"If you visit an American City
You will find it very pretty.
Just two things of which you must beware,
Don't drink the water, don't breathe the air."

The words of this song are as valid today as they were when it was written 30 years ago by part-time musician and composer Tom Lehrer and full-time Professor of Maths at Harvard University. But what's changed?

I realised, a few years ago, that there's no single environmental problem - Nature plays a big part in contributing to disasters such as fires started by lightning, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes; but Nature also heals through rain, sun, wind and snow. But so far as Man is concerned, our future lies in how we handle a complex series of interactions between industrial activity and our environment.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we in South Africa had to start the industrialisation process again, with the benefit of hindsight, we would arrange things differently. For example, we would have more efficient effluent systems to ensure that there's less chance of any water pollution. Also we'd have scrubbers installed to ensure cleaner air blowing from our chimneys, and of course, we'd do more to protect the safety and health of all our workforce.

But unfortunately, this is not the case. With a lot of old equipment in use at present in South Africa and the adverse impact of a weakening Rand contributing to the ever escalating price of replacing equipment, we must take into account what already exists and try and convert it into a more environmentally acceptable condition. The real challenge that lies ahead for Big Business will be to find ways to harness the vigour of the profit motive and simultaneously reduce the demands we make on resources.

Cost of Environmental Management:

There was a time, a few years ago, when CEO's and MD's in South Africa hoped that environmental issues would get lost in the "alphabet soup" of operational priorities - but this has all changed. Disasters such as Chernobyl, Exxon and Bophal, and locally, have set off alarm bells in the Public Consciousness and made traditional, non-caring executives more aware of their environmental obligations.

Once upon a time it was assumed that pollution went hand-in-hand with industrial development, but today, more and more Big Business is realising that pollution is an option. Admittedly, industry has been defensive to initiatives that were likely to increase operating costs. In fact, a major consideration for anyone proposing the introduction of widespread pollution control measures, will be the question of trade competitiveness. However, emotions about the environment run deep on both sides. On the one hand, manufacturers believe that the real costs of "going green" must be recoverable in the selling price, or be used as a marketing tool to gain market share. However, experience has shown that correct environmental behaviour practice, need not necessarily result in increased operational costs. What starts off as a short-term expense, often has proved to be long-term saving.

Large South African companies and multi-nationals involved in lucrative export markets often have to "formalise" their environmental management systems as a result of pressure from their markets abroad, while the emerging sector of small entrepreneurs in our country, with their limited resources, may be unable to comply.

The key thing to remember in the current business climate, is the fact that no longer is price, service and quality, the only criteria export customers use to select a supplier - they now want to see our manufacturing credentials as well! In the European Union, more green-minded corporations are already demanding to know the environmental compliance of their major suppliers before signing contracts. In 1992, IBM (UK) severed its ties with a metal finishing supplier for breaking promises to clean up its waste materials. Locally, Woolworths conducts supplier audits to ensure it solicits the same exacting standards that it imposes on itself.

Flavour of the Year at present is the much hyped "ISO 9000" programme designed to ensure that companies trading with each other internationally provide products and services that conform to uniform quality standards. Advocates of ISO 9000 maintain that it will soon be a world-wide standard that many businesses will simply have to adopt to remain competitive. But it doesn't come for free!

And what's more, it won't stop there! Soon they'll be asking for the ISO 14000 accreditation - and this won't be free either. The situation thus creates a barrier to trade or at least, presents itself as a series of "commercial hurdles" to be overcome to conform to the importing countries statutory requirements - to some companies, it has simply become the cost of staying in business.

Public Opinion's Effect on Trade Practices:

I suppose that it all began in earnest when the CFC issue first reared its head, and people from all walks of life, scientists and consumers alike, rallied to the cause. Now, several years later, after hearing both sides of the debate, I'm still confused.

Much of our lack of understanding with regard to "environmentally responsible" products has been exploited by extreme environmental groups world-wide who wish to increase their influence. A number of groups openly admit that their strength lies in manipulation of public opinion. Big Business is well aware that there are pressure groups with tremendous disruptive power. Yet many an environmental manager will admit that the threat of exposure by green groups has often accelerated the executive buy-in process in a company, and promoted the introduction of integrated environmental management.

The transition from a throw-away society to the adoption of a conservationist ethic has occurred with stunning speed. Internationally, manufacturers now have to deal with a new social phenomena - the HICCS or Higher (Income) Inner-Conscious Consumers who have different priorities from previous generations of shoppers - they are concerned about the consequences of their consumption. Manufacturers of consumer and industrial products all around the world have responded to these pressures and are looking at Packaging's role in a different way - they simply want less of it about. And what packaging there is, should be functional, reusable, refillable, recyclable and/or made from recyclable materials - a tall order for industry to include in their Packaging Strategies into the next decade.

To make matters worse to an already confused public, packaging is proving to be a battleground for competitive materials, each claiming its own environmental superiority. Plastic has a go at Glass, Glass at Plastic, Paper has a go at Plastic, Tin-plate has a go at Aluminium, Corrugated board has a go at Wood ........

The Green Issue is particularly close to the hearts of many people - particularly those in the First World. These are also the people with the most purchasing power. As a consequence of all this, perceived correct behaviour has become a major issue in purchasing decisions. Public opinion is usually a stronger motivational force than is scientific rationale and truth in encouraging companies to follow certain paths. Public perception of the degree of greenness shown by various products often depends on the persuasive communication powers of their marketing departments.

Going Beyond Recycling:

Various environmental agencies have outlined a hierarchy of integrated Waste Management Systems, with emphasis on the 3 R's, namely Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Of the three, it has been Recycling that has captured the imagination of an environmentally concerned public, who want to "do" something. The popularity of the recycling concept has become a favourite of the media, who have been guilty of neglecting the considerable benefits of Reduce and Reuse.

However, Corporate enthusiasm may never deliver a Green Utopia, because modern mass marketing methods thrive on the repeated exchange of goods (the so-called repeat sale) while our environment could best be served by using fewer goods for longer.

Reduce:

Under the heading Reduce, falls the most important element of Source Reduction. The principle behind Source Reduction is that you stop "trouble" before it happens (pollution). Good examples of Source Reduction can be found in most modern manufacturing equipment where the minimum amount of material is used to produce the maximum output with very little waste material and pollution being generated.

Because it's always easier (and less painful) to examine an industry other than your own, here's how we in the Packaging Industry are proactive in promoting source reduction: we encourage regular customer audits, where we as packaging specialists assist our major customers by having a closer look at the existing packaging used for their product range, with the primary objective of having less packaging enter the waste stream.

Furthermore, through advances in modern technology, our customers (manufacturers who use packaging) have been able to develop products in concentrated form, eg. micro detergents, household cleaners, fabric softeners and fruit juice. On the other hand, technology over the years, has allowed us to introduce new forms of packaging eg. Tetrabrick, plastic pouches, plastic crates and "downguage" packaging without compromising the contents eg. Beverage can, one-way trip glass bottle, multi-trip PET bottle.

Source Reduction does have its limitations. In so far as packaging is concerned, too much "downguaging" may lead to damage and spoilage of the contents. From time to time, concerned manufacturers (customers of packaging companies) ask us to consider designing and promoting reusable packaging - and we oblige. But several misconceptions surround the subject of reusability, because too often, the consumer looks at packaging, when the pack is opened, the contents removed and the packaging thrown away into the nearest dustbin. Therefore Reuse of packaging is seen as an obvious solution to minimising household waste. The essential function of packaging - which is to ensure that the product inside will reach the consumer in the same condition that it left the factory, is unfortunately taken for granted. It is only when a pack fails to do its job, that the consumer notices it.

Deposit-bearing glass bottles have been successfully used in South Africa in the Beverage Industry, to the extent that 80% of all malt beer and 65% of all carbonated soft drinks can be found in deposit-bearing glass bottles. The balance of 20% malt beer and 35% carbonated soft drinks are in one-way packaging - and that's not necessarily a bad thing!

On the other hand, what would the environmental impact be if all beverage containers were reusable? Apart from increased water usage to clean and sterilise bottles (15 times more) and vast amounts of caustic soda going into municipal sewerage systems (water pollution - we need no reminding that water is one of South Africa's most precious and scarcest resources), more and larger trucks will be needed to handle vast volumes of empty containers, particularly over the long distances involved in distributing products nationally in a big country such as ours (air pollution and energy usage). Then there's another factor to consider - that of increased use of energy and raw materials in the manufacture of reusable glass bottles - which would have to be made three times thicker than one-way bottles.

Recycling:

All over the world, municipalities, legislators, environmental groups, and "concerned" citizens, are looking at ways to make recycling more attractive - with the objective of diverting eventual waste away from landfill (or incineration).

A recent UK survey by Mintel, asked members of the public if they would be willing to pay for more recycling, either by paying more for waste collection, or in the form of "more expensive" retail products. 53% were against paying for Curbside collection schemes, and 47% were not in favour of paying more for recycled products.

Conclusion:

As we take our rightful place in the world, there is still a plethora of environmental statutory legislation for exporters to contend with, and all can be interpreted as barriers to trade. If you are restricting yourself to local markets, you will soon find the gap closing between international and South African manufacturing standards. Increased hygiene and environmental standards, especially those associated with the food industry, could impose a significant operating cost on manufacturers. One of the limitations will be the eventual ability of our smaller entrepreneurs to afford the expense of meeting those very same hygiene standards; compliance costs may exceed profitability.

So far as "environmental management" is concerned, we will have to successfully promote it as a criterion, just as essential to the success of our businesses as Marketing, Quality Assurance and Finance.

This article first appeared in Green & Gold Bulletin.