First, Do No Harm

For much of the history of corporate environmentalism, the idea of reducing toxics has been largely a compliance conversation, the result of various national and local laws limiting or prohibiting the emissions of poisons into the air, land, or soil. Ever since the publication of Rachel Carson’s landmark book Silent Spring in 1962 there has been high awareness for more than four decades that even low doses toxics in the environment can be a significant threat to public health and the environment.

Increasingly, toxics seem well on their way to be becoming a threat to business, too.

A new body of research and activity suggests that toxics reduction and elimination may be a growing arena of regulatory, activist, customer, and shareholder interest. And as awareness increases of the business risks of toxics, whether real risks or perceived ones, companies lacking established policies and processes may find themselves subject to competitive pressures and new, more intensive levels of stakeholder scrutiny.

That's the gist of the lead story this month in The Green Business Letter, my monthly newsletter. An excerpt:

At the same time, a small corps of companies are working in various ways to clean up their products, processes, and policies, according to Dr. Richard A. Liroff, a senior fellow at the World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C., focusing on corporate management of toxics. And the opportunities to gain business value from such endeavors is considerable. “Innovative, entrepreneurial companies can gain competitive advantage, increase profits, and grow shareholder value by systematically reviewing chemicals in their products, working with their suppliers to reduce or eliminate product toxicity, and responding creatively to the growing demand for environmentally preferable goods,” he wrote in a paper on the topic published earlier this year by the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment.

Liroff cites the saga of Sony as a cautionary tale about companies and toxics. In the fall of 2001, the Netherlands banned the sale of Sony’s hot PlayStation consoles because the cadmium in accessory cables exceeded regulatory limits. Sony’s lost sales and the costs to rework their product totaled about $150 million and the experience led Sony to carry out a systematic supply-chain and internal management review to prevent similar problems from happening in the future.

Liroff says the Sony episode underscores why companies, especially consumer products companies, need to have full knowledge of the toxic chemicals in their products. “Companies that do not understand toxic hazards in their products and who do not take steps to reduce or eliminate them face the risk of disruption to their supply chains, exclusion from markets, damage to their reputation, foregone profits, and toxic tort litigation,” he writes.

Also this month: A new study shows that retailers who switch to LED lighting for their store displays can save a bundle while still providing the attention-grabbing aesthetics they need. A group of U.K. companies ask their country’s government to be more proactive on climate change. And new standards emerge for sustainably grown flowers, and for “cradle-to-cradle” products and materials.

And finally: This month marks the beginning of the 15th year of publication of The Green Business Letter. In honor of this, I’ve run the “E-Factor” essay that appeared in our inaugural issue. Funny to say, but things haven’t changed all that much: the piece still seems pretty relevant.