1/23/2013
Environmental Compliance_International: Strange Happenings in the Horn of Africa
Environmental Compliance_International: Strange Happenings in the Horn of Africa: 26 August 2012--currently I am working on a electric energy project in the Republic of Djibouti. This project sort of just happened. That ...
Environmental Compliance_International: Environmental and Profits can be written in the sa...
Environmental Compliance_International: Environmental and Profits can be written in the sa...: Jaime Lopez To remain competitive in the world market the USA manufacturing sector must deal with its environmental responsibilities....
Environmental and Profits can be written in the same Sentence
To remain competitive in the world market the USA manufacturing sector must deal with its environmental responsibilities. So how to merge business with environmental requires the following three drivers:
1) Doing the Right Thing
2) Profitability
3) Regulations
These three drivers apply to the domestic as well as international business sectors. There has been a lot written, and discussed on ISO 14001, and its sister Health and Safety OHSAS 18001, being able to bridge the gap and link these three facets. For the common CEO, or even COO, dealing with the here and now of how to generate a profit this week, versus the long term increased profits that can be generated by making modifications to business practices based on the ISO 14001 do not seem practical. In fact they seem more like left wing (progressive) enviro wacko bable, than real business solutions. Believe me I was a big non-believer when I was first introduced to ISO 14001 by one of my professors from the University of Findlay. I argued heavily against it during many classes, it is a wonder I passed the class.
Let me stop here a moment and step back to give some background on myself. I spent several years as a state regulator from field investor to the enforcement guy that closed down the first gasoline station in Texas for failure to properly upgrade the gasoline tanks. During this time I learned a little bit about regulations, the application, and those who enforce them. Following 8 years of doing that I moved into the private sector as a private consultant for 14 years that included both the domestic and international worlds. So I’ve seen several sides of the fence.
Generally speaking domestic regulations are not as ‘bad’ as most business want everyone to believe. Egad that definitely marks me as a wacko. Please don’t turn me off yet, give me a chance. The regulations are not that bad when one looks at the intent. The intent of environmental regulations is to protect human health and the environment—both. If the environment is polluted we who live in that environment are harmed. Doesn’t matter if it is some out of sight groundwater, or a plot of land in the center of the city.
Now what has gotten out of control are the people who enforce those regulations, as
their intent has taken good regulations and twisted them to be something that does
no good for anyone thus making them ‘bad’.
So instead of trying to change the regulations, it is better to change the ‘culture’ of the people who enforce. I can not say for certain, but it seems that most of the ‘bad’ enforcement people I have come across whether it was EPA or state level have come from a purely educational background with no experience in the real world, and on the flip side the good ones have had that experience. Who knows if I am right, but it sure does seem that way to me.
Now back on topic.
The first two drivers are actually all connected to the business operations, its profitability, and amazingly as it may seem have nothing to do with regulations! What in the world am I talking about now? Well, once a business sets itself up to be profitable using the best processes, capitalizes on the profits associated with elimination of wastes in those processes, and establishes a market for the remaining wastes, the issue regarding regulations quiet naturally goes away---poof like magic.
I have spoken to CEO/COOs who have said that this sounds all well and good, but doing this takes time and their businesses needed to increase profits today. And the Chinese do not have to worry about their environment, so this makes for an uneven playing field.
True, the Chinese are destroying their environment. They are also killing their people in mining and manufacturing, and in the contaminated foods they are feeding their people. So does that mean that our businesses should be allowed to do the same? The Chinese issue is another problem all on its own, that we each must consider the next time we shop; consider the implications from our economy to the Chinese military we are building every time we buy something made in China.
So instead of trying to change the regulations, it is better to change the ‘culture’ of the people who enforce. I can not say for certain, but it seems that most of the ‘bad’ enforcement people I have come across whether it was EPA or state level have come from a purely educational background with no experience in the real world, and on the flip side the good ones have had that experience. Who knows if I am right, but it sure does seem that way to me.
Now back on topic.
The first two drivers are actually all connected to the business operations, its profitability, and amazingly as it may seem have nothing to do with regulations! What in the world am I talking about now? Well, once a business sets itself up to be profitable using the best processes, capitalizes on the profits associated with elimination of wastes in those processes, and establishes a market for the remaining wastes, the issue regarding regulations quiet naturally goes away---poof like magic.
I have spoken to CEO/COOs who have said that this sounds all well and good, but doing this takes time and their businesses needed to increase profits today. And the Chinese do not have to worry about their environment, so this makes for an uneven playing field.
True, the Chinese are destroying their environment. They are also killing their people in mining and manufacturing, and in the contaminated foods they are feeding their people. So does that mean that our businesses should be allowed to do the same? The Chinese issue is another problem all on its own, that we each must consider the next time we shop; consider the implications from our economy to the Chinese military we are building every time we buy something made in China.
China will burn itself out given enough time, already Peking is a place most anyone
with lung issues would best avoid; don’t drink the water.
We can make our business more competitive simply by investing in ourselves with
modern equipment, establishing processes that are not wasteful, and focus on the
various avenues to generate a profit. All of which in fact require a good well
rounded environmental person (or even a health/safety) person who not only
knows their job, but also understands business.
What the heck does Doing the Right Thing mean? It means that by evaluating the current business methods with the focus on how to do them better with less inputs while maintaining quality and reducing waste will result in a process that meets the definition of Doing the Right Thing.
In the USA we have been fortunate to have had access to abundant natural resources along with the governance to establish us at one time as a manufacturing leaders. Germany has had little resources during this same time, but has remained a manufacturing leader. Why? They do more with less, and do it right. So it can be done.
What the heck does Doing the Right Thing mean? It means that by evaluating the current business methods with the focus on how to do them better with less inputs while maintaining quality and reducing waste will result in a process that meets the definition of Doing the Right Thing.
In the USA we have been fortunate to have had access to abundant natural resources along with the governance to establish us at one time as a manufacturing leaders. Germany has had little resources during this same time, but has remained a manufacturing leader. Why? They do more with less, and do it right. So it can be done.
My advice to the business world, and to environmental professionals is:
-
1) Work together
-
2) Don’t focus on the avoidance of regulations
-
3) Invest in new machinery
-
4) Invest in establishing processes that eliminate waste
-
5) Identify ways to increase profits through these processes
11/01/2012
Short Sigted in Botswana
Africa represents a wealth of opportunity in all commercial sectors which is highly untapped. The problem when 'westerns' arrive to take advantage of these open fields of gold is that they forget that there have been many who have come before them. The people of this land have learned very well over the years that when someone with a tie and fancy watch appear saying how they can make their life better it ususally means a con-artist; what else can a slick commercial person be called?
Environmental is one of those fields which is in its infancy here, with room to grow. The people are both aware and unaware at the same time. Botswana is a good example of a country that is waking up to its responsibity of proper stewardship of the environment of their country.
Working with the national government in the area of energy planning I have found that there are many who understand the need to balance both the production of energy and protection of their environment. The use of 'temporary' diesel generators is a norm in most all countries throughout Africa. The companies that provide them tend to be short-sighted and are like the slick salesman mentioned above only thinking about how they can take advantage of the 'ignorant' people of developing countries.
Through my work to educate the 'decision makers' on the pros and cons of the various energy options I hope to show how they themselves can address their energy needs while maintaining a clean environment. They are the ones responsible for their house, and not let the commercial teams who only care for today destroy their home.
Our work will take us to Ghana in the next month, where I hope to have as productive a time as I have had here.
Environmental is one of those fields which is in its infancy here, with room to grow. The people are both aware and unaware at the same time. Botswana is a good example of a country that is waking up to its responsibity of proper stewardship of the environment of their country.
Working with the national government in the area of energy planning I have found that there are many who understand the need to balance both the production of energy and protection of their environment. The use of 'temporary' diesel generators is a norm in most all countries throughout Africa. The companies that provide them tend to be short-sighted and are like the slick salesman mentioned above only thinking about how they can take advantage of the 'ignorant' people of developing countries.
Through my work to educate the 'decision makers' on the pros and cons of the various energy options I hope to show how they themselves can address their energy needs while maintaining a clean environment. They are the ones responsible for their house, and not let the commercial teams who only care for today destroy their home.
Our work will take us to Ghana in the next month, where I hope to have as productive a time as I have had here.
8/26/2012
Strange Happenings in the Horn of Africa
26 August 2012--currently I am working on a electric energy project in the Republic of Djibouti. This project sort of just happened. That is not a really accurate statement, because something like this just doesn't just happen by accident. It actually started in 2009 when I spent a year and a half in Djibouti where I spent most of my time learning all about the US military base's operations (utility, and environmental), as well as the various aspects of the country. Through the connecting of the dots, networking with a wide variety of people including one who would be a high level government official I am now back in Djibouti.
That isn't the strangest part of this story, and not what I am writing about here. Since working on this project I have been approached by two international companies about potential projects in this country and in Somaliland. Somaliland is a un-recognized break away province that has very little resemblance to the Somalia that makes the news on a daily basis. Never mind that, these companies have asked me to partner with them on "Camel Milk" production, and now on Jojoba.
Side Note: The international companies that are speaking with me are located in Israel. As Jewish corporations they would not be openly accepted by a Muslim country especially one that is part of the Arab League; not good public politics. But under the covers these 'anti-Jewish' governments welcome Israel companies. How do do it? Well the Israeli folks are a practical lot, they simply form secondary and third level corporations that eventually are located out of the USA or Europe. These subsidiary companies are still owned and managed by the same people, but on paper they are not from Israel. So the public is none the wiser.
Camel milk is a good product, and is logical for this region. Unfortunately the local populace doesn't know it, and the level of effort to create a market does not make it viable; in my opinion.
Jojoba on the other hand is logical. It grows a bean that comes from a plant that grows in desert conditions, which Djibouti is full of. Jojoba oil, from the bean, is used for many commercial purposes to include expensive perfumes.
The opportunity to be distracted are many. The primary project of developing 55MW of gas turbines, and 50MW of PV solar is a tough road to haul. 12 hour days traveling back and forth from Washington DC, Stuttgart Germany, and Naples Italy are normal, so I can imagine what life would be like if I took on another major project.
But then again, Camels might be fun :-)
That isn't the strangest part of this story, and not what I am writing about here. Since working on this project I have been approached by two international companies about potential projects in this country and in Somaliland. Somaliland is a un-recognized break away province that has very little resemblance to the Somalia that makes the news on a daily basis. Never mind that, these companies have asked me to partner with them on "Camel Milk" production, and now on Jojoba.
Side Note: The international companies that are speaking with me are located in Israel. As Jewish corporations they would not be openly accepted by a Muslim country especially one that is part of the Arab League; not good public politics. But under the covers these 'anti-Jewish' governments welcome Israel companies. How do do it? Well the Israeli folks are a practical lot, they simply form secondary and third level corporations that eventually are located out of the USA or Europe. These subsidiary companies are still owned and managed by the same people, but on paper they are not from Israel. So the public is none the wiser.
Camel milk is a good product, and is logical for this region. Unfortunately the local populace doesn't know it, and the level of effort to create a market does not make it viable; in my opinion.
Jojoba on the other hand is logical. It grows a bean that comes from a plant that grows in desert conditions, which Djibouti is full of. Jojoba oil, from the bean, is used for many commercial purposes to include expensive perfumes.
The opportunity to be distracted are many. The primary project of developing 55MW of gas turbines, and 50MW of PV solar is a tough road to haul. 12 hour days traveling back and forth from Washington DC, Stuttgart Germany, and Naples Italy are normal, so I can imagine what life would be like if I took on another major project.
But then again, Camels might be fun :-)
7/21/2012
Use of Foreign Workers
WORKERS
Over the past several blogs I have been covering legal and some ethical items related to international environmental business. In this blog I will shoot squarely at the ethical issue of using foreign sub-contractors at your work sites located overseas.
At one of my most recent positions the business model for the company entailed the use of foreign sub-contractors to provide 99.9% of the labor for the projects which were located in under-developed and developing countries. 75% of these workers were not 'locals', but people located from another country who worked under a sub-contractor agreement with another foreign company.
What does all of this mean? Quite simply it means no liability for injury or death. So that no matter how many deaths, or injuries the company would look very safe to the outside world because there would be no injuries or deaths to its workers. Zero injury/death rate means great insurance rates not to mention the warm and fuzzy for the investors and board of directors.
Now I would say for this particular company they did take some steps to minimize safety issues, but only so much to give the impression to the board of directors and potential investors of doing things safe. Like so many other companies profits are the driving factor of the operation, and safety a distant 2nd. Yes, of course profits are the driving factor for any company, why else be in business and deal with all the stress? Now I will not mention that the profit margins of this company exceed 35% and would get up to the 45%, while the average professional foreign field worker was making less than $3000/month.
So what is so unethical about building a profitable business on the backs of foreign labor? That has been the world model for centuries, to include the slave and indentured servant business models. Well, if this were the 18th century and the work being conducted was not dangerous I would agree, no problem. But when the work is inherently dangerous and there is a complete disregard for safety then I say shame. No number of Ferrari, Lamborghini, or any other type of exotic car justifies a business model such as this.
Safety does not have to negatively impact profits. It just takes a smart program that is implemented with the support of all corporate management. It is to bad that most 'smart' corporate managers do not know how to do this. So it is easier to hire the 3rd party foreign worker to staff a project in another country, and pay a little blood money when he gets hurt so that everyone can sleep well at night.
CONSIDER INVESTING IN THIS PROJECT:
Over the past several blogs I have been covering legal and some ethical items related to international environmental business. In this blog I will shoot squarely at the ethical issue of using foreign sub-contractors at your work sites located overseas.
At one of my most recent positions the business model for the company entailed the use of foreign sub-contractors to provide 99.9% of the labor for the projects which were located in under-developed and developing countries. 75% of these workers were not 'locals', but people located from another country who worked under a sub-contractor agreement with another foreign company.
What does all of this mean? Quite simply it means no liability for injury or death. So that no matter how many deaths, or injuries the company would look very safe to the outside world because there would be no injuries or deaths to its workers. Zero injury/death rate means great insurance rates not to mention the warm and fuzzy for the investors and board of directors.
Now I would say for this particular company they did take some steps to minimize safety issues, but only so much to give the impression to the board of directors and potential investors of doing things safe. Like so many other companies profits are the driving factor of the operation, and safety a distant 2nd. Yes, of course profits are the driving factor for any company, why else be in business and deal with all the stress? Now I will not mention that the profit margins of this company exceed 35% and would get up to the 45%, while the average professional foreign field worker was making less than $3000/month.
So what is so unethical about building a profitable business on the backs of foreign labor? That has been the world model for centuries, to include the slave and indentured servant business models. Well, if this were the 18th century and the work being conducted was not dangerous I would agree, no problem. But when the work is inherently dangerous and there is a complete disregard for safety then I say shame. No number of Ferrari, Lamborghini, or any other type of exotic car justifies a business model such as this.
Safety does not have to negatively impact profits. It just takes a smart program that is implemented with the support of all corporate management. It is to bad that most 'smart' corporate managers do not know how to do this. So it is easier to hire the 3rd party foreign worker to staff a project in another country, and pay a little blood money when he gets hurt so that everyone can sleep well at night.
CONSIDER INVESTING IN THIS PROJECT:
6/29/2012
Toxic Waste in developed countries 1.1
Over the past several decades there has been the issue of what to do with a nation's toxic waste, no matter how it is generated. The Basel Ban was established as an extension to the Basel Agreement. It came into being because of the huge issue of this waste being taken to "developing" (new word for 3rd world) countries for illegal disposal. Keep in mind the focus of this international issue was not the proper disposal of toxic waste, but the illegal disposal of it in developing countries (DC).
It is strongly believed that no matter what the circumstance, it is wrong for any country (primarily economically advanced) to dispose of waste in a DC. There are some good justifications of this stance, and some bad ones. One of the ideas is that if a developed country is allowed to move its waste to a DC then there will be no reason for them to change their production methods and resulting waste streams (reduction). Good idea. Another idea, almost a truism in the minds of most, is that any waste that is taken to a DC will be illegally disposed.
But the behind the scene presumption of this idea is that the DC is not capable of establishing a proper waste disposal facility, and that the waste will end up in a critically sensitive environment within the DC for a number of reasons.
The illegal dumping of wastes has been on sites that are within population centers, or in critical environments (rivers, wetlands, within groundwater recharge zones, etc). These are typically logistically easier to get to for the trucks doing the dumping. The average corrupt national/local politician turns a blind eye, or facilitates with a call to the security office not to patrol a certain area.
Fact of the matter is that there are some really good locations within some of these DC for establishing efficient disposal facilities. What would make for a good location? This is something the average reader should easily be able to identify that include things such as location or weather. Location speaks to geology, endangered species, human contact, etc.
For argument sake let us assume that a perfect location exists that is remote, no groundwater, arid, and generally hostile. The next issue is the facility.
A properly designed treatment and disposal facility can be built in this ideal location, that would meet all the requirements of being protective of humans and the environment. The end product of the treatment process could then be placed into a proper landland fill within the disposal facility. The cost factor would be significantly less at this facility than one in say Denmark.
The Basel Convention (BC) was birthed as a means to establish some control over the practice of toxic waste disposal. It was not uncommon for the bad actors of the world to dump toxic wastes in these DC at a very low cost. The DC that accepted this waste was hard pressed for currency, or legally or illegally. The people of the world responded well to the acts being committed by the few, but who's actions were impacting a lot of people. The BC requires a notification of transport of these wastes to various parties who can be impacted by a release of these materials (intentional or un-intentional). This makes the people who transport them more likely to think twice about documenting their illegal activity.
It is strongly believed that no matter what the circumstance, it is wrong for any country (primarily economically advanced) to dispose of waste in a DC. There are some good justifications of this stance, and some bad ones. One of the ideas is that if a developed country is allowed to move its waste to a DC then there will be no reason for them to change their production methods and resulting waste streams (reduction). Good idea. Another idea, almost a truism in the minds of most, is that any waste that is taken to a DC will be illegally disposed.
But the behind the scene presumption of this idea is that the DC is not capable of establishing a proper waste disposal facility, and that the waste will end up in a critically sensitive environment within the DC for a number of reasons.
The illegal dumping of wastes has been on sites that are within population centers, or in critical environments (rivers, wetlands, within groundwater recharge zones, etc). These are typically logistically easier to get to for the trucks doing the dumping. The average corrupt national/local politician turns a blind eye, or facilitates with a call to the security office not to patrol a certain area.
Fact of the matter is that there are some really good locations within some of these DC for establishing efficient disposal facilities. What would make for a good location? This is something the average reader should easily be able to identify that include things such as location or weather. Location speaks to geology, endangered species, human contact, etc.
For argument sake let us assume that a perfect location exists that is remote, no groundwater, arid, and generally hostile. The next issue is the facility.
A properly designed treatment and disposal facility can be built in this ideal location, that would meet all the requirements of being protective of humans and the environment. The end product of the treatment process could then be placed into a proper landland fill within the disposal facility. The cost factor would be significantly less at this facility than one in say Denmark.
The Basel Convention (BC) was birthed as a means to establish some control over the practice of toxic waste disposal. It was not uncommon for the bad actors of the world to dump toxic wastes in these DC at a very low cost. The DC that accepted this waste was hard pressed for currency, or legally or illegally. The people of the world responded well to the acts being committed by the few, but who's actions were impacting a lot of people. The BC requires a notification of transport of these wastes to various parties who can be impacted by a release of these materials (intentional or un-intentional). This makes the people who transport them more likely to think twice about documenting their illegal activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)