RFF-Resources-164_VoluntaryPrograms

RFF-Resources-164_VoluntaryPrograms - How Well Do Voluntary...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
T he explosive growth in voluntary environmental programs since the early 1990 s in the United States, Europe, and Japan refects, in part, changing so- cietal attitudes about the environment and a growing optimism about the pos- sibility oF enhanced cooperation between government and business. It also refects widespread Frustration with the long and expensive battles oFten as- sociated with new environmental regulations. In most cases, voluntary programs are being used to control pollutants that have not yet been regulated and For which legislative author- ity may be diF±cult to obtain. Unlike market-based approaches to environmental manage- ment, where the conceptual roots are largely academic, voluntary programs have emerged as a pragmatic response to the need For more fexible ways to protect the environment. But do these programs actually work as advertised? That is, do they deliver signi±cant en- vironmental gains without the burdens associated with traditional, command-and-control regulation? Quantitatively, how large are the likely gains? And can they really substitute For mandatory requirements, or should expectations be more modest? Getting credible answers to these questions is important. ²riends and Foes oF voluntary programs are increasingly at odds, sometimes drawing opposite conclusions about the same program. The Former, typically on the side oF industry, see voluntary programs as a more prac- tical, fexible approach to regulation. The latter, including some environmental advocates, oFten see them as an obstacle to more stringent, mandatory programs. This polarization may be partly a consequence oF poor inFormation. A Loose Taxonomy B ecause the existing literature on voluntary programs primarily Focuses on why ±rms choose to participate, rather than on the ±nal results, we chose to take a diFFerent ap- proach, relying on case studies oF representative programs (see the box on page 24) . The re- sult oF this work is a book that we edited, Reality Check: The Nature and Performance of Environ- mental Programs in the United States, Europe, and Japan (R²² Press 2007) , which this article is excerpted From (see the R²² Press advertisement on the back cover). Regulators have come up with numerous terms to describe particular mechanisms: selF- regulation, negotiated agreements, environmental covenants, business-led environmental strategies, and others. Nonetheless, a loose taxonomy has evolved, with three reasonably dis- tinct bins, based on how the parameters oF the commitment are determined: Unilateral agreements by industrial frms. Business-led corporate programs Fall under this heading, as do commitments or reduction targets chosen by ±rms or industry associations. Examples oF such agreements in the United States include the American Chemistry Coun-
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

RFF-Resources-164_VoluntaryPrograms - How Well Do Voluntary...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online