Reducing Footprints

• Author: Richard A. Liroff
• Position: Founder and director of the Investor Environmental Health Network
• Pages: 24-30

Page 24 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2010

Reducing Footprints

Science, regulation, and environmentally preferable purchasing programs are

intensifying, driving the move toward greener chemicals. A multi-part benchmark can

help companies reduce business risk as they manage the transition

Richard A. Lirof‌f

ments include “know and disclose product chem-

istry,” “assess and avoid hazards,” “commit to con-

tinuous improvement,” and “support public poli-

cies and industry standards.” e Working Group’s

forthcoming guidelines will provide detailed sug-

gestions for implementing the principles.

e updated Corporate Toxic Footprint/Green

Chemistry Benchmark has f‌ive core elements:

First, corporate commitment. Firms need to sig-

nal the company’s commitment — preferably via

a statement from the CEO — to lowering prod-

uct toxicity by reducing or eliminating known or

suspected high priority toxicants and promoting

development of products created according to the

principles of green chemistry.

Second, data development. Companies need to

adopt standard procedures for systematically re-

viewing the chemical composition of products and

promote generation of toxicity data by suppliers.

ird, capacity building and greening the sup-

ply chain. Companies should create information,

training, and incentive programs to help imple-

ment safer alternative ideas. ey should add “re-

duce inherent hazards” as a criterion for product

formulation and chemical procurement, including

a commitment to continuous improvement in use

of safer chemicals.

Fourth, investor and public accountability. Firms

should analyze in annual and quarterly SEC f‌ilings

the material risks and opportunities for the com-

pany associated with toxic chemicals and with safer

alternatives and cleaner production processes.

Fifth, public policy positions. Companies should

encourage progressive trade association stances on

toxics reduction. ey should speak with an inde-

pendent voice and organize ad hoc coalitions to

advance toxics reduction, involving businesses and

consumer and environmental groups.

Reducing the toxicity of manufactured

products should be a core element of

business strategy. It can lessen repu-

tational and litigation liabilities, help

avoid “toxic lockout” from the market-

place, and spur innovation. It can drive sales for en-

vironmentally preferable products, lower overhead

costs when products subject to government hazard-

ous waste laws are eliminated, and contribute to

enhanced employee safety and productivity.

Five years ago, the initial version of this bench-

mark was published as concern about toxic chemi-

cals in consumer products and supply chains was

beginning to coalesce. e measure was intended,

as I wrote then, “to be an iterative benchmark, elab-

orated and ref‌ined over time [since] as companies

develop innovative approaches to safer chemicals

and substitution policies, they will raise the bar for

acceptable and outstanding performance.”

Companies can use this revised benchmark to

develop an initial assessment of where they stand.

For a deeper dive, more detailed guidelines will be

available in 2010 from the Business-NGO Work-

ing Group for Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Ma-

terials. e Working Group has produced a set of

“guiding principles for chemicals policy” whose ele-

un s e e n h a n d

Richard A. Liroff, Ph.D., is founder and

direc tor of th e Inv estor Environ mental

Health Network. I EHN is a collaboration

of inv estment manager s that advocates

for safer corp orate chemical s pol icies

to grow long-term share holder value and

reduc e nanc ial an d repu tational risks

to companies . This arti cle is adapt ed wit h per mission from

greenbiz.com.