant.
Most residents of the lower-middle class neigh-
borhood have lived there for years; some are work-
ers at the plant. Eighty-five percent of the
company's community relations efforts are targeted
to this population. The company views them as
the most affected by plant activities and the most
likely to impact its operations.
Sybron explicitly excludes environmental and
activist groups from its Community Relations
Program. Termed "anti-groups" by the public
relations consultant, these groups fall outside of the
company's definition of a plant neighbor. Managers
make a distinction between neighbors who need to
know and outsiders who do not possess that right.
The company believes that if it builds a close
relationship with the neighborhood, the residents
will act as a buffer between the company and
environmental or other citizens' watchdog groups.
This approach is based on the theory that activist
organizations are effective when they enter
communities where there is no relationship between
the community and the company or when the
company lacks credibility within the community
Convening the Process
In the summer of 1989, Sybron convened the NIC
by inviting all of its PINS program subscribers to
join. Eleven people attended the first meeting and
a core group of regular participants soon devel-
oped. Over time, the council has grown in size,
partly because the first elected chairperson actively
recruited members. The NIC was initially com-
posed of senior citizens, but now more younger
neighbors attend. The Council also includes the
chairperson of the Local Emergency Planning
Committee. While Sybron extended invitations to
the neighborhood's most vocal detractors, none
of them became NIC members.
The NIC is a forum for two-way commun-
ication between the company and its immediate
neighbors. Two or three managers attend every
meeting. The company goes to the NIC when it
wants to present information and learn of
neighborhood opinion. When NIC members have
concerns about plant operations, they bring issues
to NIC meetings or contact managers directly.
Members of the NIC have developed relationships
with individual plant managers as a result of the
meetings, and speak with them on an informal basis.
Outcomes
Since its establishment, the NIC has addressed a
range of topics and has participated in a variety of
activities. It has heard presentations from repre-
sentatives of the municipal waste water treatment
plant, the NJDEP, and Sybron's regulatory com-
pliance department. Members participated in a
tour of Sybron's waste water treatment facility. The
NIC brought up the issue of company trucks turn-
ing on private property, and has initiated projects
to upgrade Sybron's ballpark and restore an his-
toric schoolhouse on company property.
Sybron, according to its own estimates, has
spent more than $1,000,000 on environmental
improvements and community relations activities
since 1989. Managers and academics who have
studied Sybron's Community Relations Program
have made the following observations:
• Sybron's Community Relations Program has been
accompanied by meaningful plant improvements.
While the company increased communication
with its neighbors, it also improved its
performance through such initiatives as the
odor abatement and safety upgrade programs.
• Relationship-building has been the focus of
Sybron's Community Relations Program.
Communication and trust have increased
between Sybron and its neighbors as a result of
the company's efforts. Individual relationships
have developed, and the two groups have been
willing to learn from each other.
• The NIC has been less technically oriented and
less critical than originally anticipated.
Managers report that little discussion occurs
over the substantive issues brought before the
group. One manager expressed surprise that
the Council raised so few questions about
information presented on plant emissions.
101
-------
Another manager suggested that NIC
members lack sufficient knowledge to probe
the company's operations more deeply.
The amount of influence the NIC has on Sybron
operations is difficult to ascertain. It appears to
be issue-specific, largely dependent on
whether the neighborhood is directly affected
by the plant's activities. Managers consider
what NIC members say, but it is unclear what
happens when interests diverge.
It is debatable whether the NIC operates
independently from Sybron. The NIC's brief
guidelines were developed by Sybron's
consultant before the NIC was established.
Opinions differ as to whether the NIC chair
or Sybron personnel actually conduct the
meetings. The Vice President of Human
Resources, who serves as the secretary of the
group, works with other managers to develop
the meeting agenda. The chair of the NIC is
not always consulted. Members do, however,
raise issues that are not on the agenda and
invite their own speakers to meetings. Both
the company and NIC members brainstorm
issues to be addressed in the coming year at
the annual banquet.
Overall, Sybron managers consider the
Community Relations Program a success. In
1990, Sybron received the Silver Anvil Award
from the Public Relations Society of America for
the best community relations program in the U.S.
Additional factors contributing to the success of
the program include the active involvement of
senior managers, widespread support among
company leaders, and sound advice from the
public relations consultant.
Source
This case study was adapted from Caron Chess,
Alex Saville, Michael Greenberg, and Michal
Tamuz, "From Crisis to Credibility: Behind the
Scenes of the Risk Communication Program of
Sybron Chemicals, Inc.," Center for Environmen-
tal Communication, Rutgers University, July, 1991.
Vulcan Chemical Company's Community Involvement Group:
A SINGLE-ISSUE FORUM EXPANDS — Wichita, Kansas
Vulcan Chemical Company's chlor-alkali manu-
facturing facility in Wichita, Kansas, has had a
Community Involvement Group (CIG) since
1988. The group addresses community concerns
about the environmental impact of the plant on
the community. This case illustrates the follow-
ing issues:
• How activism can lead to a productive,
cooperative dialogue between a plant and the
community.
How a group formed to address a specific,
controversial issue can evolve to address
environmental issues more broadly and
proactively.
How having many technically sophisticated
members can be both an advantage and a
disadvantage.
How it is difficult for members of an ongoing
input group to formally represent or
communicate with constituencies.
102
-------
Background
Several events occurred in the late 1980s that in-
dicated Vulcan was perceived as an environmen-
tally unfriendly neighbor. An article was published
in USA Today putting Vulcan on a "top polluters"
list, and there was activism against the plant from
the neighborhood and from environmental groups.
When Vulcan planned to build a hazardous waste
incinerator at the site, community opposition in-
creased, and the public meetings Vulcan held to
explain the decision turned into shouting matches.
While the facility searched for a better way to
respond to community opposition, a group of en-
vironmentalists discussed the possibility of a dia-
logue with the facility. One group recommended
a facilitator, who worked with Vulcan to establish
the CIG process (and later managed the meetings).
Vulcan initially hesitated about creating a CIG but
finally decided to take the leap. The then-assis-
tant plant manager was a key champion of form-
ing the CIG.
Goals
The CIG was originally formed to resolve die con-
troversy surrounding the planned incinerator, and
to improve relations with the community. Soon af-
ter the CIG formed, Vulcan dropped its plans to build
the incinerator. The CIG's input may have contrib-
uted to Vulcan's decision, but the facility cited cost
as the main reason for changing plans. At that point,
the facility decided to continue the CIG because of
odier environmental issues, and because regulators
looked upon it favorably. The group revised its pur-
pose to promoting two-way communication with die
community and resolving concerns about die plant's
environmental impacts.
Participants
A steering committee of key people from the in-
cinerator controversy chose CIG members with
scientific backgrounds who represented the im-
mediate neighborhood as well as the broader
Wichita community. The resulting membership of
about a dozen active members includes represen-
tatives from the Sierra Club, the Wichita/Sedgwick
County Health Department, the Kansas Natural
Resource Council, industry, local universities,
close neighbors, and residents of surrounding
communities. The facility is usually represented
by the Plant Manager, the Environment, Health,
and Safety Manager, and occasionally the Man-
ager of Public Affairs.
Selecting people with scientific or technical
backgrounds has proven helpful, but also has some
disadvantages. On one hand, the group has
credibility with the company, and can make sense
of the voluminous technical data. On the other
hand, it is unclear whether the group truly
represents die community In addition, because not
all members have equivalent expertise, the less-
knowledgeable members have been more inhibited
in expressing their views. Finally, discussions
sometimes get mired in fine technical points.
Role and Procedures of the CIG
The CIG meets monthly, spending a great deal of
time listening to facility presentations on techni-
cal issues, so the group can develop well-informed
views. The group is advisory only. In principle, it
operates by consensus, but it rarely generates for-
mal recommendations or positions. Instead, the
emphasis is on exchanging information and opin-
ions and achieving mutual understanding. Group
interactions are generally informal and collegial.
Costs
Vulcan estimates that the direct costs of the CIG
have been about $20-30,000 per year, which pays
for the facilitator, meeting space, photocopying,
postage, and technical studies.
Challenges
The CIG has faced several challenges.
Communicating with the broader community. Ini-
tially, the facility expected that the CIG members
would be true representatives of their community
by reporting back to their "constituencies"—their
neighbors, or the people in the organizations diey
represented—about the discussions. However, the
members have been reluctant to formally report
back, either because they do not know how or do
not want to appear to be public relations vehicles
for the facility. Thus, while CIG members feel diey
have a good sense of the community's concerns
about the facility, they have not actively dissemi-
nated information or discussed changes in their
attitudes, other dian through informal conversa-
tions with their acquaintances and families.
103
-------
Attendance. The group has also faced low par-
ticipation, particularly in recent years—only about
half of the members come to a typical meeting.
Perhaps the group has satisfactorily addressed the
most pressing environmental issues, so there is
now less motivation to participate.
Issues Addressed
The group has dealt with several environmental
issues. They have discussed major issues, like
Vulcans use of deep wells for hazardous waste
disposal, and how to make Vulcan's sodium chlo-
rite facility safer. Smaller issues have included
health risk assessment of a landfill and communi-
cation of Toxics Release Inventory data.
The facility's unwillingness to share sensitive
business information has not been an appreciable
problem, because CIG members generally have not
requested this information. The group has been
more interested in operational and environmen-
tal information, which Vulcan is willing to share.
Outcomes
The Community Involvement Group has accom-
plished tangible and intangible results:
• The group helped persuade the facility to mafee
signi/icant environmental changes. On the deep
well issue, Vulcan agreed to pay for an
independent technical consultant, selected by
the CIG, to critically examine Vulcan's original
safety assessment of the well system.
Ultimately, the CIG persuaded Vulcan to phase
out the wells and build a plant that converts
the waste into re-sellable material. The CIG
also helped influence Vulcan to install an extra
scrubber at the sodium chlorite facility.
• The CIG has improved Vulcan's community
involvement. The CIG has helped the facility
communicate better with the public and solicit
community participation earlier in the
planning of new facilities. This has helped
propel Vulcan into a position of environmental
leadership. For example, Vulcan received an
award for its pollution reduction efforts from
the national group Renew America.
• There seems to be less community suspicion of
the plant. Anecdotal evidence suggests the
community has greater confidence in the
facility's environmental management. For
example, environmentalists no longer protest
at the facility.
• The CIG heZps Vulcan reach sound decisions. A
strategy for environmental plans was
developed with the CIG's input.
• The CIG serves as a good sounding board for the
facility. Vulcan uses the CIG to better
understand how the community will react to
the facility's actions.
Success Factors
The CIG's success has been possible because of
support from top management, openness in shar-
ing data, use of a professional facilitator, and
Vulcan's willingness to fund independent techni-
cal consultants.
Source
This case study was adapted from Nevin Cohen,
Caron Chess, Frances Lynn, and George
Busenberg, "Fostering Environmental Progress: A
Case Study of Vulcan Chemical's Community In-
volvement Group." New Brunswick, NJ: Center
for Environmental Communication, Rutgers Uni-
versity, 1995.
104
-------
The Lead Steering Committee:
A COMMUNITY TAKES ON HEAVY METAL — Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Heavy metal contamination from the National
Zinc smelter site has been a major concern for the
small town of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, for decades.
In 1991, the Oklahoma State Department of Health
(OSDH) convened the Lead Steering Committee
as a component of its three-part community in-
volvement strategy to facilitate area remediation
efforts. This case study illustrates the following
issues:
• How a collaborative process can address
community controversy over contamination
cleanup.
• How a collaborative process can help build
relationships within a community and with
state and federal regulatory agencies.
• How a collaborative process can serve as a
model for further collaborations.
Background
The National Zinc smelter site spans portions of
Oklahoma's Washington and Osage Counties.
Smelting operations have been conducted at the
site since 1907 and were the source of widespread
off-site contamination until 1976. When the
original smelting process was updated in 1976,
paniculate emissions decreased by 99.7%. Lead,
cadmium, and arsenic were the main contaminants
produced by the original smelting method.
The west side of Bartlesville, closest to the
smelter site, has experienced most of the heavy
metal contamination and its effects. This portion
of the city is home to several thousand residences,
retail businesses and office buildings, light indus-
try and agricultural operations, and several
schools, parks, and playgrounds.
The community's perception of the west side
is that it is populated by a larger percentage of
residents belonging to ethnic and racial minori-
ties. In fact, 1990 census figures indicate that mi-
nority representation is equally distributed
throughout the city. A similar perception exists in
relation to community housing. While the major-
ity of housing on both sides of the river is middle
income, the perception exists that residents with
the highest income levels live on the east side.
Key Events
Perceptions over whether minority and low-
income neighborhoods were disproportionately
experiencing the contamination may have helped
fuel the conflict that brewed within the community
over cleanup of the contaminated area. While the
smelter had long existed as a source of community
interest, citizen activism grew during the early
1990s. Citizens formed a community task force
in 1990 to investigate complaints of odors coming
from the smelter. Community concern was
elevated in 1991 by a series of articles about the
pollution and health risks in the Tulsa Tribune.
Increased citizen action led to more state and
federal involvement. Citizens complained to the
OSDH about health problems they believed were
related to smelter activities. The Oklahoma Toxics
Campaign organized a local environmental activ-
ist group, Citizens Against Toxics, which contacted
U.S. Senator David Boren. In response, he asked
two federal agencies to investigate—the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
In 1991, remediation activities began under
the Superfund removal program. The first step of
the short-term cleanup process was to determine
the type and area of contamination. By this time,
the community was deeply divided over several
issues, including 1) how much the contamination
threatened human health, and 2) the potential
impact the cleanup would have on the economy.
Additionally, there were now four agencies in-
volved in the process—OSDH, EPA, ATSDR, and
the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ). Community debate ensued over
what should be the extent of state and federal gov-
ernment involvement.
105
-------
106
Deciding to Collaborate
In the fall of 1991, the ODEQ and the OSDH de-
cided the conflict within the community had
reached a point where it had to be addressed. Ac-
tion needed to be taken to mitigate the public con-
troversy over the contamination and the cleanup
process. As a result, the ODEQ and the OSDH
developed a public participation process to serve
as part of the short-term cleanup effort. The Lead
Steering Committee was a major component of
this effort. The two other aspects included hold-
ing public meetings to release information about
the site, and establishing an office to serve as the
single point of contact for the public, press, and
other agencies.
Convening the Process
The members of the Lead Steering Committee
were appointed by the OSDH. A broad set of com-
munity interests were represented, including the
city and county government, the Chamber of
Commerce, area industry, public and private
schools, community environmental groups, com-
munity service organizations, news media, and
citizens-at-large. A local pediatrician was elected
by the committee to serve as chair. While the ini-
tial group consisted of 24 participants, only 10
remained active throughout the process.
The Lead Steering Committee was established
with three objectives:
• To serve as the local forum for managing
public information and community
involvement;
• To provide a mechanism for input to and from
all of the involved groups; and
• To assist the OSDH in coordinating the project.
Role of the Lead Steering Committee
Overall, the committee's role was to serve as a ve-
hicle for two-way communication between stake-
holders and provide advice on the cleanup. The
committee's duties included providing input, par-
ticipating in discussions about technical issues,
and making recommendations about project goals.
Having clear goals and objectives was a key factor
in ensuring the committee's success. Citizen mem-
bers were concerned about indemnification from
tort liability, so they limited their activities to fall
within the parameters of the group's objectives.
In 1992, cleanup began; areas of high access
to children, including schools, day care centers,
and playgrounds received priority. In 1993,
cleanup was extended to residences with high lev-
els of soil contamination and areas where hous-
ing residents had elevated blood lead levels. In
1994, removal work began by the Potentially Re-
sponsible Parties (PRPs) at the site, as directed by
an EPA Unilateral Administration Order. Shortly
thereafter, the ODEQ prepared a Record of Deci-
sion. In June of 1995, the ODEQ and the PRPs
signed an agreement directing remedial action to
begin at the site.
Outcomes
There were several outcomes of the Lead Steering
Committee process:
• The Lead Steering Committee successfully
functioned as a mechanism for two-way
communication and the exchange of information
among stakeholders. As the cleanup process
went through its phases, active committee
members provided continuity to the project.
They became highly knowledgeable about the
site, contaminants, potential health effects,
and the Superfund process. Public controversy
was reduced as a result of their efforts.
• Citizens built relationships with each other.
Many committee members, although all long-
term residents, did not know each other before
serving on the Lead Steering Committee. In
fact, many of them viewed one another as "the
opposition." By working together over time
they were able to acknowledge personal values
and goals and transformed them into
community goals.
• Members of regulatory agencies built relationships
in the community through their worh with the
committee. As committee members became
better acquainted with OSDH and ODEQ
personnel, trust increased. Community
members no longer viewed regulatory staff as
"outsiders." Ultimately, this helped facilitate the
cleanup because decisions were more likely to
be endorsed by the entire community.
-------
The Lead Steering Committee served as a model
for other community participation processes. In
1994, three organizations, traditionally at odds
with each other, formed a coalition to obtain
and administer a Technical Assistance Grant
offered by the PRPs at the site. The coalition
consisted of representatives from an
environmental activist organization, a group
opposed to listing the site on the National
Priorities List, and a group dedicated to
improving business opportunities in the
contaminated area. The Lead Steering
Committee and the city council were also
represented as ad hoc members.
The Lead Steering Committee was primarily
formed to address the conflict in Bartlesville over
the contamination and the cleanup effort. The
public participation process was instrumental in
reducing controversy over substantive matters,
bringing together a divided community, building
relationships among committee and regulatory
agency members, and providing a model for fu-
ture collaborative efforts.
Source
This case study was adapted from Montressa Jo
Elder, "The Process of Community Involvement—
A Case Study: The Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Lead
Project," Toxicology and Industrial Health, Volume
13, Nos. 2/3, 395-400.
Intel's Project XL Stakeholder Group:
A DIFFICULT CONSENSUS ON DIFFICULT ISSUES — Chandler, Arizona
From January to November 1996, Intel's Fab 12
facility, which manufactures semiconductors in
Chandler, Arizona, negotiated an agreement with
multiple stakeholders (regulators at all levels and
community members) to participate in EPA's
Project XL ("Excellence and Leadership"). Project
XL is an alternative-compliance program which
offers regulatory flexibility in exchange for 1) a
plan for achieving "superior environmental per-
formance," i.e., better results than full compliance
with existing regulations would produce, and 2)
stakeholder involvement in developing and imple-
menting the company's participation plan. This
case addresses the following issues:
• How a stakeholder group struggled and
reached consensus on complex environmental
and regulatory issues.
• How national interests became involved in a
process that was conceived as local.
• How all participants—especially community
members participating as individuals without
organizational support, can be subject to
intense social pressure from stakeholders and
the community to reach consensus.
• How a consensus-based stakeholder negotiation
process both succeeded and stumbled,
particularly when consensus appeared to be out
of reach.
Background
Intel managers were primarily motivated to join
Project XL because of the delays caused by fre-
quent permit revisions in a fast-changing business,
107
-------
108
and because the four levels of regulation—mu-
nicipal, county, state, and federal—overlapped and
were inefficient. In addition, these permits and
regulations seemed ineffective, because they did
not appear to be achieving environmental results
proportional to the resources involved in their
compliance. Project XL promised to streamline the
environmental compliance process, and Intel, as
well as the EPA, wanted to showcase this new al-
ternative-compliance model and promote more
efficient and effective regulatory processes.
Project XL requires participating companies
to reach agreement with stakeholders on a plan to
achieve superior environmental performance.
Intel's Arizona site already had a Community Ad-
visory Panel (CAP) for over four years, and prided
itself on a history of good relations with the com-
munity. The XL process included 1) a stakeholder
negotiating group, 2) monthly public meetings
which Intel publicized widely, 3) updates to work-
ers and opportunities for them to comment, 4)
some briefings of national and local environmen-
tal groups by Intel, and 5) posting of information
on Intel's website with an invitation to comment.
Participants
The 15-member stakeholder group included sev-
eral members of the local community, selected from
the environmental subcommittee of the CAP; regu-
lators from all four levels of government; an Indian
tribal representative; and Intel representatives.
While environmental organizations were not rep-
resented, one of the members was a community
activist and another an environmental consultant.
The full stakeholder group, called the Executive
Committee, had four subgroups: 1) the Air/Plan-
ning Group, 2) the Regulatory Efficiency Group,
3) the Recycling Group, and 4) die Legal Working
Group.
Procedures and Issues Addressed
The stakeholder group worked to achieve consen-
sus of all participants, including the community
members. This stands in contrast to other Project
XL stakeholder groups, where the community in-
put is advisory, and only the facility and regula-
tors have decision-making power. The Executive
Committee met regularly, aided by a professional
facilitator. The subgroups met in between the ple-
nary meetings.
The Executive Committee meetings were held
at the Fab 12 facility. At first, there was no provi-
sion for public attendance at these meetings. Later,
when people asked to attend, protocols were es-
tablished for meeting observers. Since all visitors
to the facility had to get pre-approval and security
clearances, these requirements were among the
protocols. Representatives of national and regional
environmental groups followed these protocols and
observed some meetings.
According to the National Academy of Public
Administration, "[The] endeavor was careful,
complete—and stressful. The group began by es-
tablishing ground rules and allowing sufficient
time for lay stakeholders to learn about air pollu-
tion and other technical issues, for the govern-
ment participants to negotiate jurisdictional issues,
and for Intel to learn what the community cared
about most deeply—water conservation and a pro-
tective buffer zone between the fabrication build-
ings and adjacent residential areas" (from Resolv-
ing the Paradox of Environmental Protection: An
Agenda for Congress, EPA, and the States, p. 90).
The discussion focused largely on air emis-
sions from the facility, but other environmental
issues were also discussed. The group worked late
nights on many difficult issues, and in the end, all
stakeholders signed on to the Final Project Agree-
ment (FPA).
Agreement
The FPA was complex, but included a few key el-
ements:
• The centerpiece was a facility-wide emissions
cap, in place of individual limits for different
air emissions sources. This cap was under an
air permit which could apply to future facilities
built at the site, without the need to seek
permit modifications—a significant regulatory
concession. The provisions of that permit were
binding.
• Intel made other commitments, some
embedded in the enforceable air permit, and
others not legally binding. These included 1)
increasing water and waste conservation and
-------
recycling, 2) increasing property line setbacks
to widen the buffer zone around the facility,
3) reducing vehicle miles traveled by
employees, and 4) donating computer
equipment and training.
• Intel agreed to publish environmental reports
containing information usually provided to
regulators plus other information, but
consolidated into a single document, in an
easy-to-read format. The purpose of the
reports is to enable the public to hold Intel to
its goals and commitments, including those
that are not legally binding.
An initial goal of establishing a single point of
contact for all regulating agencies from local to
federal soon turned out to be impossible for sev-
eral legal and political reasons.
Costs
The process took much longer and was much more
intense (in terms of hours per week) than ex-
pected. It lasted 11 months, whereas it was origi-
nally expected to last only six. For this reason,
the costs were higher than expected—in terms of
money, time, and stress. Participants found the
process extremely draining, and most felt pres-
sure at some point to overcome their objections
and move towards consensus. In financial terms,
Intel managers figure the company may make up
the costs over the course of the five-year air per-
mit through the reduced costs of permit revisions.
However, they decided early on that the project
was worth the price to demonstrate this new en-
vironmental management model.
Challenges
Numerous other challenges made the process" try-
ing. Intel originally understood the term "stake-
holders" to mean local stakeholders. However, part
of EPA!s and Intel's intent was for this Project XL
negotiation to serve as a model for others through-
out the country. Therefore, national and regional
environmental groups followed the process closely.
Some of these national groups felt there was a
significant imbalance of power in the process,
contending that the community participants were
outgunned by Intel and governmental participants,
particularly in terms of staffing, knowledge, and
resources. They argued that measures such as
providing funds for community participants to hire
a technical expert would have helped even the
playing field. (EPA later decided to provide funds
for independent technical assistance to XL
stakeholder groups.) These groups saw the FPA as
unbalanced as a result, providing too much leniency
for Intel and not truly achieving superior
environmental performance. On the day the FPA
was signed, the environmental groups, along with
representatives of several community and labor
groups, published an open letter stating their
concerns and opposing the FPA. The EPA
responded with a letter addressing the concerns
raised by these organizations.
One source of conflict was defining and
objectively measuring "superior environmental
performance." The national groups had a more
stringent interpretation than the stakeholder group.
Did die phrase mean superior to the facility's actual
past performance, or to what was allowed at a
maximum under current regulations and permits?
(This was further complicated by the fact that Fab
12 was a new facility that began operation while the
negotiations were taking place.) Also, comparing
environmental performance with the FPA and
widiout it was like comparing apples and oranges,
because different chemicals and different media are
involved. The disagreement about assessing superior
environmental performance and the process for
achieving it is evident in the contrast between die
stakeholder group members' consensus on die FPA
and die national groups' letter of opposition.
The role of stakeholders was another source
of disagreement. Some believe stakeholder partici-
pation in the XL process in effect replaces gov-
ernment oversight, so the composition, capacity
and procedures of stakeholder groups are critically
important. Others believe stakeholder involve-
ment is not a substitute for government oversight,
so stakeholder groups should only be advisory and
not subject to extensive procedural rules.
During the process, some of the national
groups took up their concerns directly widi EPA
headquarters, surfacing a procedural ambiguity in
the stakeholder negotiations. The stakeholders as-
sumed that the EPA regional representative in the
109
-------
group had authority to sign on behalf of the EPA
as a wh,ole. Instead, in an attempt to address the
concerns of the national groups, EPA headquar-
ters claimed authority to review the FPA. In the
end, jthey did not exercise this authority, but many
stakeholders were frustrated by the lack of clear
accountability.
Throughout the process, one participant—a
community member participating only as an in-
dividual—was particularly hesitant about signing
the FPA. This surfaced a procedural ambiguity
over the definition of "consensus." Some under-
stood it to mean that each individual participant
had to approve the agreement; others understood
it to mean that each stakeholder group (govern-
ment, industry, and community members) had to
approve it. The latter definition would have al-
lowed the agreement to go forward without this
individual's signature. Feeling pressure from all
sides, he did ultimately sign the FPA reluctantly.
Benefits
In spite of these difficulties, the negotiation and
public involvement process seems to have largely
achieved its purpose—greater regulatory flexibil-
ity, and environmental results that some argue are
superior to what would have happened otherwise.
In addition, since it was an early, experimental XL
effort, all parties and the public probably learned
from the process.
There were also some unforeseen benefits.
Some participants say the process helped regula-
tors understand how their various programs
complemented or conflicted with each other and
may have catalyzed greater coordination: Also, a
community member said that the public partici-
pation component helped educate the public,
yielding other long-term benefits. The participants'
stamina and perseverance, and the willingness to
risk something innovative, are to credit for these
successes.
Summary of Outcomes
In summary, the Fab 12 Project XL stakeholder
group achieved the following:
• A consensus FPA providing for superior
environmental performance (in the
participants' view), with streamlined
regulatory procedures for the company.
• An early test of the innovative regulatory
model represented by Project XL.
• Improved public communication and public
accountability regarding the plant's
environmental performance.
110
Sources
Intel website, "Intel/EPA Project XL," last updated
1998. http://www,intel.com/intel/other/ehs/
projectxl/index.htm.
Mohin, Timothy J., "Alternative Compliance
Model: A Bridge to the Future of Environ-
mental Management," in Semiconductor
Fabtech: New Technological Developments in the
Semiconductor Industry, 6th Edition. London,
UK: ICG Publishing, 1997. (Note: Timothy
Mohin is Manager of Corporate and
Environment Affairs for the Intel Corporation.)
National Academy of Public Administration,
"Excellence, Leadership, and the Intel
Corporation: A Study of EPA's Project XL" in
Resolving the Paradox of Environmental
Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA, and
the States. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Public Administration, 1997.
Orenstein, Suzanne Goulet, "Intel XL Stakeholder
Negotiations," in Evaluation of Project XL
Stakeholder Processes: Final Report.
Washington, DC: RESOLVE (for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), 1998.
(Note: RESOLVE is an organization specializing
in environmental dispute resolution.)
Smith, Ted and Leslie Byster, "The Challenges of
Environmental De-Regulation in the Era of
Globalization," in Semiconductor Fabtech: New
Technological Developments in the Semiconductor
Industry, 7th Edition. London, UK: ICG Publishing,
1997. (Note: Ted Smith and Leslie Byster are
the Executive Director and the Program
Director, respectively, of the Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition.)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Project XL
website, "XL at a glance," last updated 1998.
http://199.223.29.233/ProjectXL/xl_home.ns6'
all/xl_glance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Project XL
website, "Intel drafts environmental operations
plan and obtains flexible air permit," last
updated 1998. http://199.223.29.233/
ProjectXL/xlJaome.nsf/aMnteLhtml.
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Community Forum:
PROGRESS WITHOUT COMPLETE CONSENSUS — New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts
From December 1993 until June 1998, a multi-
party mediation was held by the Massachusetts
Office of Dispute Resolution (MODR) to deter-
mine how to clean up the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site. This case study concentrates on
the period up to November 1994, when the group,
called the Forum, reached its first of three recom-
mendations. The case illustrates the following:
• How even bitter rivals can, with third-party
assistance, collaborate, negotiate, and reach
consensus.
• How allowing participants considerable
control over procedural matters can help build
cooperation in highly contentious settings.
• How televising meetings can enhance public
trust of the process, but may still be inadequate
for enabling the public to follow the substance
of long-term negotiations.
• How environmental justice activists helped re-
ignite a previously settled matter—and how
they played a constructive role in the ultimate
resolution of the issue.
Background
Manufacturers of electrical capacitors released
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the New
Bedford Harbor for decades, earning it a place on
the Superfund National Priorities List in 1982.
Previously during 1987-90, there was a stakeholder
negotiation on cleaning up the site. This initial
group, which worked closely with the EPA and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), included citizens, businesses,
local environmentalists, and city council members.
Members of the local Portuguese and Cape Verdean
communities were included. The group voted six
to three to dredge the harbor and destroy the PCBs
through incineration. The EPA adopted this
approach in a 1990 Record of Decision (ROD). Of
the three parties who voted against the outcome,
two were businesses liable for paying shares of the
cleanup cost, and may have favored a less-expensive
option. Overall, the stakeholders favored
incineration, believing it was the safest available
method for destroying the PCBs.
Triggering Events
In 1991, as the EPA prepared to implement the
ROD, a ground swell of opposition to incinera-
tion arose in spite of the inclusive decision-mak-
ing process. Two trends were shaping at that time
which may explain the reaction: first, there was
growing opposition nationwide to using incinera-
tion (which was increasingly being employed as
an alternative to landfills), and second, the envi-
ronmental justice movement was gaining strength.
The opposition was spurred on by 1) journal and
newspaper articles raising fear about incineration
and citing the case as an example of environmen-
tal racism, and 2) national organizations initiat-
111
-------
112
ing activities in the New Bedford area. The first
stakeholder group was criticized as being a
"mouthpiece" for the EPA and industry and as
lacking minority representation. Senator Edward
Kennedy and Congressman Barney Frank threw
their support behind the protesters.
The controversy reached a climax in 1993.
Protesters threatened to block the path of con-
struction equipment, and the New Bedford City
Council passed an ordinance that, in effect, made
construction impossible. The EPA filed suit against
the town in September 1993, and a court order
rendered the ordinance unenforceable. The EPA
threatened to fine the city $25,000 for each day it
delayed the dredging, and one community group
filed its own Intent to Sue with the EPA.
Deciding to Collaborate
and Convening the Process
None of the parties welcomed a protracted fight,
so they found the idea of mediation an attractive
option. The Massachusetts DEP had experience
with alternative dispute resolution, and the Mas-
sachusetts congressional delegation supported the
use of mediation as well.
MODR, led by Jane Wells, conducted a lengthy
process of interviewing stakeholders, persuading
groups to participate, explaining MODR's role, and
negotiating who should be at the table. The Forum
came to include representatives of three citizens
groups (from the three affected towns), local
government officials, state elected officials, DEP, EPA,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
MODR was responsible for convening partici-
pants, arranging meeting logistics, and oversee-
ing the whole process. Because of citizens' con-
cerns that MODR—a state-funded agency—might
impose a particular mediator, MODR arranged for
the stakeholders themselves to screen and select
an independent mediator. The mediator selected
was J. Michael Keating of Rhode Island.
Procedures
The mediator's first task was to meet separately
with each of the parties. The first joint meeting
was then held to establish ground rules and pro-
cedures. One early decision was to make the pro-
cess truly public by videotaping the meetings and
broadcasting them on a local cable channel. At
that meeting, the EPA agreed to delay the start of
dredging, and the community group that had filed
the Notice of Intent to Sue agreed to put the suit
on hold.
The next stage was a four-month evaluation
process. Over a dozen vendors of alternative tech-
nologies made presentations, and Forum mem-
bers questioned them extensively.
As the meetings continued, the mediator and
MODR drafted a proposed "Framework of Reso-
lution" which helped focus the remaining nego-
tiations. The document listed emerging agree-
ments on principles that would guide decisions,
and identified points of disagreement.
Negotiation and Agreement
During this four-month evaluation, the group
agreed to search for a solution that would avoid
on-site incineration. Two innovative technologies
emerged as preferred alternatives, and the Forum
recommended that site-specific tests of both tech-
nologies be implemented.
However, a serious disagreement occurred
over what to do if neither of these methods passed
the test. The agencies wanted a reliable, safe back-
up that was already tried and true. One of the back-
up options was off-site incineration, which the
citizens opposed. After extensive discussion, the
Forum agreed to defer the question of back-up
technologies until the tests were finished. They
also agreed to try to reach consensus on primary
and back-up technologies before the EPA amended
the ROD. The agreement was completed in
November 1994.
Challenges
The Forum faced two significant challenges:
Technical information. During the evaluation
stage, citizens group representatives had difficulty
comprehending the vendors' presentations, which
used highly technical terms. The citizen members
solved this problem by using the EPAs Technical
Assistance Grant to hire a technical consultant
through an environmental justice organization.
With the consultants help, the citizens became
more active in scrutinizing the vendors.
-------
Communication with the public. Another chal-
lenge was communicating back to the local pub-
lic. The televised meetings were too lengthy for
most people to follow, and there were no concise
updates or formal mechanisms for the Forum to
inform the public and gain their support.
Later Stages
The mediation resumed and reached other interim
agreements, culminating in a final recommenda-
tion in June 1998. By that point, no approved
method of destruction other than incineration had
emerged, but one alternative (solvated electron
technology) was nearing approval. Members
leaned towards a combination of a new on-site
separation method and off-site destruction, with
hopes that the new destruction method would be
approved in time—satisfying the goal of eliminat-
ing the contaminants without incineration.
However, at a public meeting held just before
making a final recommendation, attendees op-
posed on-site separation because of its possible
side effects, which included toxic emissions, noise,
and dust. They favored the next-best option, which
was to dewater the waste and send it to a landfill.
In response to this input, the final June 1998 rec-
ommendation expressed a majority preference for
the landfilling option, though a minority still urged
the separation and destruction option, with con-
tinuing efforts to use a non-incineration method
of destruction.
Outcomes
Forum members were unanimously disappointed
by the lack of approved alternatives to either
landfilling or incineration, and it is unclear to what
extent they felt the effort was worth their time.
Nevertheless, the Forum can claim a number of
accomplishments:
• Stakeholders reached consensus on the
principle that a method of destroying the PCBs
that avoided either landfilling or incineration
would be ideal.
• The Forum provided the best opportunity for
finding that ideal outcome.
• Because of the thorough research on
alternative technologies, most of those
involved felt the resulting majority
recommendation pointed to the best cleanup
option available at the time.
• The Forum's work may have advanced the goal
of finding non-incineration technologies for
other contaminated sites in the future.
• The Forum succeeded in eliciting the
cooperation of previously bitter foes.
Success Factors
Several factors contributed to the Forum's achieve-
ments:
• The fairness and credibility of the process was
enhanced by the use of a skilled, independent
mediator, oversight by MODR, and
stakeholder control of procedural matters—
including selection of participants, selection
of the mediator, and establishment of the
agenda.
• The televised meetings and ongoing political
attention prevented perceptions of back-room
bargaining.
• Independent technical advice through an
environmental justice organization helped
level the playing field in terms of technical
understanding, and helped prevent charges of
environmental racism.
Sources
Finney Carolyn, and Ruth Polk, "Developing
Stakeholder Understanding, Technical
Capability, and Responsibility: The New
Bedford Harbor Superfund Forum."
Unpublished draft, 1995. (Note: Carolyn
Finney is Manager of Government Affairs for
the Environmental Industries Association and
researched this case on behalf of the
Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution.
Ruth Polk is a graduate student at the School
113
-------
of Natural Resources and Environment at the
University of Michigan and worked
temporarily on the staff of the Massachusetts
Office of Dispute Resolution.)
"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community
Forum Agreement," 1994.
"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community
Forum Agreement," 1996.
"New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site Community
Forum Recommendation," 1998 (pending
signatures).
The Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center:
A CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT CENTER — San Jose, California
114
The non-profit Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention
Center (SVP2 Center) was established as a result
of the 1993 settlement agreement between the
Coalition for Effluent Action Now in South Bay
(CLEAN South Bay) and the City of San Jose,
California. This case study illustrates the follow-
ing issues:
• How a collaborative process evolved out of an
adversarial approach to pollution prevention.
• How a non-profit organization can serve as
an ongoing collaborative forum for members
.of government, industry, and non-govern-
mental organizations to address pollution
prevention issues.
• How a collaborative forum can serve
individual interests while participants pursue
a common goal.
Deciding to Collaborate
Injanuary 1983, CLEAN South Bay, a coalition of
seven environmental organizations, filed suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging regional permit violations
under the Federal Clean Water Act. At issue was
the discharge of wastewater containing excessive
concentrations of copper, nickel, silver, and chro-
mium from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollu-
tion Control Plant into the South San Francisco
Bay. The complaint named the City of San Jose,
the City of Santa Clara, the mayors of the two cit-
ies, and the Director of the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant as defendants.
As the administering agency and operator of
the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant, the City of San Jose entered into settlement
negotiations over the lawsuit with CLEAN South
Bay. During the process, coalition members pro-
moted pollution prevention as a reasonable alter-
native to providing more advanced treatment at
the plant. An agreement was reached between the
two parties to establish a center for pollution pre-
vention. The agreement excused the lawsuit and
released the city from further enforcement actions
concerning copper, nickel, and silver by CLEAN
for a period of five years.
Convening the Process
In March 1994, the San Jose City Council approved
the establishment of a convening board and work-
ing council to carry out the start-up functions of
the SVP2 Center. The convening board recruited
a permanent board, developed incorporation
documents, and defined roles and functions of the
organization. Members of the convening board
consisted of nine representatives, three each from
local government, industry, and environmental
groups. Group decision-making involved a vot-
-------
ing process that required the support of seven out
of nine members for approval.
At the November 30, 1994 meeting, the con-
vening board nominated permanent board mem-
bers and unanimously recommended that they be
approved by the San Jose City Council. The Cen-
ter was formally incorporated with the State of
California on December 2, 1994.
A nine-member board of directors governs the
SVP2 Center; three members each from govern-
ment, industry, and environmental organizations.
The City of San Jose appoints the board members
that represent government and industry. CLEAN
South Bay selects its own environmental repre-
sentatives. Board members serve three-year terms.
An Executive Director works with the board to
oversee daily operations of the Center. The board
votes through a two-thirds (six out of nine) ma-
jority rule, with the provision that every majority
must have the support of at least one member from
each group.
The original settlement agreement envisioned
collaboration through the Center only as a short-
term endeavor, but the Center has since taken on
a more permanent role. The original framework
for the Center was for each represented group to
select one major area of focused work, consistent
with the Center's purpose, to be performed by the
Center during its first three years of operation.
Once the work was complete, the Center would
dissolve. However, in lieu of this approach, the
board early on decided to hire an Executive Di-
rector, initiate a strategic planning process, and
use the seed money to establish a sustainable pol-
lution prevention center to serve the community
on a more permanent basis.
Financial support for the Center is provided
by San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant funds. The City of San Jose, as fund
administrators, agreed to provide $375,000 to the
Center for initial start-up and operations costs for
three years. The Center is additionally funded
through grants and contributions. The city has also
established a $2 million Pollution Prevention
Capital Fund to provide industrial dischargers
with financial assistance to invest in pollution
prevention measures. The Executive Director of
the Center hopes the city will decide the
collaborative approach is useful, recognize there
are clear economic incentives to pollution
prevention, and re-designate the capital fund as a
trust fund for the Center to sustain its activities.
Collaboration Goals
The purpose of the SVP2 Center, as described in
the settlement decree, is "To coordinate, develop,
and transfer information on pollution prevention
measures that will reduce toxic pollution in the
San Francisco Bay, south of Dumbarton Bridge."
The Center describes its function as, "educating
the public, industry, business, and government in
Silicon Valley about the causes and sources of
pollution, and identifying and promoting meth-
ods to prevent pollution."
Consistent with its purpose, the Center's goals
are the following: 1) to foster institutional
understanding and cooperation; 2) to emphasize
pollution prevention from all sources; 3) to
promote research, development and use of
pollution prevention measures; and 4) to provide
an information and referral service.
The Center's work priorities are established
annually by the board of directors. The program
is then developed by the board and its Program
Options Committee. In 1997, strategic issues were
identified as transportation-related impacts to
water quality; industrial water efficiency and re-
use; dioxin prevention; and convening the annual
State of the South Bay Symposium. To date, the
SVP2 Center has engaged in a variety of projects,
including community education; business out-
reach; working with academic institutions to en-
courage pollution prevention education in science,
engineering, and business curricula; an on-line
resource center; and sponsorship of the State of
the South Bay Symposium. The purpose of the
symposium is to bring local decision makers to-
gether to assess the progress of the various pollu-
tion prevention programs designed to protect the
South Bay and its streams and watersheds.
Challenges
A big challenge all participants face is how to go
back and forth between their Center work and
their own constituencies. Industry and govern-
ment, in particular, must recognize their compli-
115
-------
cated operating structures in comparison to the
environmental representatives who are not as lim-
ited by bureaucratic structures and who, for this
reason, bring vision to the meetings. According
to the Executive Director, environmental groups
may have more flexibility in their operating struc-
tures, but may have less resources to analyze and
respond to proposals by government or industry
on waste management issues.
Outcomes
In spite of the challenges individual members face
in participating, the SVP2 Center provides a cre-
ative and innovative model for collaboration
among stakeholder groups. The most notable fea-
tures of the process include:
• Each group represented on the board of directors
has compelling reasons to participate in the work
of the SVP2 Center. The Center provides a
collaborative forum for all three groups to
forward their own interests. Industry
representatives recognize the economic
benefits of pollution prevention. Represen-
tatives of environmental groups work to
integrate workplace health, safety, and
environmental protections into pollution
prevention processes. Representatives of local
government, including the Water District,
realize that development and waste
management issues are connected. The Center
provides them with the opportunity to address
these often challenging issues with concerned
stakeholders.
The organizational structure of the SVP2 Center
has continued to evolve, reinforcing the
collaborative nature of the effort. The board of
directors is currently reexamining the
organization's bylaws. In particular, the board
is looking at its decision-making structure.
Trust among participants has developed to the
extent that the two-thirds voting structure can
now be relaxed. This step can be interpreted
as a sign of the board's willingness to further
embrace a collaborative, rather than
adversarial, approach. It is also a testament to
developing relationships between participants.
The SVP2 Center has gone beyond the original
intent of the effort, serving as an ongoing
collaborativeforum. The Settlement Agreement
did not anticipate that the Center could
continue to play a vital role for collaboration
among the three sectors and be a catalyst for
continuous improvement in pollution
prevention. The original plan was for the effort
to cease once its initial work in the three areas
of focused activity was complete. Almost four
years after its incorporation, however, the
Executive Director and several board members
believe the Center is playing an important role
by serving as a neutral forum for reaching
agreement on pollution prevention altern-
atives. The SVP2 Center's biggest challenge
now is how to sustain the ongoing effort.
116
Sources
Bylaws of the Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention
Center, Inc.
Evaluation Summary, The Silicon Valley Pollution
Prevention Center, State of the South Bay
Symposium II, March 27, 1998.
Interview with Patrick T. Ferraro, Executive
Director, The Silicon Valley Pollution
Prevention Center, June 9, 1998.
Pollution Prevention Center, Status Report
(including Workplan), as submitted to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, June
30, 1994.
San Jose City Council Memos, including Proposed
Scope of Work to Establish the Pollution
Prevention Center: December 13, 1993;
December 22, 1993; and March 9, 1994.
Settlement Agreement Between Citizens for a
Better Environment, Peninsula Conservation
Center Foundation, Bay Institute of San
Francisco, San Francisco Bay Keeper, Save San
Francisco Bay Association, Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition and the City of San Jose, June 1993.
Silicon Valley Pollution Prevention Center, 1997
Annual Report.
-------
Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation:
COLLABORATION AND CONFRONTATION IN EAST PALO ALTO — East Palo Alto, California
Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation
has a strong presence in culturally diverse East
Palo Alto because, unlike most of Silicon Valley,
there is no industrial buffer zone between die com-
pany and its bordering neighborhoods. Largely for
this reason, members of the community have paid
close attention to the company's activities over the
years. Their efforts have resulted in two different
processes for collaboration between the company,
community activist groups, individual citizens,
workers, and government regulators. This case
study illustrates the following issues:
• How different Constructive Engagement
processes can occur concurrently to address
community and worker health, safety, and
environmental concerns.
• How the potential benefits of a Constructive
Engagement process may be very different
depending on one's perspective and goals.
• How collaboration between community
organizations and government regulators can
help both groups achieve their health, safety,
and environmental goals.
• How the role of a company-initiated Citizen
Advisory Panel evolved from addressing issues
of immediate community concern to broader,
long-term issues.
• The choices community members face in
deciding whether to participate in a company-
initiated Citizen Advisory Panel and what
considerations guide their decisions.
Background
Residents of culturally diverse East Palo Alto have
long been concerned about the potential for
industrial accidents, the long-term effects of
contamination, and worker exposure to toxic
substances. In an effort to promote community
and worker protection, environmental justice
groups and activist organizations in Silicon Valley
have closely monitored the activities of Romic, a
company who specializes in hazardous waste
recycling and disposal. They have targeted facility
operations, as well as government agencies,
responsible for enforcing health, safety, and
environmental regulations.
In the mid-1990s, community activism regard-
ing Romic's operations in East Palo Alto focused
on two major issues. One of the most contentious
matters among citizen groups, regulatory agen-
cies, the City of East Palo Alto, and the company
was the historic lack of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Romic applied to the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
Deparment of Toxic Substances Control to renew
its operating permits. The agency reviewed the
application and, at that point, determined a nega-
tive declaration—no EIR was needed. Citizen
groups felt that because East Palo Alto lacks po-
litical and economic clout, state agencies were
remiss in mandating Romic to comply with regu-
latory requirements. The company contended diat,
despite the agency's willingness to issue a nega-
tive declaration, it requested that a full environ-
mental analysis be performed, including a Health
Risk Assessment of its operations. The City of East
Palo Alto, economically dependent on the com-
pany, was caught in the middle of the controversy.
Concerns about Romic's operations were
furthered by a specific event at Romic's Redwood City
facility. On February 15,1995, Rodrigo Cruz, a Romic
employee, suffered brain damage while removing toxic
sludge from a railroad tank car. Seeking support after
the incident, Cruz affiliated himself with the Santa
Clara Center for Occupational Safety and Health
(SCCOSH), a citizen and worker watchdog group.
Members of another organization, WATCH (Workers
Against Toxic Chemical Hazards), soon launched a
"Campaign for Justice for Rodrigo Cruz."
As part of the campaign, WATCH, a network
of Filipino electronics workers, formed an alliance
with the Ujima Security Council in East Palo Alto.
117
-------
118
The latter group was composed of African-Ameri-
can and Latino residents from the communities
surrounding Romic's East Palo Alto facility. The
combined efforts of these groups focused the at-
tention of government agencies on the East Palo
Alto facility. In 1996, the California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) con-
ducted an investigation of the site. Investigators
issued 22 citations against the company for health
and safety violations. Although WATCH and its
allies felt the fines levied on Romic were minor
compared to the violations, the company eventu-
ally settled with CalOSHA subsequent to further
administrative procedures. The agency issued a
separate set of citations against Romic for the
Rodrigo Cruz incident.
For JoLani Hironaka, Executive Director of
SCCOSH, both of these issues challenged govern-
ment agencies to live up to their regulatory and
enforcement responsibilities to workers and the
community. They also required Romic to address
the impacts of its operations on the community.
Deciding to Collaborate
The events that followed provide an example of how
collaboration can occur between community
groups and government agencies. Although the
community groups diat led the workers' rights cam-
paign had drawn public attention to the issue, they
were not satisfied with the outcome of the Rodrigo
Cruz incident. They felt there were gaps in enforce-
ment, and had ongoing concerns about the response
of government regulators, including CalOSHA,
California EPA, and the Air Quality Management
District. One issue for them was whether and how
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) applied to the Cruz case.
Because SCCOSH had a good working rela-
tionship with an influential individual within EPA
Region IX, the group contacted the agency for as-
sistance with the Cruz issue. SCCOSH felt it had
important information about the situation and
sought a forum to communicate its concerns. As
a result of SCCOSH's effort, the EPA agreed to
convene a series of three informal meetings in-
volving community groups and state and federal
agencies. EPA Region IX used its influence with
the other government agencies to encourage their
participation in the process.
The meetings convened by the EPA were
heavily attended by community activists from
Redwood City and East Palo Alto. The forum gave
community groups access to government regula-
tors and an opportunity to provide information
to them about the Cruz incident. One unique as-
pect of the collaboration was that representatives
from several government agencies, including
CalOSHA, California EPA, and the Air Quality
Management District, attended the meetings. Al-
though not all of the agencies were represented at
all three meetings, the collaboration provided an
opportunity for community groups to communi-
cate with several agencies at once. After hearing
their concerns, the government agencies agreed
to investigate the incident further.
Romic's Citizen Advisory Panel
While community groups saw collaboration with
government agencies as integral to achieving their
goals, Romic had its own approach for addressing
community concerns. In 1995, Romic convened
a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) in response to
suggestions from local residents. Romic's CAP,
which meets monthly, serves in an advisory ca-
pacity to the company. The CAP has a facilitator
that is funded by the company, but serves at the
pleasure of the CAP. The goals of the CAP include
the following:
• To further enhance two-way communication
between the multilingual, multicultural East
Palo Alto community and Romic
Environmental.
• To identify and work together to address issues
of concern to the community and Romic
Environmental.
• To build, maintain and enhance a climate of
trust and mutual respect between Romic
Environmental and the East Palo Alto
community.
• To help establish East Palo Alto as a leader in
the field of industrial ecology and a model of
sustainable living.
According to the facilitator of Romic's CAP, Tom
-------
Stewart of Dynamic Networking, before the CAP
was formed the company knew less about the is-
sues important to the community. Over time, as
the community's perception of and relationship
with the company have changed, so has the work
of the CAP. While issues such as odor monitor-
ing, waste discharge, and emissions still capture
the CAP's attention, only 10% of the CAP's time is
devoted to single issues such as these. Where the
CAP initially served as a forum for the company
to react to community concerns, the emphasis now
is on how the company can function as a good
corporate citizen.
Romic's CAP addresses a broad spectrum of
issues, often focusing on community activities and
corresponding needs. One example is an emer-
gency response resource guide the CAP developed
for the city. After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
residents and city officials realized there was no
community response mechanism to deploy in
emergency situations. While the City had prepared
an emergency response plan, it lacked the funds
to prepare the accompanying document that
matches needs to available resources in the im-
mediate community. This issue was brought to the
CAP by members who also serve on the Public
Safety Commission. For the CAP, the matter also
raised questions about how a natural disaster (or
other event) would affect Romic's operations and
the facility's safety. Because the city did not have
the resources to develop a response mechanism,
the CAP undertook the project. As an outgrowth
of that experience, when flooding occurred in the
area in the winter of 1998, the city had a plan to
sandbag the community. Romic, with a heightened
sense of community needs as communicated by
its CAP, contributed sand, bags, and personnel to
fill and stack the bags.
Once a year, an internal evaluation process
takes place to assess the performance of Romic's
CAP, the CAP's facilitator, and the company. After
individual members complete their evaluations, a
subcommittee is formed to compile the results and
write recommendations. After a review process,
these recommendations become the basis for
modifications to the CAP process.
Community Participation
The East Palo Alto residents who participated in
the EPA meetings do not serve on Romic's CAP
(whether they have been invited to attend or not
is a matter of some dispute). For them, the CAP
process does not have credibility and does not
provide them with the means to achieve compli-
ance. According to JoLani Hironaka of SCCOSH,
Romic's CAP process has not been responsive to
specific questions concerning whether the com-
pany is meeting its minimal legal obligations to
the community. Members of SCCOSH, WATCH,
and the Ujima Security Council have also ex-
pressed concerns about how members of Romic's
CAP were selected. They view Romic's CAP as
controlled largely by the company itself. Further,
a former CAP member believes that the company
failed to provide meaningful technical informa-
tion to the group.
The CAP facilitator has a different perspec-
tive on community participation. He points out
that new members of the CAP are selected by cur-
rent members in a closed session which company
representatives do not attend. CAP decisions are
made by majority vote. The company is repre-
sented in a non-voting capacity.
Current community members of Romic's CAP
view participation as a valuable and worthwhile
activity. The membership of the CAP now includes
public officials and representatives of neighbor-
hood associations, with an emphasis on commu-
nity members living near the facility. Lois Frontino,
a member of Romic's CAP since its inception,
views involvement as an opportunity to learn
about Romic and its activities. It also provides
Romic with the opportunity to talk to people, cre-
ate community awareness, and develop commu-
nity understanding of the company's activities. For
Moses Webb, a Public Safety Commissioner and
CAP member, participation is motivated by the
belief that a company has obligations to the com-
munity and must be willing to meet residents'
concerns.
Outcomes
The two collaborations between Romic,
community activist groups, community members,
workers, and government agencies illustrate the
following:
119
-------
Enhanced communication between -workers,
community groups, and government agencies can
strengthen existing regulatory mechanisms.
Collaboration between community groups and
government agencies can help enforce
environmental, health, and safety regulations
when government personnel are willing to
respond to community efforts. Whether
through an institutionalized or informal
process, community groups can raise issues
and provide important information to
government regulators. For community
groups, such a process provides accessibility
to regulatory staff. Worker health and safety
inspections and analysis of process hazards can
guide environmental enforcement to be more
focused, efficient, and ultimately more
effective.
Communication between regulatory agencies can
be enhanced through a collaborative process.
Collaboration between community groups and
government agencies can have the added
benefit of increasing communication between
different regulatory agencies. The process can
provide a forum for state, regional, and federal
agencies to coordinate enforcement efforts and
promote environmental justice.
Community and worker health and safety issues
can be addressed through a collaborative process.
The community groups that collaborated with
the government agencies strongly believe that
community and worker health and safety
issues are linked. They feel that regulatory
divisions between the two groups artificially
separate them, and that they are better able to
protect both by addressing them together. By
having a forum to raise their concerns, they
were able to bring the worker and community
agendas together.
• Goals are important when deciding what kind
of collaborative process to engage in. The
community groups that participated in the
dialogue with the regulatory agencies were
able to focus on compliance. They believed
these issues should take precedence. For those
participating in the collaboration with the
company, their focus is on how the company
can meet other community needs. While
Romic's CAP still addresses issues related to
company operations, its focus is on building
a relationship between the company and the
community.
• Goals of a collaborative process can change over
time. Whereas Romic initially convened its
CAP to address specific community concerns,
the group now functions in a proactive
manner. Its focus now is on how Romic can
serve as a corporate citizen of East Palo Alto.
The relationship between the community of East
Palo Alto and Romic is long and complex. While
community residents and activist groups have cho-
sen different avenues for bringing their concerns
to the attention of the company and government
regulators, their ongoing efforts illustrate how dif-
ferent collaborative strategies can be used to pro-
tect the environment, community, and workers.
120
Sources
Bacon, David, "Silicon Sludge," San Francisco Bay
Guardian, December 24, 1997, pp. 17-19.
Bacon, David, "Toxic Technology," In These Times,
November 23, 1997, pages 18-20.
Community Advisory Panel to Romic
Technologies Corporation:
• Mission Statement and Goals
• Policy Regarding Acceptance of New Members
_ • Policy Regarding Company Notification
Policy Regarding Meeting Cancellation and
Rescheduling
Policy Regarding Member Participation
Policy Regarding Panel Notification
Romic Environmental Technologies Corporation
website, "Commitment to the Community,"
March 6, 1998, http://www.romic.com/
romcmty.html.
-------
Interviews
• Lois Frontino, ROMIC CAP member, July 23,
1998.
• JoLani Hironaka, Executive Director, Santa
Clara Center for Occupational Safety and
Health, July 28, 1998.
• Dave Jones, U.S. EPA Region 9, July 27,1998.
Christopher Stampolis, Community Relations
Manager, Romic Environmental Technologies
Corporation, March 10,1998.
Thomas E. Stewart, ROMIC CAP facilitator,
Dynamic Networking, Martinez, California,
July 8, 1998.
Moses Webb, ROMIC CAP member, July 22,
1998.
Sheldahl Inc.:
CITIZENS' GROUPS, A LABOR UNION, AND A COMPANY COOPERATE — Northfield, Minnesota
In 1989, citizens of Northfield, Minnesota and
workers from the Sheldahl manufacturing facility
banded together in an effort to reduce exposure
to the chemical methylene chloride. This case il-
lustrates the following:
• How collaboration between workers and
citizens' groups led to binding commitments
of the facility to a toxic-use reduction plan
with firm deadlines.
• How a number of factors make neighbor-labor
cooperation difficult.
• How the slower approach of toxic-use
reduction (rather than recapture-and-recycle)
emerged as the approach that nearly all
stakeholders favored after they communicated
their concerns to each other.
Background
Sheldahl uses methylene chloride in manufactur-
ing flexible electronic circuit boards. In 1989, the
Natural Resources Defense Council published in-
formation based on the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) data collected by the EPA as part of the
Community Right to Know Act. It listed Sheldahl
as the 45th largest emitter of airborne carcinogens
in the country. A public outcry from Northfield
residents ensued. At about the same time, by co-
incidence, Sheldahl's state air emission permit was
up for renewal, and, also coincidentally, the
facility's contract with the Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU) local was
up for negotiation.
The union was already aware of the increas-
ing evidence that methylene chloride causes can-
cer. At the union's urging, Sheldahl had been
studying and monitoring methylene chloride since
1984, and had instituted some measures to reduce
workers' exposure to the chemical. In 1985, the
EPA designated methylene chloride as a "prob-
able human carcinogen."
Goals
The workers wanted to further reduce their expo-
sure to the chemical, but they also wanted to keep
the facility open and maintain their jobs in
Northfield. Sheldahl's somewhat shaky financial
state at the time, and the fact that some jobs had
already been transferred to another site, added to
the workers' sense of insecurity. Meanwhile, the
residents wanted to eliminate the facility's emis-
sions of methylene chloride as fast as possible, and
a few activists wanted this "at any cost"—even if
it meant closing the facility. Union members and
other Northfield citizens thus had some shared
and some conflicting interests.
121
-------
122
Triggering Events
Sheldahl seems to have foreseen the stir that the
TRI data publication would create. After the com-
munity outcry, Sheldahl held a public meeting at
the City Council's request and unveiled a toxic-
use reduction plan. The plan entailed reducing
emissions by 90% over five years by curtailing use,
largely through substitution of methylene chlo-
ride with safer substances. Sheldahl did not, how-
ever, firmly commit to this plan, saying reductions
beyond the first year would depend on a variety
of factors beyond their control.
Shortly thereafter, in early summer, a group
of Northfield citizens called a public meeting of
their own, and decided to form Clean Air in
Northfield (CAN). Simultaneously, a dozen sci-
ence faculty and students from two Northfield
colleges—Carleton and St. Olaf—formed the Air
Toxics Study Group (ATSG), to study Sheldahl's
emissions and what to do about them. The ATSG
was one of Carleton's Technology Policy Projects
(part of the Environmental and Technology Stud-
ies Program), designed to lend academic resources
to technology policy controversies. It soon estab-
lished connections with CAN, Sheldahl, the Min-
nesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and
workers at the facility.
Deciding to Collaborate
The first meeting between CAN members and
union leaders was contentious, with the union
accusing the community leaders of wanting to shut
down the facility, and some activists accusing the
workers of withholding knowledge that the facil-
ity was emitting a carcinogen. At this point, the
citizens favored a recapture-and-recycle strategy to
reduce the amount of the chemical emitted from
the facility. The workers favored a toxic-use reduc-
tion strategy, similar to what Sheldahl was already
proposing. Each option required a large capital
expenditure by Sheldahl, but the latter would take
more time.
A turning point in the relationship between
CAN and the union came when Eric Frumin, the
union's National Director of Occupational Safety
and Health, visited and spoke at a joint meeting
of CAN, ATSG, and union leaders. In addition to
stressing the research that increasingly showed the
dangers of methylene chloride, he deplored the
recapture-and-recycle strategies favored by CAN,
likening this to "putting a cork in the bottle"—
leaving workers inside the bottle with the chemi-
cal. He argued that even so-called "closed-system"
recycle-and-recapture technologies do not live up
to their promise to stay closed and protect work-
ers. He largely succeeded in persuading the CAN
and ATSG members that toxic-use reduction was
the best strategy to protect both workers and the
surrounding community. The three groups were
on the road to cooperation, and held a series of
joint meetings over the next few months.
Meanwhile, CAN was pressuring the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the local
Environmental Quality Control Commission to
regulate Sheldahl more stringently. At the request
of MPCA, Sheldahl hired an engineering firm to
assess the health risks of methylene chloride
emissions to residents. The firm found that
Sheldahl exceeded the safe level of exposure for
people outside the facility, and proposed to install
fans in the exhaust stacks to disperse the chemical
more widely over the community and thereby
reduce the maximum concentration. The MPCA
and ATSG cooperated to defeat this plan. In
addition, a Carleton student wrote a report
showing that workers at the facility were exposed
to 50 parts per million of methylene chloride.
When this was publicized in the local paper, the
community had the eye-opening experience of
comparing that to the long-term exposure limit
of .006 parts per million that the MPCA considers
safe for citizens outside the facility.
Negotiation and Agreement
Buoyed by this public attention to methylene chlo-
ride, the ACTWU workers decided to include the
issue in its collective bargaining with the company.
They pressed Sheldahl to put firm time commit-
ments on their proposed toxic-use reduction plans.
The resulting agreement, signed on November 1,
1989, included commitments from Sheldahl to:
• Reduce methylene chloride use by 64% by
1992.
• Eliminate 90% of methylene chloride
emissions by 1993.
-------
• Hold progress meetings with the union and
community groups.
• Conduct quarterly testing for employee
exposure to methylene chloride.
• Make the search for a non-toxic alternative to
methylene chloride a top priority.
Next, the MPCA held a hearing, requested by
CAN, on renewing Sheldahl's air permit. CAN
lobbied for faster reductions than those in the
agreement, and they also continued to lobby for a
recapture process, despite union opposition. As it
turned out, the MPCA issued a new permit that
locked in the collective bargaining agreements,
and further required Sheldahl to eliminate all
methylene chloride use by 2000.
As of January 1992, implementation was ahead
of schedule (methylene chloride use was down
75%, instead of just 64%), and the facility was de-
veloping a water-based, non-toxic substitute.
Success Factors and Challenges
The involvement of the ATSG aided success by
helping the CAN members make sense of the tech-
nical aspects of the issue, serving as a moderating
influence, and suggesting safety measures the plant
could take.
However, the main key to success in this
case—and also the main challenge—was the co-
operation between the union and CAN. It was
challenging for several reasons.
• While they all shared an interest in reducing
toxic exposure, the workers also worried about
losing their jobs, and thus were reluctant to
push the company to take the drastic measures
some community activists were urging.
• People tend to think of "workers" and
"community" as separate entities. Government
also tends to treat them as separate entities, so
their concerns are handled by separate
government agencies (for example, the TRI data
did not address worker exposure).
• In this instance, social class may have widened
the divide between the workers and the
affluent community surrounding the plant.
Despite these difficulties, the community and the
union achieved a significant degree of coopera-
tion. This resulted from the following:
• A shared belief that collaboration could be
beneficial, and a commitment to build on
common interests.
• The personal visit by Eric Frumin of the
ACTWU's national office. He persuaded many
in the community that the toxic-use reduction
strategy would best serve the long-term
interests of both the workers and the nearby
residents.
• Frequent meetings between the groups.
« Inclusion in each other's efforts. CAN
routinely invited someone from the union to
attend its meetings, and the union's collective
bargaining agreement included a provision for
community representatives to monitor
Sheldahl's implementation progress.
While they never were in 100% agreement—evi-
denced by the community groups' continued agi-
tation after the collective bargaining agreement
was signed—their cooperation helped bring about
important environmental results.
Outcomes
In summary, the cooperation among the union,
the two community groups, and the facility
resulted in a collective bargaining agreement
comprising environmental commitments and
community involvement. These were reiterated
and strengthened in the air permit. To varying
degrees, these outcomes benefitted all parties:
• The facility's original plan of toxic-use reduction
was accepted and codified in the collective
bargaining agreement and the air permit.
• Sheldahl would be investing long-term in the
Northfieldfacility and heepingjobs there, rather
than moving them elsewhere.
• The union advanced an approach that would
benefit workers as well as the community.
• The community was guaranteed a reduction of
methylene chloride emissions, with complete
elimination by 2000.
123
-------
Sources
Casper, Barry M., "Citizen-Worker Alliances Are
Key to the Success of the Environmental
Movement," unpublished draft. (Note: Barry
(Mike) Casper is a professor at Carleton College
and was a member of the Air Toxics Study
Group.)
Casper, Barry M., "Methylene Chloride and
Northfield, Minnesota" inU.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Proceedings of the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) Data Use Conference.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, 1993.
Lewis, SanfordJ., et al., "Sheldahl Inc., Northfield,
Minnesota," The Good Neighbor Handbook: A
Community-Based Strategy for Sustainable
Industry." Acton, MA: Center for the Study of
Public Policy, 1992.
124
-------
« appendix 2
Background on the Constructive
Engagement Resource Guide
Genesis of the Guide
The proposal for the Constructive Engagement Resource Guide was developed by
the Alternative Strategies Work Group of the Computers and Electronics Sector
Subcommittee of the EPAls Common Sense Initiative (CSI). The CSI served as a
model for integrating activities across the EPA, including developing new rules,
reviewing existing rules, and designing innovative enforcement and compliance
approaches.
In 1996, the Subcommittee agreed on a vision for a facility-based alternative
system of environmental protection that results in enhanced environmental, health,
and safety performance; increased regulatory flexibility; and increased engage-
ment of, and accountability to, communities and workers. The specific objectives
of this vision are shown in the box below; one of the objectives is constructive
engagement among industry, workers, communities and government.
The CSI Computers and Electronics Subcommittee's work led to this resource
guide. The guide is a resource for industry, community groups, workers, and gov-
ernment agencies to strengthen partnerships for a cleaner environment. CDR As-
sociates wrote the guide, as EPA subcontractors under a contract administered by
RESOLVE, Inc., under the auspices of the Computers and Electronics Sector Sub-
committee Alternative Strategies Work Group. Work Group members guided the
development of the guide and reviewed the multiple drafts that were prepared in
the development of the final document.
125
-------
Alternative System of Environmental Protection Objectives
Superior performance based alternatives to the existing system that includes flexibility, reduced regulatory burden,
and cost effectiveness to achieve cleaner, cheaper, and smarter results. A superior performance based alternative
is one that produces environmental and health outcomes that meet or exceed performance required by existing
regulatory standards and thresholds. An alternative performance based system encourages creative, innovative,
cost-effective, and adaptive solutions that shift resources from permit management and regulatory reporting
toward technical, managerial, and consensus process solutions that directly increase environmental protection
and reduce human health risks.
An environmental management systems approach that sets performance objectives and targets and stresses
continuous improvement. An environmental management systems approach is one in which facilities evaluate
the impacts of its activities, processes, and products and establishes clear and measurable objectives and
targets to improve environmental, health, and safety performance. Facilities participating in an alternative
system approach commit to continuous improvement both in reducing community and worker exposure to
harmful chemicals and in improving management systems that gather, assess, and respond to information
regarding facility impacts on the environment, workers, and the community.
Integration of environmental, health, and safety (EHS) programs into product design and production
processes. An integrated environmental, health, and safety (EHS) program is one that ensures that beneficial
changes in one program area (such as environmental) do not cause detrimental changes in another area
(such as safety or health). It is a program that stresses communication between those responsible for improving
environmental, health, and safety performance and encourages facility personnel to consider EHS issues at
all stages in product and process design, procurement, production, use, and disposal on the same level as
issues such as cost, quality, and time.
Constructive engagement between industry, workers, communities, and government to achieve alternative
system goals and objectives. Constructive engagement means representatives of the facility's management
and employees, the relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies, and the community striving to
develop and continuously improve a cooperative partnership. Through this partnership, these parties jointly
work to assure that each of them has the capacity to participate, and does participate, in establishing facility
environmental management system goals and objectives, in monitoring the effectiveness of the system, and
in evaluating facility performance. The capacity to effectively participate includes each party having timely
access to relevant information, sufficient technical understanding and expertise, and the resources to
effectively participate.
Prevention of adverse environmental and human health consequences through business planning and
product development and use. Prevention means the use of environmental and occupational risk information
in business planning and product development to identify opportunities for pollution prevention and a
preference for source reduction over recycling, treatment, and disposal. Prevention includes effective
Stewardship practices to prevent adverse effects and promotes effective customer-supplier relationships that
identify pollution prevention opportunities and share pollution prevention technology, and promotes
precautionary principles.
Proportionality between improvement in regulatory flexibility; environmental, health, and safety; and
the engagement of and accountability to communities and workers. Proportionality means that facilities
seeking operational flexibility must also demonstrate comparable achievements in both environmental,
health and safety performance and in involvement of communities and workers in defining facility
environmental management system goals and monitoring performance.
126
-------
Methodology
The primary method used to develop this guide
was the study of Constructive Engagement cases.
The purpose of using the case study approach was
to uncover practical lessons concerning whether
to embark on Constructive Engagement and how
to effectively structure and manage the process.
Once lessons were derived from the cases, inter-
views were conducted with a number of people
who had experience as Constructive Engagement
participants. This step served to test the initial
findings of the research. The information gathered
from interviews subsequently helped to refine the
final conclusions.
Through conference calls and meetings, the
Work Group participated in each step of the re-
search process. Work Group members shared their
feedback concerning the case studies, lessons, text
of the guide, and the research process itself. Gen-
erally, they worked in close collaboration with the
authors at every major step of the process, which
consisted of the following:
Case Study Identification. The first step was to
identify examples of Constructive Engagement
through telephone inquiries, a literature review,
and an Internet search. Individuals involved in
Constructive Engagement activities were asked to
send written materials. While examples in the
computer and electronics sector were preferred,
cases from other industries were welcomed as well.
The search yielded 25 cases.
Case Study Selection. The next step was to nar-
row the list down to fewer cases, selecting diverse
examples with respect to:
• Participants
• Issue(s)
• Geography
• Model/Type of Process
• Initiator of the Process
• Duration of the Process
• Goal or Purpose of the Process
• Corrective or Preventive
• Outcome
• Degree of Conflict
• Cross-cultural Issues.
Whether written accounts of the examples existed
was also considered because time permitted only
a few primary case studies to be researched. From
the original 25 examples, 11 cases were selected
to develop; eight from existing reports and three
from reviews of primary material and participant
interviews.
Case Study Development. For the primary case
studies, a review of primary materials was con-
ducted and participants were interviewed. A
schedule of interview questions was used to con-
duct the interviews, but it was followed loosely.
This allowed the information gathering process
to be standardized, while remaining flexible
enough for interviewees to openly speak about
their experiences. The interview schedule was also
used as a tool to analyze the secondary sources
for the other eight cases. The interview schedule
included the following key questions:
• What were the initial goals and objectives of
the collaboration?
• What was the process of collaboration?
• Who were the parties involved?
• What type of mandate did the group have?
• What procedures were established?
• Why did you decide to participate in/initiate
a community engagement process?
• What were the major challenges you faced?
• What do you see as the major outcomes of
the collaboration?
• What were the costs and benefits incurred
from participation in the collaboration?
• If you were to advise someone new starting a
similar collaboration, what advice would you
give them? What were the main lessons you
learned?
127
-------
• Is there a question I should have asked you
that I didn't, or anything else you feel I should
know?
The outcome of this step was a set of 11 written
case studies, averaging 1,500 words each. The case
studies were structured to highlight the questions
asked during the information gathering process.
Lessons Development. As the case studies were de-
veloped, a list of recurring themes and trends was
maintained that led to a list of "Lessons Learned"—
a summary of key points and conclusions.
Drafting of Text. In addition to the case studies, the
resource guide consists of advice and how-to
information to help stakeholders decide whether to
participate in and how to create a Constructive
Engagement process. From the case studies, lessons
learned, input from Work Group members, and the
authors' experience as mediators and facilitators,
Chapters 2,3, and 4 were drafted and submitted to
Work Group members for their comments.
Interviews. After drafting the three central
chapters, interviews were conducted with
potential readers of the resource guide, particularly
those with some experience participating in
Constructive Engagement as well as individuals
with a background in the computer and electronics
industry. The purpose of the interviews was to
"ground-truth" or test the initial set of lessons by
asking interviewees with practical experience in
the field to give their views and reactions.
In selecting individuals to interview, the goal
was to find people from various stakeholder
groups (community, government, and industry)
with experience in Constructive Engagement. A
representative cross-section of Work Group mem-
bers were initially approached. They were inter-
viewed and asked to recommend others who
should be interviewed. This yielded a few valu-
able contacts, and the list was supplemented with
names encountered during the case study research.
The emphasis was on interviewing people who
were not involved in any of the situations used
for the case studies, because the intent was to get
the benefit of a broader base of experience.
Interviews were conducted in September 1998
with the following people:
Rick Abraham, Texans United
JoLani Hironaka, Santa Clara Center for
Occupational Safety and Health
Steve Hoover, EPA Headquarters
Bern Johnson, Director, Environmental Law
Alliance Worldwide, Eugene, Oregon
Dave Jones, EPA Region IX (San Francisco)
Daphne McMurrer, Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Committee
Liz Moyer, Texas Instruments
Mary O'Brien, Community environmental
activist in Eugene, Oregon
Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Many potential interviewees were not available,
so fewer interviews were conducted than hoped.
Nevertheless, the interviews were valuable and the
range of individual opinions was diverse. Each
interviewee was given a list of the preliminary
"Lessons Learned" as a basis for discussion. The
interviews provided substantive feedback for the
resource guide and for the final list of lessons (pre-
sented in Chapter 5), serving as an informal type
of "peer review" and lending additional validity
to the material presented in the guide.
Final Compilation. The complete draft of the re-
source guide was submitted to the Work Group
and then distributed to the entire Computers and
Electronics Sector Subcommittee. Their feedback
and recommendations were integrated to create
the final version of the Constructive Engagement
Resource Guide.
128
-------
Sample Forms
Table of Contents
Page Number
The Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement 130
An Industrial Perspective, Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX
Local Environmental Advisory Group Charter 133
Lucent Technologies, Allentown, PA
Proposed Agenda for Introductory Community Advisotry Panel Meeting.... 136
Dynamic Networking, Martinez, CA
Sample Guidelines for Dialogues and Negotiations 138
CDR Associates, Boulder, CO
Sample Agreement to Mediate 139
CDR Associates, Boulder, CO
Criteria for Recruitment of Mediators 141
CDR Associates, Boulder, CO
129
-------
The Costs and Benefits of Constructive Engagement
AN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE
Prepared by Liz Moyer, Safety, Environmental, and Health Staff, Texas Instruments
Note: This approach assumes a Constructive Engagement activity that addresses either the siting of a
new facility or the expansion of an existing one that requires some permitting process. It could also be
applied when a renewal action is necessary.
Attaching concrete costs and benefits to Constructive Engagement is difficult. These are the questions
we need to ask ourselves and the issues to consider in determining if Constructive Engagement is a
good idea. In doing so, we need to think carefully about our specific situation.
In discussing and planning a community outreach program, we must speak to management in terms of
management, and that means money. Our credibility is very important, so we must use judgment in
making these calculations. If permitting is not a factor in facility startup schedule, then we should not
use that part of this document; if it is, we should be sure to include it.
Potential Benefits:
A. Faster permitting due to support of community and absence of hearing requests. How much faster
can permits be obtained with community support?
What is the expected revenue per day for the facility affected by this permitting action? Get this
from the capital authorization, financial controller, or manufacturing manager for the facility.
Now, what is community support really worth to us?
$ per day expected revenue X
working days =
B.
additional revenue due to reduced permit cycle time
Be cautious in using this calculation not to reduce cycle times below the construction schedule.
Reduced cost of permit hearings. Contact your legal department to generate an estimated cost for
permit hearings.
C. Community support will make zoning change and building permits go faster. How can these affect
the construction schedule and cycle time from design to revenue-producing operations?
$ per day expected revenue X working days =
additional revenue due to reduced zoning or building permit cycle time. Careful! Don't double-dip
savings in environmental permitting and zoning cycle time—your credibility is important!
D. Reduced cost of permitting or zoning hearings. Contact your legal department to generate an
estimated cost for hearings.
E. Community support may enable you to negotiate a more flexible permit—one allowing caps by
chemical family rather than individual chemical, for example. Does your facility expect to change
chemistry often? How could the time lag before a new chemistry can be included in your permit
affect cycle time to market for a new product?
130
-------
$_
X
$
per day expected revenue for new product, or cost savings from chemistry change
working days = additional revenue, or savings.
estimated cost of handling permit amendments.
E Community support could reduce abatement/waste handling/operations restrictions. What abatement
are you installing beyond the legal requirements? Is it possible that community support could
eliminate this expenditure? What materials will the facility be using? Are there other operations in
the area that could use your used materials if the community supported this re-use? Are operating
hours being restricted due to perceived community concerns? If the community supported extended
hours, could the facility generate more revenue?
Improved community image is hard to quantify, but there are a couple of factors that might help
you do it: Is your facility hiring workers? If so, what are the advantages of hiring local workers who
already have some knowledge about the facility, harbor goodwill, and will remain stable, long-term
employees? In other words, how much does hiring locally reduce turnover and related cost? How
about reduction in relocation costs when you hire locally? Talk to your human resources department
about this issue. Obviously, having a community outreach program will not guarantee availability
of potential employees, but having a bad reputation for environmental, safety or health issues will
certainly limit your company's ability to hire locally.
Costs
A. Start-up: How much time will it take to locate and retain a third-party facilitator, if one is to be
used? What is their initial start-up fee? How much time will the company champion spend recruiting
community participants? Setting up meetings?
B. Ongoing administrative costs: How much time will the company champion spend setting up
meetings, notifying participants, setting up the meeting room? How about recording the results of
the meetings and distributing them to participants? What about distribution to the rest of the
community?
Hours:
. hours
. hours
. hours
hours
Develop agenda
Notify participants
Room set-up
Minutes generation and distribution
Total hours/meeting X # meetings/year
X $ /hour = $ administrative labor cost
What about printing, postage, etc.?
$ administrative materials cost
131
-------
rou
refreshments cost
facilities cost
. child care cost
.translator cost
_agency cost
_community travel cost
C. Logistics: Will there be refreshments at the meetings? Will you have to pay to rent space? Are y<
providing child care?
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $ cmiu care cusi
D. Internal Labor: How many representatives of your company are going to attend the meetings,
and how do you account for their time? Include management, public relations, workers, human
resources, facilities, environmental & safety.
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $ internal labor cost
External labor and expenses: Will you be paying an outside facilitator? A translator?
How about special technical assistance? Agency compensation? Travel for community members?
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $ facilitator cost
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $
# meetings/year X $ ' / meeting = $ technical assistance cost
# meetings/year X $ / meeting = $
Summary:
Benefits:
A. Increased revenue due to faster permitting
B. Reduced expense of permitting hearings
C. Increased revenue due to faster zoning
D. Reduced expense of zoning hearings
E. Increased revenue due to faster process change
E Reduced cost of permitting for process change
G. Elimination of abatement/operation restrictions
H. Workforce
Costs:
A. Start-up
B. Ongoing administrative
C. Ongoing logistical
D. Internal labor
E. External labor
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
132
-------
Local Environmental Advisory Group Charter*
Purpose
As a part of a national regulatory reform effort and to support Lucent Technologies' certification in the
International Standard Organization ISO 14001, Lucent has formed a Local Environmental Advisory
Group (LEAG), specifically for the Lucent Technologies Microelectronics Allentown, PA facility.
The purpose of the LEAG is to gather a diverse group of community representatives and facility person-
nel in order to exchange ideas and respond to concerns regarding environmental activities at the facil-
ity. The group will:
• Provide the opportunity for the community to learn more about the facility and its operations,
• Act as a forum to identify and prioritize community interests and concerns,
• Review Lucent's objectives and targets for improving the facility's environmental performance and
offer advice and recommendations for continually improving the environmental quality for the
surrounding community,
• Provide community input and oversight for any regulatory reform proposed under the US
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Project XL.
Environmental issues are expected to be the topics of most interest to the group; however, most any
other questions or concerns can be considered by the group. Issues associated with confidential busi-
ness information or trade secrets, personnel information or legal questions will be outside the group's
scope of discussion. The groups will not be given decision-making authority over day-to-day facility
operations and business decisions; however, they will be kept informed as to how their concerns Were
considered and addressed on those issues.
Ground Rules
The following guidelines will serve to help the group engage in effective discussion and consideration,
while providing community input on environmental and technical issues:
1. Share relevant information. Members will share all of the appropriate information they have that
might affect the way the group solves a problem or makes a decision. This includes sharing
information that does not support one's own position.
2. Focus on interests, not positions. A position is a solution that meets your needs. Interests are the
reasons why that solution is attractive to you. Often there are many different ways to satisfy your
interests.
3. Be brief and clear in your comments. Use examples whenever possible to give other members a
concrete way of understanding your comments. Define important words and check with the group
to make sure everyone has the same understanding of those words.
4. Explain the reasons behind your statements, questions and actions. Tell others why you are doing
what you are doing. For example, if you want information, explain why it is important to you.
Developed by Winsor Associates, Ardmore, PA. Used with permission.
133
-------
5. Make statements, then invite questions and comments. When you express a point of view, explain
your reasons, and then ask others to respond directly to your statement to find out whether they
agree or disagree. This helps turn the discussions into a dialogue rather than a series of monologues.
6. Focus the discussion. Members will discuss relevant issues, focus on the same issue, and make
sure everyone fully understands the issues.
7. Listen and consider the opinions of others.
8. Treat each member with courtesy and respect.
9. Exchange relevant information with non-group constituents. Members need to communicate the
group's progress to their constituencies and gather ideas from them as well.
10. Make decisions by consensus. Consensus means that all members present at a meeting can live
with a proposal as stated. Everyone may not be 100% satisfied with the decision, but they agree to
let the decision be implemented.
11. Debrief at the end of each meeting. To learn from its successes and mistakes, the group will spend
a few minutes at the end of each meeting reviewing what worked well and what could be improved.
Membership
The members of the LEAG are chosen to represent a broad range of interests from the immediate
Allentown/Bethlehem area, as well as the wider community of Lehigh and Northampton counties.
To maintain a balanced range of community perspectives new members may be proposed in re-
sponse to the needs of a particular project. In the event that a particular organization's representative
resigns, the organization will be approached first to appoint a new representative. A Lucent Technologies
selection committee will confirm the selection of a new member.
LEAG members are expected to make an initial one year commitment, with the opportunity for
extending membership for an additional one or two years.
If a LEAG member is unable to attend a meeting, an alternate may be sent to represent the organi-
zation or interest group and to participate in the consensus process. The member is responsible for
keeping the alternate informed so that s/he is able to participate meaningfully. The group is not ex-
pected to backtrack to update alternates.
Observers
Most meetings of the LEAG will be open to the public. Only LEAG members or their alternates will be
called upon to participate in discussions and make recommendations. Observers from the public will
be invited to offer comments or ask questions at a specified time during the meeting.
Company Role and Participation
The Manufacturing Director and representatives of the two unions employed at Lucent will serve as
members of the LEAG. They will participate in the discussions, but not in consensus decision-making.
Company representative are expected to bring issues to the group for their consideration, provide
necessary background and technical information, assist the group in gathering other information, and
respond to questions or issues raised by the group. Additional Lucent Technologies personnel may attend
meetings as necessary when there is a special topic or questions that would benefit from their expertise.
134
-------
Meetings
Initially the group will meet approximately every six weeks to allow members to become acquainted
with each other and oriented to the facility. Thereafter, it is expected that the group will meet at least
four times per year. The group's meeting frequency and format can be changed to meet the needs and
interests of the group or the facility.
Group meetings will be approximately two hours long and held at a time and location convenient
to its members.
A neutral facilitator will be provided by the company to assure that meetings are conducted effi-
ciently and effectively. The facilitator's responsibilities include: managing the group's agenda, keeping
the committee on task, and assisting with the development of consensus. The facilitator will not offer
his/her own opinions. Draft meeting agendas will be circulated to the LEAG prior to the meeting.
Revisions to the draft agenda will be taken at the beginning of each meeting.
Media Contact
Individual LEAG members will not discuss or represent the group's work to the media. The group will
appoint a spokesperson who will work with the LEAG to prepare and distribute press releases as the
group sees fit.
Changes to the Charter
Changes to the LEAG Charter will be made with the consensus of the group at any meeting.
135
-------
PROPOSED AGENDA FOR
Introductory Community Advisory Panel Meeting*
1. Getting Acquainted
A. Social Situation with Refreshments
B. Facilitator and Scribe Introduction
C. Participant Introduction
II. Statement of Purpose
A. Definition of Facilitator's Role
1. Responsible for creating an environment for team building, by focusing on processes and
dynamics.
2. Plans and leads the processes the group uses to deal with its content.
3. Makes sure that the members of the group achieve and maintain agreement on what they
are doing and how they are doing it (staying together on content and process).
B. Reasons for Participant Selection
1. Community, Environmental, Employment, Governmental
III. Guidelines of Task Force
A. Define Guidelines
B. Develop Consensus on Guidelines
IV Process For Identifying and Acting on Issues of Concern
A. Identify Issues for Consideration (General)
B. Define Issues for Consideration (General)
C. Discuss Issues for Consideration (General)
1. Panel Takes No Action—Resolved
2. Panel Takes an Action—Discuss Specific Issue
a. Set Priority for Discussion
b. Schedule for Agenda
D. Discuss Specific Issue
1. Background Information
a. Speakers/Presentation
b. Handouts/Visuals
136
Developed by Dynamic Networking, Martinez, CA. Used with permission.
-------
2. Discussion
a. Panel Takes No Action - Resolved
b. Panel Takes an Action
(1) Further Discussion (Return to Discuss Specific Issue)
(2) Recommendation to Company
(a) Company Takes No Action
i) Communicate to Panel
a) Panel Takes No Action
b) Panel Takes an Action—Further Discussion
(Return to Discuss specific Issue)
(b) Company Takes an Action
i) Company Communicates to Panel
ii) Panel Monitors Action—Resolved
iii) Panel Takes an Action—Further Discussion
(Return to Discuss Specific Issue)
V Action By Group
A. Identify Issues
B. Set Priorities
C. Scheduled for Agenda
VI. Additional Comments and Questions
VII. Adjourn
137
-------
Sample Guidelines For Dialogues And Negotiations*
The following guidelines have been found to be effective in encouraging productive negotiations. If the group
is willing to adopt these guidelines or ground rules, meeting participants must commit themselves to
"best efforts" at following them, and give the facilitator(s) authority to enforce them.
• Disagreement in discussions and negotiations is often inevitable and can be constructive. In this
dialogue, discussion should be focused on the issues involved, rather than perceptions of motives,
relationships and personalities.
• It is absolutely crucial that everyone have a chance to be heard and to hear others. Therefore, side
conversations or interruptions while someone is speaking should be avoided.
• In order to give everyone a chance to talk, participants should be sensitive about the length of comments
and encourage equal participation from all group members.
• Once an agenda has been agreed upon, it is important to stick to it in terms of both time and topic. If it
appears that the agenda should be changed, this should be done by a group decision.
• Meeting participants will often have strong opinions about the items under discussion, but it is
important to remain open-minded about proposals, ideas, concerns, etc., while different points of view
are being presented and discussed. It often helps to stay focused on the underlying concerns or interests
that need to be addressed rather than on whether any particular proposal is "good" or "bad." This
makes it easier to evaluate the ideas that are presented.
• In general, each group member should work to create an open and frank dialogue, that allows for a
full and respectful exploration of similar and different points of view.
• In order to maximize the productive time available, people should also avoid repeating points that
have already been adequately made by oneself or others.
We hope these guidelines will maximize the opportunity for this group to reach a consensus decision
that will address key interests, and be mutually satisfactory. Remember, consensus does not mean una-
nimity, but rather, the best agreement that can be reached at this time, which each member of the group
can live with and/or support.
* Developed by CDR Associates, Boulder, CO. Used with permission.
138
-------
Sample Agreement To Mediate"
This is an agreement between
and as represented by
mediation with
. and (hereafter referred to as the "parties")
(the "mediators"). The parties have entered into
with the intention of reaching a consensual settlement regarding
The provisions of this agreement are as follows:
1. The mediators are neutral facilitators who will assist the parties to reach their own settlement. The
mediators will not make decisions about "right" or "wrong" or tell the parties what to do.
2. It is understood that open and honest communications are essential for mediation to work. Because
concern for future reprisal or retaliation can interfere with communication and the mediation process,
the parties agree not to take such actions.
3. The parties agree to make full and honest disclosure to each other and to the mediators of all
relevant information and documents. This includes providing to each other and the mediators all
information that would be available through the civil discovery process. Failure to disclose this
information may result in this agreement being set aside.
4. The parties and mediators agree that all written and oral communications, negotiations and
statements made in connection with mediation will be treated as privileged settlement discussions
and are absolutely confidential. Therefore:
The mediators will not reveal the names of the parties or matters discussed in the course of
mediation unless expressly requested to do so by all parties. It is understood that the mediators
are not required to maintain confidentiality if there is reason to believe any party is in danger of
bodily harm.
The parties agree that they will not, at any time before, during, or after mediation, call the
mediators or anyone associated with them as witnesses in any legal or administrative proceeding
concerning this dispute. To the extent that any party may have a right to call the mediators or
anyone associated with them as witnesses, that right is hereby waived.
The parties agree not to subpoena or demand the production of any records, notes, work product
or similar materials from the mediators in any legal or administrative proceeding concerning
this dispute. To the extent that any party may have a right to demand these documents, that
right is hereby waived.
If, at a later time, any party decides to subpoena the mediators, the mediators will move to
quash the subpoena. That party will reimburse the mediators for the expenses (including
attorneys fees), plus $100 per hour for the mediators' time, associated with responding to that
subpoena.
The sole exception is that this agreement to mediate and any written agreement made and
signed by the parties as a result of mediation may be used in any relevant proceeding, unless the
parties make a written agreement not to do so.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
* Developed by CDR Associates of Boulder, CO. Used with permission.
139
-------
5. While the parties intend to continue with mediation until they reach an agreement, it is understood
that any of them may choose to withdraw from mediation at any time. It is agreed that if this
occurs, best efforts will be made to discuss this decision in the presence of all parties and the
mediators.
6, If the mediators determine that it is not possible to resolve the issues through mediation, the process
can be terminated once this determination has been conveyed to the parties and confirmed in writing.
7. The mediators do not offer legal advice or provide legal counsel. In the event that legal advice is
appropriate, each party is advised to retain his/her own attorney in order to be properly counseled
about his/her legal interests, rights and obligations. This includes, but is not limited to, reviewing
any written agreement between the parties that results from the mediation.
8. The parties agree to share the costs of mediation according to the terms of the Fee Agreements that
accompany this Agreement to Mediate.
9 Copies of this agreement may be executed separately by the parties and the mediators.
I have read, understand and agree to each of the provisions of this agreement.
Party
Date
Party
Date
Party
Date
Party
Date
Mediator
Date
Mediator
Date
140
-------
Criteria For Recruitment of Mediators*
The criteria presented below should be viewed as general guidelines. Not everyone will match all crite-
ria. In terms of personal attributes and skills, we all work to develop these abilities over time. Few
people have mastered all of them, but the potential should be there.
A. CRITERIA BASED ON PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES/ABILITIES
People who:
• Are good listeners and communicators
• Are open to a variety of viewpoints
• Are not rigid in their own positions, but willing to be persuaded by others
• Can see shades and nuances, rather than stark or polarized views
• Can generate or consider multiple possible solutions to a problem
• Are able to allow others to come up with their own solutions, rather than imposing their own
ideas or leaping in too soon with a solution
• Are able to listen carefully to the expression of strong feelings and discover the interests contained
in them
• Are not afraid of conflict, willing to let conflicts happen and not shut it off without resolution
• Are perceived by others as fair and relatively objective
• Are interested in being a mediator
B. CRITERIA BASED ON EXPERIENCE
People who:
• Have worked with a diverse range of people: white, Black, Hispanic, working class, wealthy,
educated/not, women, men, students, etc.
• Have background in communications, counseling, or human resource management
• Have worked with third party conflict resolution programs and have training in mediation
• Know the relevant law or can learn it
C. CRITERIA BASED ON DIVERSITY & ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
People who:
• Represent a variety of viewpoints and experience, in terms of race, gender and other aspects of
diversity important to the organization
• Reflect the different groups who will use the mediation services (organizational units, unions,
management, professional, non-professional, technical, clerical, support, etc.)
Developed by CDR Associates of Boulder, CO. Used with permission.
141
-------
-------
Resources
This appendix contains a listing of useful resources for stakeholders in constructive
engagement. The list is organized according to the following broad subject areas:
Public Participation and Partnership Development
Mediation Resources
EPA Hotlines
Clearinghouses and Websites
U.S. EPA Offices
Worker Health and Safety Resources
Public Participation and Partnership Development
A Citizen's Guide to Achieving a Health Community, Economy and Environment,
1996. The Nature Conservancy, Center for Compatible Economic Development,
7 East Market St. Suite 210, Leesburg, VA 20175, (703) 779-1728.
Citizen Participation Handbook, Institute for Participatory Management and Plan-
ning, 1995. IPMP, EO. Box 1937, Monterey, CA 93942-1937.
Environmental Partnerships: A Field Guide for Government Agencies, 1993. A
handbook reference to help both the novice and experienced stakeholder success-
fully use partnerships as an equitable, effective, and efficient means of achieving
results. Management Institute for Environment and Business, 10 G Street NE,
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 729-7600.
143
-------
Involving Citizens in Community Decision Mak-
ing - A Guidebook, 1992. Program for Commu-
nity Problem Solving, 915 Fifteenth St. NW, Suite
600, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 783-2961.
Management Institute for Environment and Busi-
ness, World Resources Institute, 10 G St. NE,
Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 729-
7600, http://www.ivri.oig/meb/. Helps companies
improve environmental quality through business
success. Seeks to demonstrate and communicate
to the business community the opportunities of
sustainable development through direct industry
outreach and training.
National Civic League, 1445 Market St. #300,
Denver, CO 80202-1728, http://www.ncl.org/. A
non-profit organization that works directly with
communities to foster cross-sector collaboration
and grass roots problem solving.
Public Involvement Manual, 1998. Bureau of Rec-
lamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO, 80225-0007. Concen-
trates on the practical aspects of setting up and run-
ning a public involvement program or project.
Public Meeting Survival Guide, U.S. Fish And
Wildlife Service. A user-friendly workbook for
getting into—and out of—meetings. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, OR.
Renew America, 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 721-1545, http://
www.soktice. crest.org/environmen t/renew_americaJ.
A non-profit organization that coordinates a net-
work of community and environmental groups,
businesses, and government leaders to exchange
ideas and expertise for improving the environ-
ment. Renew America's Environmental Success In-
dex chronicles environmental programs nation-
wide that measurably protect, restore or enhance
the environment.
SALIA: An Environmental Justice and Community
Organizing Training Manual, 1996.
144
Training manual written in both English and Span-
ish aimed at developing and empowering com-
munity activists in their struggle for environmen-
tal justice. Environmental Health Coalition, San
Diego, CA 92101, (619) 235-0281, http://www.
environmentalhealih.org.
Mediation Resources
A Consumers Guide to Selecting a Mediator, State
Justice Institute, Alaska Judicial Council, 1029 W
3rd St., Suite 201, Ankorage, AK 99501.
Mediation Information and Resource Center.
Everything from defining mediation to guidelines
for choosing a mediator. An international search-
able directory with links to mediator's Web pages.
http://w w w. mediate, com/.
EPA Hotlines, Clearinghouses, and Websites
EPA
http://www.epa.gov
EPAs Web site contains a vast array of informa-
tion. The home page provides a list of categories
that links users to more specific menus.
Through the home page users can: get in-depth
information about EPAs projects and programs;
find out about laws and regulations; locate EPA
offices, labs .and regions; browse through EPA
publications; get the latest news and upcoming
events; discover new databases and software
tools; or see what grants and fellowships are
available. In addition, the home page provides
links to a range of other resources both inside
and outside EPA.
Chemical Assessment Desk
202-260-3998
EPAs Chemical Assessment Desk is available to
EPA personnel to answer questions on existing
chemicals regarding health and environmental
risk, toxicity, environmental persistence, exposure
potential, production, use, and regulatory status.
Inquiries from the general public are usually re-
ferred to the appropriate EPA hotline.
-------
Chemical Testing and Information
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/index
The Chemical Testing and Information home page
provides an overview of the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act (TSCA) with links to more specific infor-
mation on TSCAs Chemical Testing Program.
Community-Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osec/osechome
This EPA site includes resources, case studies, and
links to other related sites.
Hazardous Waste Ombudsman
(800) 262-7937
Assists the public and regulatory community in
resolving hazardous waste issues. The ombuds-
man handles complaints from citizens, conducts
investigations, undertakes site reviews, and issues
reports relating to hazardous waste sites. (In met-
ropolitan Washington, DC: (202) 260-9361.)
Office of Environmental Justice Hotline
(800) 962-6215
Coordinates public communication and provides
technical and financial assistance to outside groups
on environmental justice issues. (In metropolitan
Washington, DC: (202) 260-6359.)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr
OPPT's home page has several broad categories
that users can click on to link to sites that provide
more in-depth information on topical areas in each
category. OPPT's programs and projects, publica-
tions, databases and software can all be accessed
through the home page. A section for Concerned
Citizens provides information designed to help
consumers and communities.
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(202) 260-1023
http://www.epa.gov/oppintr/p2home
Provides answers and referrals in response to ques-
tions from the public concerning pollution pre-
vention.
Printers' National Environmental
Assistance Hotline
(888) 877-6322 (888-USPNEAC)
Addresses the needs of small printers nationwide
by providing information on how to achieve com-
pliance by reducing wastes and emissions.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Hotline
(415) 744-2074
Responds to requests for information on hazard-
ous waste identification, generators, transporters,
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and re-
cycling sites.
RCRA/Underground Storage Tank,
Superfund, and Emergency Planning and
Community-Right-to-Know Hotline
(800) 424-9346
provides information about the title programs and
referrals for obtaining documents about these pro-
grams. Translation is available for Spanish-speak-
ing callers. (In metropolitan Washington, DC:
(703) 412-9810.)
Small Business Ombudsman
Clearinghouse/Hotline
(800) 368-5888
Disseminates regulatory and other environmen-
tal information to help small businesses enhance
voluntary regulatory compliance and pollution
abatement and control. (In metropolitan Wash-
ington, DC: (703) 305-5938. TDD: (703) 305-
6824.)
Safe Drinking Water Hotline
' (800) 426-4791
email: hotline-sdwa@epamail.epa.gov
Available to help the regulated community, state
and local officials, and the public understand the
regulations and programs developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
145
-------
Stakeholder Web Page
http://www.epa.gov/stdkeholders
This web page, from EPAs Office of Reivention,
contains links to key information about EPAs
efforts to develop policies and related materials
regarding stakeholder involvement. (Includes
links for downloading this Resource Guide.)
STORET Water Quality System Hotline
(800) 424-9067
Provides assistance in the use of the STORET Sys-
tem. STORET is a repository for water quality and
biological monitoring data, and is used by state
environmental agencies, EPA staff, federal agen-
cies, and many others. STORET is an information
management system housing data gathered as a
result of ambient monitoring performed by state,
tribal, and federal agencies at over 800,000 sites
throughout the US.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Assistance Information Service
(202) 544-1404
TDD: (202) 544-0551
Furnishes TSCA regulatory information.
Toxic Release Inventory -
Community Right-to-Know
(800) 535-0202
EPCRA Hotline
email: tri.us@epamail.epa.gov
WASTEWI$E Helpline
(800) EPA-WISE
Provides information about EPAs voluntary pro-
gram encouraging businesses to reduce solid waste.
Wetlands Information Hotline
(800)832-7828
Disseminates information about the Wetlands Pro-
tection Program; answers questions and provides
referrals concerning the value, function, and pro-
tection of wetlands; and accepts requests for cer-
tain wetlands publications. (In metropolitan
Washington, DC: (703) 525-0985.)
146
EPA Offices
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-2080, http://www.epa.gov.
Office of Air and Radiation, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7400.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC 27111,
(919) 541-5616.
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance,
Ariel RiosBldg., Washington, DC, (202) 564-2440.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-4610.
Office of Water, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 260-7018.
EPA Regional Offices:
Region I, John E Kennedy Federal Building, I Con-
gress Street, Boston, MA 02203-2211, (617) 565-
3400.
Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-
1866, (212) 637-3000.
Region III, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
19107, (215) 566-5000.
Region IV, 100 Alabama Street SW, Atlanta, GA
30365, (404) 562-8327.
Region V, Robert E. Metcalfe Federal Building, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590,
(312) 353-2000.
Region VI, First Interstate Bank Tower at Foun-
tain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-2100.
Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
KS 66101, (913) 551-7000.
Region VIII, 999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 500, Den-
ver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6308.
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105, (415) 744-1305.
Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-
1128, (206) 553-1200.
-------
Worker Health and Safety Information
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
OSHA offers a Web site —http://www.osha.gov/
safeliriks.html—that provides a list of safety and
health information sources.
Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and
Environmental Health (a NIOSH Education and
Research Center). Dedicated to the assessment
and prevention of occupationally and environmen-
tally related disease. http://www-rocfej.utah.edM/.
Committees on Occupational
Safety and Health (COSH) by State:
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
218 East 4th Avenue
90 Anchorage, AK 99501
907-276-2864
Fax: 907-279-3089
California
Worksafe/Francis Schreiberg
c/o San Fran. Labor Council
1188 Franklin St, Suite 203
San Francisco, CA 94109
415-433-5077(messages only)
Fax: 510-835-4913
fcs@kmes.com
LACOSH (Los Angeles)
5855 Venice Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90019
213-931-9000
Fax: 213-931-2255
SA-COSH (Sacramento)
c/o Fire Fighters, Local 522
3101 Stockton Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95820
916-442-4390
Fax: 916-446-3057
akatten@mother.com
SCCOSH (Santa Clara)
760 N. 1st Street, 2nd Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112
408-998-4050
Fax: 408-998-4051
sccosh@igc.org
Connecticut
ConnectiCOSH
77 Huyshope Ave., 2nd floor
Hartford, CT 06106
860-549-1877
Fax: 860-251-6049
connecticosh@snet.net
Illinois
CACOSH (Chicago Area)
c/o Mike Ross,UIC School of Public Health
Great Lakes Center,M/C-922
2121 West Taylor Street
Chicago, IL 60612-7260
312-996-2747
Fax:312-413-7369
ross-mc@uic.edu
Maine
Maine Labor Group on Health
BoxV
Augusta, ME 04330
207-622-7823
Fax: 207-622-3483 or 207-623-4916
mlgh@mint.net
Maryland
Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center
1310 Apple Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3354
301-565-4590
Fax: 301-565-4596/97
bc74@telnet.umd.edu
Massachusetts
MassCOSH
555 Amory Street
Boston, MA 02130
617-524-6686
Fax: 617-524-3508
masscosh@shore.net and
71112.600@compuserve.com
147
-------
Western MassCOSH
458 Bridge Street
Springfield, MA 01103
413-731-0760
Fax: 413-731-6688
Masscosh@external.
umass.edu
Michigan
SEMCOSH (Southeast Michigan)
1550 Howard Street
Detroit, MI 48216
313-961-3345
Fax: 313-961-3588
semcosh@mich.com
Minnesota
MnCOSH
c/o Lyle Krych
5013 Girard Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55430
612-572-6997
Fax: 612-572-9826
New Hampshire
NHCOSH
110 Sheep Davis Road
Pembroke, NH 03275
603-226-0516
Fax: 603-225-1956
nhcosh@totalnetnh.net
New York
ALCOSH (Alleghany)
20 West 3rd Street, Suite 21
Jamestown, NY 14701
716-488-0720
Fax: 716-487-0968
alcosh@netsync.net
CNYCOSH (Central NY)
615 W Genessee Street
Syracuse, NY 13204
315-471-6187
Fax 315-471-6193
ENYCOSH (Eastern NY)
c/o Larry Rafferty
121 Erie Blvd
Schenectady, NY 12305
518-372-4308
Fax: 518-393-3040
NYCOSH (NYC Metro)
275 Seventh Ave, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10001
212-627-3900
Fax: 212-627-9812
nycosh@compuserve.com
ROCOSH (Rochester)
46 Prince Street
Rochester, NY 14607
716-244-0420
Fax: 716-244-0956
SPULA@DBI.cc.
Rochester.edu or
BillBenet@aol. com
WYNCOSH (Western NY)
2495 Main Street, Suite 438
Buffalo, NY 14214
716-833-5416
Fax: 716-833-7507
ce385@freenet.buffalo.edu
jbieger@pce.net
North Carolina
NCOSH
PO.Box 2514
Durham, NC 27715
919-286-9249
Fax: 919-286-4857
ncosh@igc.apc.org
Oregon
c/o Dick Edgington
ICWU-Portland
7440 SW 87 Street
Portland, OR 07223
503-244-8429
Pennsylvania
PhilaPOSH (Philadelphia)
3001 Walnut St, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215-386-7000
Fax: 215-386-3529
philaposh@aol. com
Rhode Island
RICOSH
741 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903
401-751-2015
Fax: 401-751-7520
Wisconsin
WisCOSH
734 North 26th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53230
414-933-2338
Fax: 414-342-1998
wiscoshm@itis.com
148
-------
« appendix 5
Contributor Contact Information
Computers and Electronics Sector
Subcommittee Alternative Strategies Work Group
Dan Bartosh
Southwest Building Complex Facility
Texas Instruments, MS 910
13536 North Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75243
972-995-2841
bartosh@ti. com
Sheri Fairbanks
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
909-396-2383
sfairbanks@aqmd.gov
Nan Freeland
Clean Water Fund of North Carolina
1 IB Glenwood Ave. Cooper Square
Raleigh, NC 27603
919-832-7491
cwfnc2@igc.org
149
-------
Ken Geiser
Toxic Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
One University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
978-934-3275
kgeiser@turi.org
Steve Harper
Intel Corporation
Government Affairs
Suite 300
1634 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-626-4399
Stephen .harper@intel. com
JoLani Hironaka
Santa Clara Center for Occupational
Safety and Health
760 North First Street, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
408-998-4050
sccosh@igc.org
Roger Kanerva
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
Springfield, IL 62702
217-785-5735
EPA8500@epa.state.ill.us
Lee Lockie
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
909-396-2390
llockie@aqmd.gov
Raphael Metzger
National Coalition of Hispanic Health & Human
Services Organizations
1501 16th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-797-4338
metzger@cossmho.org
Timothy Mohin
Corporate Environmental Affairs
Intel Corporation
CH 10-22
145 South 79th Street
Chandler, AZ 85226
602-552-3465
Timothy_J_Mohin@ccm.intel.com
Liz Moyer
Corporate Safety, Environmental,
and Health Staff
Texas Instruments, M.S. 8363
8330 LBJ Freeway
Dallas, TX 75265
972-997-5380
lizmoyer@ti. com
Christopher Rhodes
Institute for Interconnecting and
Packaging Electronic Circuits
2215 Sanders Road
Northbrook, IL 60062-6235
847-509-6135
rhodch@ipc.org
Ted Smith
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
760 North 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95112
408-287-6707
tsmith@igc.apc.org
Dave Stangis
Corporate Safety, Environmental Health and Safety
Intel Corporation
CH10-22
145 South 79th Street
Chandler, AZ 85226
602-552-2135
Dave_Stangis@ccm.intel.com
150
-------
EPA Staff
John Bowser
U.S. EPA Headquarters-OPPTS
401 M Street, SW-7405
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-1771
bowser.john@epaniail.epa.gov
Joe Callahan
U.S. EPA Headquarters
401 M Street, SW-7406
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-2436
callahan.joseph@epamail.epa.gov
Judy Kendall
U.S. EPA Headquarters
401 M Street, SW-7408
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-1802
kendall.judith@epamail.epa.gov
Karen Hoffman
U.S. EPA Headquarters-OPPTS
401 M Street, SW-7405
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-3454
hoffman.karen@epamail.epa.gov
Steve Hoover
U.S. EPA Headquarters
401 M Street, SW-2223A
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-564-7007
hoover.steven@epamail.epa.gov
Sylvia Horowitz
U.S. EPA Headquarters-OGC
401 M Street, SW-2388
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-5169
horwitz.sylvia@epamail.epa.gov
David B. Jones
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (H-6)
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-2266
jones.davidb@epamail.epa.gov
Mike McDonell
U.S. EPA Headquarters-CBPB/EAD
401 M Street, SW-7408
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-1477
mcdonell.mike@epamail.epa.gov
Janet Remmers
U.S. EPA Headquarters-CBPB/EAD
401 M Street, SW-7408
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-1583
remmers.janet@epamail.epa.gov
Tom Tillman
U.S. EPA Headquarters-CBPB/EAD
401 M Street, SW-7408
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-260-7605
tillman. thomas@epamail. epa.gov
The Authors
CDR Associates
100 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 12
Boulder, CO 80302
303-442-7367
http://www.mediate.org
cdr@mediate. org
Frances M. Lynn, Consultant
Environmental Resource Program
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
262 Rosenaw, CB-7400
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400
919-286-2703
franlynn@mindspring. com
151
-------
------- |