Indeed, “Time to start thinking and acting very differently” has certainly arrived, but not because of so called “sustainability,” whatever that means. Although your column title is provocative, the “S” in EHS still stands for Safety. As with so many business fads of the past and present, EHS pros and managers continue to be the dumping ground of the latest fad that no one else wants to deal with or be responsible for out of fear their career’s might be damaged if they fail. For example, post-9/11 it was security and emergency response. Based on this historical trend, I might suggest a slightly different title of your column, “I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THERE WAS ONLY ONE ‘S’ IN EHS, NOW THERE ARE TWO OR THREE,” – Sustainability and Security.

So much ink and pixels have been devoted to “sustainability” that it has become a cottage industry and we still do not have a legitimate definition for what it means. Frankly, this is probably a good thing due to the variety of industries and activities that are taking credit for “acts-of-sustainability.” For me, too many of these supposed “acts-of-sustainability” have more to do with reducing unsustainable acts versus increasing sustainable activities. Even the term “sustainability” has morphed in recent years to “social responsibility,” an even fuzzier rubric.

As far as “thinking and acting very differently,” there is no question about it; in the past six months American enterprises have entered an overwhelming economic time, the likes of which none of us have ever experienced. Although your percentages of individuals who “get it” and “are trying to figure it out” seem high, I would postulate many of these individuals see “sustainability” as the lifeline for the future of their careers. Certainly, many have fallen into this current fad trap because their management has thrust it upon them. My concern centers on the fact that the time spent by EHS professionals on any one traditional EHS issue is continuously being stretched thinner and thinner to the point that EHS professionals are losing their fundamental expertise because they simply do not have the time to focus and maintain their EHS skills.

Ultimately, the success of any “act-of-sustainability” will be measured by either its reduction in costs or its contribution to profits. Regardless of what any corporate business executive says about sustainability, she or he is measured by their business’ contribution to corporate profits. We are a long way from “acts-of-sustainability” making any significant profit contribution to the bottom-line. Even though we are in a deep economic recession, industry is more than likely going to be forced by regulation and social pressure to undertake “acts-of-sustainability” regardless of their economic benefit. In the long-term, this is a recipe for a total economic collapse. Companies may become “Green,” but the green won’t have any faces of presidents.

There is no doubt, EHS professionals are in difficult times, but hopefully they will not be “totally” swept up by the “acts-of-sustainability” wave at the expense of traditional EHS arenas. With respect to the “S” in EHS, remember no American enterprise will become sustainable if its employees are going home with bloody hands in their pockets.

You are on the mark. My first experience with sustainability was in writing an annual environmental report to the newly emerging sustainability standard. Polaroid had a long history of many years of environmental reporting, but now I was seaking information from folks I had never met though we worked for the same company!

Product stewardship was a similar situation. Many new folks who were shocked that they had to change materials or designs to meet country specific restrictions. I hate to tell you how often I heard, “that is stupid, or they will never do that” As the corporate environmental manager I had to partner with design, purchasing, engineering, management and marketing to break the notion that complinace was limited to facility activites and change how products were designed and made.

Stephen Greene

I do think, however, we need to approach the word “Sustainability” carefully. It means too many different things to our variable cast of stakeholders. Those stakeholders (most particularly, at least in my case, internal stakeholders) often translate it – incorrectly, I believe – as another EHS-driven program that will only cost money.

As a component manufacturer, the number of different interpretations of sustainability seems to match up quite well with the number of customers we deal with. In order to find a common phraseology that resonates with our production operations, I’ve settled on “Product Stewardship” for internal and external communications. It may only be a semantic change, but it puts the focus squarely on our reason for being in business and gives our production folks a direct buy-in to the concept. (And it seems to be working.)

Good to see your face read some of the same words I’ve heard you say from time-to-time. As you point out, our expectations have shifted from saving our workers to literally saving the world.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
George Loder