The essential elements for successful cleaner production programmes

ELSEVIER PII: SO959-6526(%)00023-6

J. Cleaner Prod. Vol. 4, No. I, 29-39, 1996 pp.

Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Greal Britain. All rights reserved

0959-6526/96 $15.00 + 0.00

The essential elements for successful cleaner production programmes

G.I.J.M. Zwetslootl and A. Geyer*

‘Netherlands Institute for the Working Environment, NIA, P.O. Box 75665, NL-1070 AR Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2PPM, Beratungsteam Chemie & Arbeit, A-4020 Linz, Austria

During the First European Roundtable on Cleaner Production Programmes (19941, the participants were asked to give their professional judgement about the essential success factors in Cleaner Production (CP) programmes via a very concise open questionnaire. The respondents referred to four types of programmes: demonstration and dissemination programmes, in-company programmes, eco-park programmes and programmes initiated by advanced legislation.

Five categories of essential success factors are identified: (I) cooperation, training and communication, (2) assessing tangible benefits, (3) leadership and management commitment, (4) commitment and motivation of employees, and (5) factors ensuring good programme management. Some success factors are more or less specific to a certain type of CP programme.

The nature of the success of CP programmes and the lessons learned for CP programmes are being discussed. It is also shown that most essential success factors fit very well into a model for collective learning processes and in the self-assessment model from the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: success factors; evaluation of CP programmes; collective learning processes; continuous improvement

Introduction

During the last few years quite a few Cleaner Pro- duction (CP) programmes have been carried out all over the world. In many countries authorities have supported the development and dissemination of CP methods and CP tools. International organisations have set up specific programmes to introduce and dissemi- nate CP in eastern Europe and in developing countries. CP has become a new, promising approach to solve environmentally related problems of the industrial society at the source. Cleaner Production has now completed its first phase of development, a wide variety of demonstration programmes has been carried out, and CP methodologies are now available. From now on, the extensive dissemination and promotion of CP into industry will be the central challenge. When experts and policy makers are designing this new generation of CP programmes, one should pay attention to the lessons learned in CP programmes during the first stage.

There are a number of papers and materials describ- ing CP programmes: the experiences and results are available. Some have been described very extensively’,

others more concisely. But what are the common success factors in all these programmes? In a private discussion on the essence of CP programmes between Professor Donald Huisingh and Dr Gerard Zwetsloot, the conclusion was that the lack of understanding of essential factors that determine the success of a broad variety of CP programmes forms a major handicap for future progress in CP activities. Obviously it is easier to describe a CP activity in a report than to define its essence.

The research design

Shortly before the First European Roundtable on Cle- aner Production Programmes, which took place on 16 18 October 1994 in Graz, Austria, one of the authors came to the idea to ask the participants of this conference their “professional judgement” about the essentials of CP programmes; this was made concrete in the so- called Golden Threads Questionnaire.

The questionnaire was announced in one of the plenary sessions at the Graz conference and was available to the participants who were invited to fill in the form. In order to focus on the essence, the structure

J. Cleaner Prod., 1996, Volume 4, Number 1 29

Essential elements for successful cleaner production programmes: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot and A. Geyer

and content of the questionnaire was simple and brief. The participants were asked to respond to the following questions:

(1) What was the most successful Cleaner Production Programme (or Project) that you were ever involved in?

(2) What were, according to you, the two most important success factors in this CP Programme (or Project)?

(3) Why were these factors the most important?

Beside these three questions, the participants were asked whether they wanted to receive feedback about the outcome of this research. Information about name and organisation of the respondent was also requested.

The basic idea was to explore the essential elements in a variety of CP programmes; it was not the intention to carry out a reproducible survey concerning the success factors of CP programmes, simply because a list of essential success factors relevant to such a variety of programmes was not known to us.

It is evident that due to the nature of the questionnaire and the small number of respondents, it is not possible to make statistically sound conclusions. How- ever, the outcome gives insight into the aspects that are of vital importance to CP programmes according to the professional judgement of the experts involved.

The analysis of the data obtained has been performed in five steps:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

the relevance of the individual responses was evaluated. because the programmes mentioned differed widely in their nature, we categorised them into four categories: (1) demonstration and dissemination programmes; (2) in-company programmes; (3) eco- park programmes; and (4) programmes initiated by advanced legislation. the success factors were classified into five categories: (1) new forms of cooperation, training and communication; (2) assessing tangible benefits; (3) management commitment; (4) the commitment of employees; and (5) factors ensuring good programme management. the explanations of the success factors given by the respondents were then clustered according to these success factors. the essential success factors were differentiated according to the type of CP programme.

Finally the results are discussed.

Evaluation of the response Twenty four participants of the First European Round- table on Cleaner Production Programmes completed the questionnaire (= 12%). From those questionnaires, 20 provided sufficient information for detailed evaluation. In two questionnaires, the information was insufficient. In two other cases, the respondents did not refer to CP programmes, but gave feedback on the

Roundtable; this was regarded as not relevant for the objective of the survey. Although, the response was disappointingly low, the professional judgement of 20 CP experts from 13 countries was still regarded as valuable.

The different types of CP programmes

The evaluated questionnaires described 18 different CP programmes. Of those programmes, 12 were developed and carried out in EU and EFTA countries (Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, The Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom), two programmes were mentioned from east and southeast European countries (Poland, Former Yugoslavian Republic), two programmes mentioned were from Asia (India, China) and two were from North America (USA, Canada).

After analysing the data, and assessment of the great variety of programmes mentioned, we felt the need for categorisation of the programmes. Finally we dis- tinguished four categories of CP programmes (projects): (1) demonstration and dissemination programmes; (2) in-company programmes; (3) eco-park programmes; and (4) programmes initiated by advanced legislation.

Each category can be characterised by a combination of three significant attributes: the initiators of the programmes, the objectives, and the programme’s structure. These four categories are concisely described in the following paragraphs.

Demonstration and dissemination programmes

Demonstration and dissemination programmes are pre- dominantly carried out with the support of external consultants and CP experts. The initiative to develop the programme comes generally from external experts and/or governmental authorities. Some CP programmes have been part of a broader CP policy programme. The influence of the companies on the programme’s design is relatively minor. The companies usually attend the programme in a stage in which the main decisions about programme structure, the parties involved and the financial framework have already been taken. The external researchers and consultants play an important role. Demonstration and dissemination programmes can be linked with special training, information and education activities. In most cases, a considerable part of the programme costs are met by outside funds, from local or national authorities or international organisations. Typical examples in this survey are Eco-Profit (Graz, Austria), Prizma (Norwegian support for Central and Eastern Europe), Desire (India), Unep CP Programme (China).

In-company programmes In-company programmes are initiated by a company itself and are usually carried out without taking part in a broader CP programme. The main goal for the

30 3. Cleaner Prod., 7996, Volume 4, Number 7


companies is to gain economic and environmental benefit by waste reduction and pollution prevention. The starting point for the programme is generally an economical and/or environmental related problem (e.g. costs of waste disposal, emissions of hazardous substances, low energy or material efficiency); usually this requires one or several technological innovations. In two of the considered cases, the starting point was, however, the introduction and implementation of an environmental management system (EMS). In-company programmes mainly utilise internal know-how. External consultants and researchers are only used in case the internal know-how is insufficient for a specific task, as a second opinion, or when there is a lack of capacity. The financing is generally secured by the company itself. Typical examples in this survey are The Modernization of Exxon Refinery-Flexicoker (The Netherlands), and the Environmental Programme of the U.S. Postal Service (USA).

Eco-park programmes

The particular goal of eco-park programmes can be described as “improving the environmental and economic performance of companies by close company collaboration and networking in an industrial region”: environmental and economic benefits should be gained by exchanging and reusing (waste) materials and energy streams accompanied by exchanging environmentally relevant information. The geographic region is considered as a regional industrial ecosystem. In consequence, an “industrial island of sustainability” should be the result of the programmes. The cooperation among the companies is organised both in horizontal (e.g. exchange of experiences in a specific branch) and in vertical dimensions (e.g. exchange of material streams, tuning the mutual demands and speci- fications of products, raw matrials, waste etc. among the companies). To some extent, (financial) support is given by sector organisations or local authorities. Exter- nal consultants and researchers usually support these programmes, although substantial know-how stems from the involved companies themselves. Typical examples in this survey are Catalyst (Merseyside, UK) and Industrial Symbiosis (Kalundborg, Denmark), Burnside Industrial Park (Nova Scotia, Canada).

Programmes initiated by advanced legal obligations Some legal obligations require that companies structurally improve their environmental performances; this can be done by requiring the implementation of environmental management systems that strive for “continuous improvement”, by the prescription of environmental programmes to reduce the environmental burden, or by charging the use of environmental resources (such as energy or the use of toxic substances) in order to give the companies incentives to structurally minimise their environmental impact. In

this survey, only a Norwegian programme to implement Internal Control (obligatory according to environmental laws and the working conditions act) was mentioned. Norwegian companies are obliged to integrate internal control into their management system. This can also be the starting point for further CP activities in the companies. The companies’ response can be more ambitious than merely to meet the legal demands (e.g. establish a Safety, Health and Environmental Manage- ment System, publish environmentally relevant company data, etc.). Other examples could, for instance, be based on the Toxic Use Reduction Act (Massachusetts, USA).

The categories of CP programmes in this study The programmes mentioned by the respondents were assigned into the four categories. Since, in some cases, the given information provided by the respondent was not sufficient to assign the programmes to a category, additional information was collected (e.g. conference papers, literature, personal contacts).

Eight respondents referred to (seven different) CP demonstration and dissemination programmes. The respondents were five consultants or researchers and three authority officers (no company representatives). Seven respondents referred to in-company programmes. Four of them were company representatives and three were consultants or researchers. Four of the questionnaires addressed three different eco-park programmes. The respondents were a company representative and two consultants or researchers (in one case, the information given was insufficient to determine the respondent’s background). One respondent referred to a CP programme initiated by advanced legal obligations. This respondent was a government official.

An overview of the categories of programmes in this survey is given in Table 1.

The essential success factors The next step was to categorise the success factors mentioned. Due to the open nature of the questions, this was not an easy task. In some cases, we were only able to categorise the success factors after also considering the answers to question number three (the explanations why the success factors mentioned were the most important). In a few cases, the explanations

Table 1 Classification of the most successful CP programmes in this survey

Category Number % (N = 20)

Demonstration and dissemination programmes 8 In-company programmes 7 Eco-park programmes 4 Programmes initiated by advanced legal 1 obligations

40 35 20

5



given for the importance of ‘cooperation with authorities’ pointed out that this was not only a new form of cooperation, but that it also improved the status of the company. We regarded the latter as an example of gaining benejts; this is why we regarded such answers as two different success factors, and we counted them twice. Altogether, 42 success factors were mentioned by the 20 respondents.

We ended up with five categories; four (new forms of cooperation, training and communication; assessing tangible benefits; management commitment; the commitment of employees) are specific to CP programmes, while the last category (factors ensuring good programme management) is generic. Each category has some subcategories.

First, we present an overview in Table 2. Then we clarify the five categories, using the explanations given by the respondents. Finally we discuss the relationships between the four categories of CP programmes and the nature of the success factors mentioned.

The explanations given for the essential success factors

Each success factor has been explained by the respondents. In the following paragraphs we give, per category, an overview of the explanations given. In some cases, we slightly modified the comments of the respondents, for linguistic reasons.

New forms of cooperation, training and communication (N = 14)

Fourteen respondents (70%) said that new forms of training, and setting up internal and external

Table2 Categories of essential success factors for CP programmes (N = 42 from 20 respondents)

Categories (number) Subcategories (number)

New forms of cooperation, training and communication (14)

Assessing tangible benefits (besides the environmental advantages) (9)

Leadership and management commitment, the human facror I (8)

Commitment of employees, rhe human factor 2 (6)

Factors ensuring good

Cooperation with authorities and/or other companies (9) Training and transfer of know- how (3) Good internal communication and information management (2) Improving company status (5) Gaining economic benefits (3) Gaining technological advantages (1) Commitment of top management (5) Commitment of middle management (3) Participation, motivation or enrolment of all employees (5) Highly experienced, educated and motivated programme teams (1)

Adequate programme organisation . programme management and and programme design (4) other boundary conditions (5) Receiving financial support (I)

cooperation and communication during the programme were essential.

Nine respondents said that new forms of cooperation are essential for success. Especially, cooperation with authorities and other companies is considered to be very important. Cooperation with authorities both mot- ivates the people in the companies (e.g. it reinforces management commitment) but it also contributes to gaining trust by the authorities (a status benefit):

l “Exchange of information and close contact with the national pollution control agency is important”.

l “Cooperation with the authorities is important because it is often a problem that a programme gets high priority but loses this priority as soon as critical circumstances disappear or change”.

l “Give companies long-term support to keep them continuing their effort; give the companies the feeling they are working for a better future”.

l “A link between demonstration programmes and policy studies builds up a broad understanding of CP and the local capability to set up CP policies”.

l “It makes the CP programme part of a broader CP policy concept”.

But it can also be essential to establish networks among companies:

l “Companies encourage each other”. l “Exchange of information and cooperation among

companies in the same line of business is important”.

Training, communication and cooperation processes are closely related to the human factors via:

“The combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches ensures involvement at all levels and two-sided communication”. “Training of all personnel (about new procedures) is essential; it involves all levels”. “The training of local experts in CP audits builds up local capacity to execute CP audits”. “Preparing a handbook or encyclopedia on CP was vital”.

The importance of external know-how was stressed by three respondents. The main method is transfer of knowledge by consultancy and training. Consultancy and training activities transfer not only useful information, but can also contribute to the awareness and motivation (of the key persons) of the companies involved:

“Direct consulting (intensive character) by a special- ist to the enterprise generated a constructive attitude and challenges the company to keep on working”. “Transfer of experience from sectorial technicians of other (non-competitive) factories contributed very much to decision-making and technology evaluation”. “It was essential to provide tools and assistance from a central office”.

Information gathering and dissemination were regarded as essential by one respondent because:

32 J. Cleaner Prod., 1996, Volume 4, Number 1


l “Fundamentally an ecosystem functions because of the flow of information. We have been successful (within limits) in gathering information and dissemi- nating that information, in various ways, back to business”.

Assessing tangible benefzts (besides environmental advantages) (N = 9)

Assessing tangible benejits, besides environmental advantages was mentioned by nine respondents (45%); this category implies that continuous environmental progress requires win-win situations for the participating organisations.

Five respondents stated that it was essential (especially for the managers) that the societal accept- ance of the company’s activities was greatly improved; in this way the company status was improved also. This is considered to be very stimulating for creating an irreversible change in attitude and for continuation of CP activities after the finalising the programme.

“Awards for good environmental performances con- vince the companies that they are more than con- forming to requirements; this is needed to stop them from being defensive”. “It was regarded as a challenge to gain trust by the local authorities and the people living nearby and improve the status of the company”. “Cooperation with the authorities generated management commitment and increased the priority of the programmes”. “Involvement in ‘public’ activity increases in-plant priority”. “At least moral support from business associations and local government agencies was needed to facili- tate the process”. “It may give company personnel the feeling of being part of a team with authorities and consultants working on environmental quality and cleaner production”.

Four respondents (20%) explicitly mentioned economical success as essential. Moreover, economic aspects were also mentioned in the explanations concerning management commitment and the motivation of all personnel:

l “For the industry to adopt any new idea, the prime criterion is money”.

l “Business and environment both benefit; it is win- win situation for all parties involved’.

Three respondents (15%) referred to the technological benefits of CP programmes:

l “The newness of the technology enables further utilisation of this technology in the sector in an economical and efficient way, while it upgrades environmental protection”.

l “The diversity of the participants makes it possible to reuse waste and also to have common utility systems”.

l “Many companies have tacit technical resources which can be recognised in a systematic CP programme”.

Leadership and management commitment, the human factor 1 (N = 8)

Leadership and management commitment were regarded as essential by eight respondents (= 40%). Especially, a notable role of top management is regarded as essential because:

l “The top manager takes the decisions”. l “Financing new programmes requires management

commitment”. l “Implementation is impossible without management

taking the lead”. l “Management involvement provides stricter control”. l “They can fit CP into the philosophy of the com-

pany”.

The role of middle managers is regarded as essential also:

l “Top managers tend to shift the problems to the middle managers, they have to become active to ensure real progress”.

l “Commitment of the middle managers is a guarantee for continuity in the process”.

The commitment of employees, the human factor 2 (N= 7)

Seven respondents (35%) mentioned, in one way or another, the motivation and commitment of employees (human factor 2) as essential. As one of these respondents stated: “In the end the human factor is decisive for the outcome”.

This human factor is not limited to the managers; for six respondents the human factor refers to the participation and motivation of all employees and to the governmental representatives who are participating:

“The essential success factor was the 200 people that carried out the programme”. “It means people are really involved in CP, and want to give more steps for the development of CP”. “CP has to become the way of thinking for dealing with the environment”. “CP was initiated as a purely commercial approach, now the participants see it as a sport to improve it; business and environment both benefit”. “Management support results in a positive and constructive discussion; it gives employees the necessary backbone to contribute to the CP programme”.

Finally the human factor refers to the external consultants or researchers that are involved in the programme:

l “The competence of the people involved, the commitment of the professionals involved is essential for success”.



Good programme management (and other boundary conditions)

Finally, four respondents (20%) mentioned factors that ensure good programme management. Although these are not specific for CP programmes, they can be crucial; the explanations refer to:

“The design stage of the programmes: The most important decisions are made in the pre-work stage”. “An integral approach of environmental aspects: Clean energy, clean air, clean water, clean production”. “Time, 1.5-3 years, to establish an environmental management system in the companies”. “Good coordination with other programmes”. “Working systematically: considering every production unit thoroughly is vital; results are the proof ‘.

In one case, receiving economic support from the EU was mentioned as essential:

l “Our factories are not able to make great invest- ments”.

The essential success factors per type of CP programme In this section we show the differentiation of the essential success factors per category of CP programme; because of their generic nature, we do not take into account the category of boundary conditions for good programme management.

Demonstration and dissemination programmes

New forms of cooperation, training and communication were mentioned six times; the new forms of cooperation referred to networking with external stakeholders, especially authorities or other companies (three times), training and the use of external know-how was also mentioned three times.

The importance of management commitment was stressed three times; the commitment of the senior management was mentioned twice, the involvement of the middle management once. Participation and motivation of employees was mentioned twice.

In-company programmes

Management commitment is by far the most important factor for in-company CP programmes; six of the seven respondents mentioned management commitment to be crucial. Commitment by senior management was emphasised in four cases and the commitment of the middle management in two cases. New forms of cooperation, training and communication was mentioned twice; this referred to the establishment of good relations and cooperation with authorities and neighbours. The participation and motivation of the employees, at all levels of the company, was also mentioned twice. To expect (and to gain) economic

benefit was mentioned once, as was the expectation of technological advantage.

Eco-park programmes

Seven success factors were mentioned with respect to the four eco-park programmes. Each respondent in this category referred to cooperation, training and communication, especially networking with authorities, among companies, and with neighbours and exchange of information. Economic benefits played a role in two cases. In one case, improving technical potential was considered to be important. Management commitment or employee commitment were not mentioned to be essential for this type of programme.

Programmes initiated by advanced legal obligations

The most important success factors in the Norwegian Internal Control System were seen in “cooperation between companies in the same line of business” (information exchange) and in “good cooperation among the companies and the national pollution control agency” (thus implying the importance of cooperation, training and communication).

Overview

For the overview, it is most relevant to compare the frequencies of the success factors. This overview is given in Figure 1. Interpretation of the differences among the categories is discussed later in this article.

Discussion Success means: continuous improvement

The questionnaire did not ask the respondent to describe the nature of the success of a CP programme. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt; it is only seen as a success when the programme forms the start of an ongoing journey to environmental progress.

As a consequence, in the case of evaluation, the true success of such initiatives cannot be measured merely in terms of reductions in environmental burden (reduction in wastes, emissions etc). More relevant are less-easily measurable items like the improvement of the awareness of the people involved, their willingness to continue to improve, in the company’s ability to innovate and its learning capability (as measures of potential for continuous improvement).

The importance of the on-going journey also explains why, especially in the in-company cases and the Norwegian Internal Control case, but also more gener- ally2,‘, the link of CP with environmental management systems is important.

This gives rise to several new questions, for example, how can CP activities be fully integrated into environmental management? How can environmental management be focused on continuous improvement? What are the potentials for synergy of environmental activities with the management of product and service

34 J. Cleaner Prod., 1996, Volume 4, Number I


AVERAGE(n=ZOlGGP(n=~) ICP(n=7) EPPln=41 PALIn=l)

Figure 1 Frequencies of success factors per type of CP programme

quality and workers’ health and safety4? To what degree do workers’ health and safety items interfere with Cleaner Production?

The interpretation of the different success factors

The essential success factors mentioned by the respondents are in many cases related, as was already shown by a number of the explanations given by the respondents.

Cooperation, training and communication. Co- operation and communication, including training and information management, represent a set of factors that are important to initiate innovation and a broader awareness of the importance of environmental items for the companies involved. These factors increase the abilities of the respective agents (both companies and people) to deal adequately with CP issues. The external cooperation with authorities leads to understanding of other perspectives and also to improved trust between company representatives and governmental authorities.

Cooperation and communication are closely linked to management commitment and employee commitment because they can have a great impact on the motivation of people; the same is also true for training.

Gaining and assessing tangible benejits. Assessing and communicating tangible benefits besides environmental advantages seems essential for the continuity of the CP programmes. People that are initially motivated for the programme may lose their enthusiasm if they do not see any tangible results. This is also relevant to the organisation as a whole. When benefits are demonstrated, this will confirm people in their expectation, and is likely to motivate them for continuous improvement. This makes it likely that they will support this successful approach, even with more financial and human resources. In this way, demonstrating successes can reinforce the aspirations of the participating companies and people.

A very important success to be demonstrated in CP

programmes is an improved relationship with authorities, and a better status within society. This is a notable result because this factor is usually only implicitly dealt with in CP programmes, and improvement of status is not an important item in current evaluation studies.

The relationship with external stakeholders, especially with authorities, heavily influences the societal positioning of the company. It can also be expected that a better societal position gives the companies (managers) more freedom of action.

Gaining economic benefits is, of course, a very important success factor for the managers; it will reinforce the notion that CP programmes may lead to improved business.

Technological benefits can also be essential, but were not mentioned often. This raises some new questions: are technological advantages not so important in CP programmes ? Do CP experts not identify technological advantages in terms of competitive advantages? Or are they regarded as self-evident by most CP experts? Are CP experts usually more interested in the process of innovation than in the technical innovations as such?

The question can also be asked, is this list of potential benefits complete? We think this is question- able. Bourna gives an overview of six motives for environmental management: (1) satisfying the needs of (environmentally conscious) target groups on which the organisation focuses its attention; (2) aspire to minim- ize costs; (3) comply with the (environmental) legislation; (4) satisfy the conditions and wishes of financi- ers (5) strive for good working conditions; and (6) give an interpretation to social responsibility. In our survey, improving the company status was found to be very important as well, whereas the striving for good working conditions (workers’ health and safety) and social responsibility were not explicitly mentioned. We can, however, not be sure on the basis of this study that the latter potential benefits are less important.

Management commitment and employee commitment



(the human factors). Management commitment implies that the awareness and motivation of the managers can be seen as a specific type of “the human factor”. It is closely linked to the “gaining of company benefits”.

Employee commitment is another essential human factor. The support of a successful CP programme cannot be limited to a few “CP champions”, but it requires participation and enrolment of many other people throughout the entire organisation. This factor is also closely related to new forms of cooperation, training and communication.

Are the human factors not important in eco-park programmes?

The essential success factors seem to depend largely on the type of CP programme. In-company programmes seem to depend largely on commitment of top management and the participation of all employees. Remark- ably, in replies pertaining to the eco-park programmes, these human factors were never mentioned. We see several possible explanations for this result.

In the first place the eco-park programmes are developed rather recently; they involve many companies, the programmes are quite complex, and the methodologies have not yet crystallised to the same degree as in other types of CP programmes. Perhaps the answers reflect primarily the infancy of this category of programmes.

A second reason could be that the eco-park programmes chiefly concern technical and economical measures-such as the use of waste from company X as a raw material for company Y; measures that do not imply such fundamental changes as major in- company innovations or the implementation of integrated prevention or minimisation measures. From a company point of view, the inter-company programmes can be perceived as closer to end-of-pipe measures and adaptions in procurement. Minor changes require neither the personal commitment of top managers, nor the support of all employees.

A third possibility-which is compatible with the first but not with the second explanation-is that management commitment and the support of all employees are just as important for each company as in in- company programmes, but due to the less intensive contact of the CP experts with the individual companies, they might not be able to recognise this.

Finally, we asked for only two essential success factors. This limits, of course, the number of factors mentioned; if the other factors mentioned are regarded as more important, it does not imply automatically that management commitment is not important for all eco- park programmes.

Especially as we define continuous improvement as the ultimate success, the question arises whether the success factors for in-company programmes are equally important in the individual companies involved in the other categories of programmes. Continuous improvement presupposes that there are successful conditions in every company.


We think the importance of management commitment and employee commitment in eco-park programmes (and to a lesser degree also for demonstration and dissemination programmes) is generally underesti- mated.

The essence of CP programmes

Finally, we feel the need to discuss the combination of the CP specific success factors.

Our idea is that a good understanding of the aggre- gate of the essential success factors can contribute to our knowledge about the essence of CP programmes as such.

We present two models that seem important to us in this respect. The first is a model for collective learning processes, the second is for advanced quality management. These models are complementary.

CP programmes regarded as a collective learning process

The model for the management of collective learning processes (see Figure 2) proved useful for analysis of the implementation and integration of management systems for working conditions, environment and (product and service) quality that were regarded as organisational learning processes5*6.

This model is an extension of the model for (individual) experiential learning developed by Kolb’. Kolb regarded experiential learning of individuals as an iterative process that comprises four stages, i.e. doing, reflectively observing, conceptualising, decision- making (the outer circle of the model). By doing things, people also observe several impacts of what they do, they experience what goes right, and what goes wrong (reflective observation), then they think about it, probably they will partially understand why things are going right or wrong (conceptualisation), this will lead to decisions to act differently, namely in a more successful way (decision-making), they will act accordingly (improved doing), etc. Each stage of the

Cooperation an (-i communication Participation/ involvement

Figure 2 A model for collective learning processes (from Zwetsloot and Allegro’)


learning process and the succeeding stages are necessary to achieve learning processes leading to behav- ioural change.

Organisations or other collectivities can learn only through the experience of individuals. But the learning of individuals is in itself not sufficient to ensure a collective learning process. In many organisations the division of labour implies that some people are mainly supposed to be doing (the workers), observing (the traditional quality controllers), while others are mainly supposed to be thinking (experts), or to be involved in decision-making (managers).

Therefore, Kolb’s model was complemented by two factors that are very relevant for the collective aspect of learning processes, cooperation and communication, and participation/involvement of key actors.

All six elements are regarded individually as learning processes, and jointly they are necessary for successful collective learning processes. If one type of learning process does not function very well, there is a learning handicap* and the overall ability to learn will be reduced. When learning disabilities are assessed, the general management strategy is to eliminate this learning disability in order to increase the organisational learning capability (see Zwetsloot’ for examples relevant to safety, health and environmental management).

If we compare this model with the success factors found in this study, we see great similarities. The two clusters for the “collective” dimension of learning processes, namely new forms of cooperation, training and communication, and participation/involvement of key actors, form three of the four success factors identified in this study. Moreover, we believe that training and new forms of cooperation and communication will have a direct impact on the “conceptualisation” cluster also.

In this way, we can understand CP programmes as collective learning processes, but also as a form of participative management process; CP programmes that realise cooperation and communication, management commitment and employee commitment, probably generate a greater ability for collective learning.

The category of assessing tangible benefits can also be understood in terms of a collective learning process. It is then important to realise benefits (1, doing), to observe them consciously (2, reflective observation), to understand how these benefits are realised (3, understanding) and to go on in this way (4, decision making and planning); this may lead to the realisation of even more benefits. This, of course, supports the continuous improvement journey.

The consequence of this model is that it can be valuable to regard CP programmes as collective learning processes that should be managed. It should not be forgotten that a CP programme is not a process that follows a standardised recipe, but a process of “learning to learn”. This does, however, not mean that it can only be a trial and error process. The awareness of learning creates opportunities for much more effec- tive learning strategies.

CP programmes regarded as quality management processes

Another model that seems relevant to us is the model for self-assessment of Total Quality Management (TQM), promoted by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM (see Figure 3)9).

This model is meant as the major tool for self- assessment of a company’s performance and as a tool to organise continuous improvement in TQM. Self- assessment-measuring one’s performance against a reference model-is regarded by the EFQM as a key tool and technique for good businesses.

The model comprises two categories of factors, the enablers, and the results. Both categories are equally important. The complete model is comprised of nine elements; five enablers and four result elements.

The model starts with the enablers (the activities that generate the ability to realise continuous improvement); the first is leadership by senior management. The basic step for the leaders is to organise a TQM policy and strategy. This has to be accompanied by adequate people management (the human factor), and the management of non-human resources (such as money, materials, machines, etc). These activities should lead to excellent management of the company’s processes. The model comprises four categories of results; these results make the benefits of the TQM policy tangible. Customer satisfaction is, of course, essential in quality management, but people satisfaction (reflecting mainly the results of management of the human factor) and impact on society (status) are, although less prominent, also important. Finally the business results (the economic benefits) are a very important measure of success (except for not-for-profit organisations; for them the weight of impact on society is enlarged).

Although the weights attributed to the EFQM elements are not suited for Environmental Management of CP, the model clearly shows that the introduction of CP can be regarded as a similar management process; both focus on the management of continuous improvement.

Altogether, from the essential success factors of CP programmes identified in this study, we find leadership, people management, and assessing the impact on society and on business results in this model; the other EFQM elements are not mentioned by our respondents, but certainly they are also important in CP activities.

The two models are complementary

The two models discussed above are complementary. The five enablers in the EFQM model actually represent management processes of the learning to learn type; each can be further understood and better managed by using the Model for Collective Learning Pro- cesses. The four result areas in the EFQM model can be understood as potential areas of “tangible benefits”. The reinforcing influence of such benefits on the collective learning process has already been described.



Leadership (10%)

People Management (9%)

I Policy & Strategy

- (8%) - Processes (14%)

I

--_

Resources (9%) -

People Satisfaction (9%)

Customer Satisfaction

H @346) Business (15%)

- Impact on Society (6%) -

The model balances process and result areas. The five enablers present continous organisational learning processes. The four result areas represent the associated tangible benefits.

Figure 3 A self-assessment model for Total Quality Management (EFQM9)

Lessons for the evaluation of CP programmes

The position of the questionnaire’s respondents always influences their perception of essential success factors. In this survey, our respondents had several back- grounds: company representatives, governmental representatives, people from (international) policy bodies, and researchers or consultants.

We cannot say to what degree company representatives have a better or different insight of, for instance, the importance of management commitment; the same is true for understanding the new forms of cooperation, training and communication or employee commitment.

To us, it seems important to note that even within companies there are many different perspectives, for instance: from the top manager, the middle managers, the workers, environmental experts, from R&D depart- ments, procurement, production, maintenance or mar- keting and sales perspectives.

From the perspective of “the human factor” the links with health and safety issues, with employee satisfaction and industrial relations are evident. There is in the industrial reality a close relationship between the working environment and the “external” environment. Many employees experience emissions and wastes and health and safety hazards as two sides of a coin.

We think this is a very important relationship due to the essential role of the human factor in successful CP activities or environmental management striving for continuous improvement.

From a management perspective, the link with health and safety is prominent, especially as chemical substances or major hazards play an essential role in the production process of the companies involved. This is reflected by the Responsible Care activities from the chemical industry, but also by the draft standard for HSE management for the oil and natural gas industry ‘O.

Careful evaluation from the perspective of the differ-


ent actors involved is especially important because the whole collective learning process of the CP programme will become frustrated if an important group of agents has a negative opinion about the programme.

The results of this study indicate that CP programmes should no longer be evaluated only from the perspectives of environmental and economic results in a given programme period, as is usually the case. CP evaluations should focus on the perspective of continuous improvement and the underlying collective learning processes.

The impact of the status of the companies involved seems a major issue. Moreover, the variety of perspectives is important; programmes should also be evaluated from the perspectives of the employees and external stakeholders. This implies a close link with product and service quality, occupational health and safety and other environmental factors. Ideally, these should be integrated into a holistic programme within all organisations.

References Dieleman H., van Berkel, R., Reijenga, F., de Hoo, S, Brezet, H., Cramer, J. and Schot, J. Kiezen voor preventie is winnen, Naar een preventief beleid van bedrijf en overheid, NOTA, Den Haag, 1991 UNEP, UK: Environmental Management Systems in the Promotion of Cleaner Processes and Products, Newsletter of Cleaner Production Network No 9, Spring 1995, p. 2 Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M., Improving cleaner production by integration into the management of quality, environment and working conditions. J. Cleaner Production 1995, 3 (l-2), 61-66 Bouman, J.J., Milieuzorg bij de Koninklijke Luchtmacht en de Industrie, Thesis Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 1995 Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M., Joint Management of Working Con- ditions, Environment and Quality; in search of synergy and organizational learning, Thesis, NIA, Amsterdam, 1994 Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. and Allegro, J.T. Organisatieverandering door management-systemen voor voortdurende verbetering. Gedrag Organisatie 1994, 7(6), 352-367 Kolb, D.A. ‘Experiental Learning-Experience as the Source


of Learning and Development.’ Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, IO IS0 Draft IS0 Standard ‘Processing Equipment and Systems 1984 for Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries’. ISO/TC 67&C 6

8 Senge, P.M., ‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of N 159, ISO, Geneva, 1995 the Learning Organization’. Doubleday, New York 1990

9 EFQM, The European Quality Award 1994, Application Brochure, EFQM, Brussels, 1994


Documents

The essential elements for successful cleaner production programmes