Beyond Compliance: Part 4 - A basic scale for deciding on how to act

Like I said in the last post - cheap graphics will be used to (hopefully) illustrate a point.

Performance Track was an EPA program designed to get businesses to look at how they impact the environment and to look at their day-to-day activities not solely on a compliance mindset but instead on a because it's the right thing to do way of thinking.  By adopting Performance Track a business pledged to go "beyond compliance" and in return they got some rewards in terms of marketing themselves as environmentally aware as well as a lighter hammer used by the EPA in case of a violation.

So when looking at anything that is designed to foster a behavioral change to accomplish a goal, you need to understand the mindset - or dynamics - in play of the individual(s) that can make it happen or work against it.  This, in my opinion, is where we have missed great opportunities to make real environmental, safety and health change in how we behave.  We fail to see how doing the "right thing" is decided, assuming that everyone should come to the same conclusion.

In the case of Performance Track - it was geared to change the behavior of a business.  Now you may have arguments on the mechanics and perception of Performance Track, but I am wanting to address the goal - that is - to foster an attitude that moves away from do the minimum to do stuff that actually makes a difference.

I hope in my last three posts on this subject I was able to show how being in compliance with a regulation does not necessarily mean you are doing what is best for the employee, public health, or the environment.  That's what Performance Track was trying to overcome.

So lets look at my first cheap graphic.

Figure 1

Figure 1: I use the term "harmony" to denote that perfect place, that Nirvana where the 'right thing' is actually the right thing.  That place will never be found since two people will have different takes on just what 'right' means.  So in this first graphic what I want to show is how a person (regulator, business owner, public, employee) can view an action, such as climbing a radio tower or reducing their carbon emissions.

Figure 2

Figure 2:  Some where on the scale is how the person will value the risk of the action to be undertaken.  It is here that we must understand that risk is looked at much differently between two competing entities, such as the EHS Manager and the CEO.  The same goes for a regulating agency and Industry.  Where, in my opinion, we fail is that one side does not value the other sides risk concern.  It sounds reasonable to say "but fall protection would prevent the climbers death" so risk reduction in terms of death is worth the cost.  But how much real dollars should be spent on cleaning up dioxin contaminated soil when a fence would reduce exposure to zero (excluding that pesky trespasser or an act of God)?  A particular action - right or left on the scale - always will have a cost associated with it.

Figure 3

Figure 3:  Depending on the mindset of the regulators - their dominant thought - regulations and policy will be set based where on the scale that particular dominant though falls.  From there it can move to the right or the left by influencing it before it becomes implemented, but it will not move to far away from its original starting point.  A bottom line manager is as hard to convince to spend money as a regulator who thinks a big hammer with teeth is the only way to get the end result sought.  The goal is to bring a balance to  the mindset of the two forces in play and come up with a regulation that achieves real results.

Figure 4

Figure 4: The problem with regulations is that they often want more than can actually be obtained,  or capture more than what was intended.  Does one drop of oil in the river really necessitate reporting to the NRC?  On the other hand, should notification be made if a business has a release of 4999 pounds of MEK regardless of whether it was released "into the environment?"

Figure 5

Figure 5: The benefit of a program such as Performance Track far out weighs the negatives in that it fosters a new mindset that moves closer to harmony.  Holding to close to your own perception of the cost associated with an action will often times lead you away from doing what is right both in terms of actual benefit and the related cost. Too much focus on a zero of anything leads to environmental impact and health and safety problems because the focus is not on what is to be achieved but instead on how it is to be done.  Telling the family of the dead climber "we complied with OSHA requirements 100 percent!" will not go over very well with the exception of in court where you will most likely end up.

The point is to minimize risk and minimize bottom-line costs.  You cannot do one at the expense of the other because the pendulum swings in both directions.  Change the mindset and you can achieve real results.

Beyond compliance is the road to Nirvana, a make believe place for sure, but one in which we would all like to live.


.