OverEagerly.com

The overall approach that the promoter and developer of a landfill should take is that of embarking on a construction project, carried out over an extended period, to build a desired landform using waste materials and incorporating appropriate environmental protection measures.

This concept combines the following two elements in ways which are appropriate for a particular site and its waste inputs:

1. Established civil engineering practices for permanent and temporary construction, based on a predetermined design, with appropriate performance standards for the materials used.

2. Process engineering to accommodate biological, chemical and physical changes which will take place within organic wastes during the active life of the site.

The important components to be considered and then built into all landfill designs are:

• Requirements for environmental protection, in order to minimise harm to the environment and to human health, in accordance with current legislation and the aims of sustainable development.

• Recognition of the effects of the different nature of wastes and their degradation processes on landfill gas and leachate generation, and the potential of these to change during the course of design and operation of the site.

• Use of a site-specific risk assessment, rather than prescriptive, approach to environmental protection, for each element and at each stage in the project, in order to determine the overall design and operational practices appropriate to the environmental setting of each individual landfill site.

• A holistic approach to landfill design and operation, utilising scientific and engineering skills as an integrated process from initial conception to final capping, including subsequent restoration and aftercare.

• The adoption of methods, standards and operational systems, based on best current practice, which reflect progress in techniques and improving standards.

• The underpinning of all actions by a quality approach, to ensure that the required quality is achieved in implementation, and that landfill standards match rising public expectations.

The need for cost-effectiveness in design, construction and operation of landfill sites to ensure that the appropriate level of environmental protection is achievable at an appropriate cost, is of course also essential, as is the need to comply with the local regulations imposed in respect of planning and emissions reduction and control/monitoring.

The method of landfilling is very simple. In essence the waste is deposited in layers, called lifts , within the landfill and above the liner system. As waste is deposited, it is compacted by heavy machinery to maximize the amount of refuse that can be disposed of in the landfill. Waste is not a high tech problem it is a low-tech problem.

What will make landfills better is not magic new technology, no new machines either; it is better design, better organization, better education, both at the municipality level and the site level.

Also for a good landfill both the main emissions of landfill gas and leachate should be planned for from the start, and the facilities for both installed ahead of when they are absolutely needed, to be sure they are ready when really necessary.

Leachate can be pumped to the collection pond or flow to it by gravity. A leachate collection tank is designed to catch and isolate the contaminants that can get into the environment. All good landfills attempt contain leachate at the site and prevent its discharge to surface or groundwaters, but it is easy to leave the provision of leachate treatment too late, and the not have a facility ready for when heavy rains arrive.

Steve Evans
http://www.articlesbase.com/literature–articles/how-to-start-designing-a-landfill-711389.html

At the Global Environmental Leadership Conference presented by Newsweek, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made an address and delivered very strong words to U.S. automakers. The Governor wanted automakers to make changes to reduce harmful exhaust greenhouse gasses emitted by their vehicle models. He also commented to a billboard in Detroit, which criticizes him for mandating the vehicle exhaust emissions standards in California that car makers, especially Michigan-based automakers are unwilling to meet.

Here is some part of Schwarzenegger’s speech.

“I have to say that I am somewhat amazed to be here, and the reason is because three and a half years ago when I ran for governor I was followed around by environmental protestors with signs. They didn’t like my Humvees and Hummers, and my SUVs, or anything that I did. As a matter of fact, when I promised that I would improve the environment when I became governor, they didn’t believe that either. So here we are, three and a half years later, and I’m on the cover of Newsweek as one of the big environmentalists. Only in America, that’s all I can say.

But let me tell you something; even though I love being on the cover of Newsweek, but there should have been some other people on that cover as well, and those are people that were my partners in the Legislature. They have worked very hard, they were incredible partners, and I’m talking here about, first of all, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senator Perata. I invited both of them to come here but they couldn’t make it, but I just wanted to thank them publicly for being such great environmentalists and such great leaders in the environment. So let’s give them a big hand, even though they’re not here.

And I want to thank also someone that is here with us today, and this is Assemblywoman Fran Pavley. She has been such a great, great warrior.

Let me tell you something; this is the real deal. This is the real deal. This woman has been fighting for the environment way before I ever became governor, and she has really been the author of these very important legislations, and she has worked with our office, and she is a team player. And this is, you can see here, she’s a Democrat. Also the Speaker is a Democrat. Senator Perata is a Democrat. So this is what I’m talking about, working together in a bipartisan or post-partisan way, and this is how we get things done, because we work what is best for the people of California and for America. So thank you again to Assemblywoman Pavley. (Applause)

Now, I know this is an environmental conference, but I do want to start talking first about bodybuilding. And the reason is because bodybuilding is another passion of mine, as you probably know, and it has similarities there. Bodybuilding used to have a very sketchy image. As a matter of fact, so much so that some people that worked out seriously and pumped weights didn’t admit they were doing bodybuilding. As a matter of fact, say in the old days, some of the very famous Hollywood actors like Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, and the list goes on and on, they all worked out with weights, but they never admitted it publicly because they didn’t want to be associated with the gymnasiums that were like dungeons and that had fanatics, and that had weird people training in there. That is the kind of an image that it had.

But we changed that, we consciously changed that. And what we did was, we came out with a book called Pumping Iron—I know a lot of you are familiar with that, especially the students—then the movie Pumping Iron, and that changed bodybuilding, the image of bodybuilding, dramatically. As a matter of fact, the perception of bodybuilding began to change and it became more and more hip and more and more attractive. And then all of a sudden, everyone wanted to exercise. As a matter of fact, today you can go to any place in the world and you will find a bodybuilding gymnasium or a place where you can do weight resistance training, and you can go into any gymnasium and you will find ordinary people talking about their abs, their lats, their deltoids, body fat, and all those kinds of things. So this is how much it changed. It became mainstream, it became sexy, attractive.

And this is exactly what has to happen with the environmental movement. Like bodybuilders, environmentalists were thought of as kind of weird and fanatics also. You know, the kind of serious tree huggers. Environmentalists were no fun; they were like prohibitionists at a fraternity party. (Applause)

So someone the other day just showed me a cartoon that was of a car salesman in a showroom talking to this couple. And the car salesman pointed at the car and said, “This car runs on an ordinary gasoline-powered engine, and then when it feels a little guilt, when it senses guilt, it switches over to battery power.” Now, that’s funny, it’s a cartoon. But let me tell you something; there’s a lot of truth to that. For too long the environmental movement had been powered by guilt.

But I believe that this is about to switch over from being powered by guilt to being powered by something much more positive, much more dynamic, something much more capable of bringing about major change. You know the kind of guilt I’m talking about; the smokestacks belching pollution that are powering our Jacuzzis and our big-screen TVs, and in my case powering my private airplanes. So it is too bad, of course, that we can’t all live simple lives like the Buddhist monks in Tibet. But you know something? That’s not going to happen.

So ladies and gentlemen, I don’t think that any movement has ever made it and has ever made much progress based on guilt. Guilt is passive, guilt is inhibiting, and guilt is defensive. You remember the commercials a number of years ago, the commercials specifically of a Native American who sees what we have done to the environment and then a year runs down his cheek. You all remember that? Well, let me tell you something; that approach didn’t work, because successful movements are built on passion, they’re not built on guilt. They’re built on passion, they’re built on confidence, and they’re built on critical mass. And often, they’re built on an element of alarm that galvanizes action.

The environmental movement is, to use a popular term, about the tipping point. It’s about to get to the tipping point. There’s a tipping point, and I believe the tipping point will be occurring when the environmental movement is no longer seen as a nag or as a scold, but as a positive force in people’s lives. Now, I don’t know when that tipping point occurs, but I know where—in California. In California, we are doing everything that we can to tip the balance on the environment.

Now, first, let me start with government policy. I don’t want to go into all the initiatives that we have passed and all the laws that we have passed, because that was already eloquently explained by John when he introduced me. But there are two things that stick out that have gotten us the most attention.

1. We passed a law to cap greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. That basically means we are rolling back the greenhouse gases to the 1990 level by the year 2020, and then we go 80 percent below that by the year 2050.

2. I ordered a 10 percent cut in the carbon content of transportation fuels.

Now, do I believe that the standards that California sets will solve global warming? Of course not. But what we are doing is applying leverage so that at some point the whole environmental thing tips. That’s what we are trying to do. It’s like a seesaw. You walk up to it and then slowly it tips the other way. That is what we are trying to do. California, as you know, is big, California is powerful, and what we do in California has unbelievable impact and it has consequences. As a matter of fact, when you look at the globe, California is a little spot, but the kind of power of influence that we have on the rest of the world is an equivalent of whole huge continent.

We are sending the world a message. What we are saying is that we are going to change the dynamic on greenhouse gas and on carbon emissions. We are taking actions ourselves. We are not waiting for anyone, we are not waiting for the federal government or for Washington. We are creating our own partnerships. We are partnering with Great Britain, we are partnering with provinces in Canada, with states in the United States, with the western states, with the northeastern states. And you know something? Every year we are adding more and more partners to our team. We are increasing the momentum for change.

Now, there’s a billboard in Michigan that accuses me of costing the car industry 85 billion dollars. They say because of our new carbon fuel standards I cost them 85 billion dollars. The billboard says “Arnold to Michigan—drop dead.” The fact of the matter is, what I’m saying is, Arnold to Michigan—get off your butt. Get off your butt and join us. (Applause)

In fact, California may be doing more to save US automakers than anyone else, because what we are doing is we are pushing them to make changes, to make the changes so they can sell their cars in California. And we all know—let’s be honest—that if they don’t change, someone will. The Japanese will, the Chinese will, the South Koreans will, the Germans will, they all will. So what I want to do is, I want to prevent that from happening. I want them to sell their cars in California. I believe strongly in American technology, and I think in the end it will be technology that will ultimately save Detroit.

Now, California, for instance, has already a car company that’s called Tesla Motors. Tesla Motors has just designed and produced a car that’s called the Tesla Roadster. It’s 100 percent electric. Now, why is it that a car company that has never produced a car before is already producing a car with zero emissions—zero emissions—and Detroit is still lagging behind? Now, this car, let me tell you something, is a very sexy looking car. It’s really cool. I mean, I test drove it. It goes from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. It drives 130 miles an hour, and it has 250 miles on a charge, and then the recharging only takes 3 1/2 hours. Now, that’s what I call cool. And the car cost 100,000 dollars—to be exact, 98,000 dollars—and it is so popular, it sold out immediately. And now the second version is being produced, and that car, the cost will drop down to 50,000 dollars.

So we can see where that is heading, economics tells us where this is heading. It’s like the cell phones. I remember when I bought a cell phone, the first cell phone, which was kind of a radio phone, 20 years ago. It was 1,600 dollars. The next version I bought a few years later was 1,200, and the next one was 750. I just recently bought a cell phone for my daughter and it was below 90 dollars. Now, because of the costs that have dropped down, almost everyone can afford a cell phone, and the same thing is going to happen to the environmental technologies in cars. Government can give a push by setting standards, so California is giving the nation and the world a push.”

Well, Let us just wait and see if Detroit and other Michigan automakers like Chrysler Group, maker of Jeep models with quality Jeep vent visor can meet California’s emission standards in the near future.

Lisa Ziegler
http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/arnold-schwarzeneggers-address-to-detroit-automakers-132593.html

What about small businesses? Can they sit this one out? In a word, no. Here are six reasons why:

1. Laws that once applied only to big business are encroaching on smaller enterprises. Even bakeries and gas stations must now comply with clean air regulations.

2. Small companies often have an edge in innovation. Of the more than $100 billion in R&D money that each year is plowed into the “clean tech” marketplace, the bulk goes to new, smaller ventures who historically have produced more breakthrough products and services.

3. Going after the consumption choices of individuals remains difficult politically, but advocacy groups have no problem demanding that small businesses curb their impacts. So while personal cars may not come under NGO attack, the emissions from taxi fleets or delivery services make a relatively attractive target.

4. The Information Age is reducing the costs of pursuing smaller-scale actors. New sensors, information systems, and communications technologies make tracking pollution and monitoring regulatory compliance cheaper every day. Even tiny enterprises now find it hard to fly under the radar.

5. Large customers are putting pressure on small-business suppliers to comply with environmental standards. One little New York-based software developer we know found itself answering tough questions posed by a Tokyo-based telecom company with an aggressive auditing program for its supply chain. To stay on the list of preferred suppliers, the company had to implement an Environmental Management System — much more than a company its size would normally do.

6. Small companies can be more nimble than their larger competitors. Entrepreneurial businesses can move quickly to take advantage of changing circumstances or meet niche demands. Q Collection, a “sustainable”home furnishings company, produces couches, tables, and chairs without toxic dyes and with wood sourced entirely from sustainably managed forests. The furniture is priced at the high end of the market, but the company has found a customer base of interior designers who want the natural option. And Hawaii-based Kona Blue has launched an environmentally friendly fish farm to meet the growing demand for fish raised free of hormones and antibiotics.

The above is an excerpt from the book Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage
by Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1). The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston

Author Bio
Daniel C. Esty, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), is the Hillhouse Professor at Yale University and Director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale (www.yale.edu/CBEY).  Author and editor of nine books and dozens of articles, Dan is one of the world’s leading corporate environmental strategy experts with twenty years of experience working with companies of all sizes and across many industries worldwide.  He served as senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1990s and is presently Chairman of Esty Environmental Partners (www.EstyEP.com).

Andrew S. Winston, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), advises some of the world’s leading companies on how to profit from environmental thinking.  He is also a highly respected and dynamic speaker, exploring the business benefits of going green with audiences around the world.  Andrew’s earlier career included corporate strategy at Boston Consulting Group and management positions in marketing and business development at Time Warner and MTV.  See www.andrewwinston.com for more information.

Daniel C. Esty And Andrew S. Winston
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/why-small-businesses-should-care-738703.html

Renewable energy

Renewable energy sources worldwide at the end of 2006.

Renewable energy is energy generated from natural resources—such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat — which are renewable (naturally replenished). In 2006, about 18% of global final energy consumption came from renewables, with 13% coming from traditional biomass, such as wood-burning.Hydroelectricity was the next largest renewable source, providing 3% (15% of global electricity generaiton), followed by solar hot water /heating, which contributed 1.3%. Modern technologies, such as geothermal energy, wind power, solar power and ocean energy together provided some 0.8% of final energy consumption.

Climate change concerns coupled with high oil prices, peak oil and increasing government support are driving increasing renewable energy legislation, incentives and commercialization.European Union leaders reached an agreement in principle in March 2007 that 20 percent of their nations’ energy should be produced from renewable fuels by 2020, as part of its drive to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, blamed in part for global warming. Investment capital flowing into renewable energy climbed from $80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006.

In responce to the G8′s call on the IEA for “guidance on how to achieve a clean, clever and competitive energy future”, the IEA reported that the replacement of current technology with renewable energy could help reduce CO2 emmisions by 50% by 2050, which they claim is of crucial importance because current policies are not sustainable.

Wind power is growing at the rate of 30 percent annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of over 100 GW, and is widely used in several European countries and the United States. The manufacturing output of the photovoltaics industry reached more than 2,000 MW in 2006, and photovoltaic (PV) power stations are particularly popular in Germany. Solar thermal power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 MW SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert. The world’s largest geothermal power installation is The Gevsers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW. Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country’s automotive fuel. Ethanol fuel is also widely available in the USA.

While there are many large-scale renewable energy projects and production, renewable technologies are also suited to small off-grid applications, sometimes in rural and remote areas, where energy is often crucial in human development. Kenya has the world’s highest household solar ownership rate with roughly 30,000 small (20–100 watt) solar power systems sold per year.

Some renewable energy technologies are criticised for being intermittent or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of renewable energy.

Main renewable energy technologies

Three energy sources

The majority of renewable energy technologies are directly or indirectly powered by the sun. The Earth-Atmosphere system is in equilibrium such that heat radiation into space is equal to incoming solar radiation, the resulting level of energy within the Earth-Atmosphere system can roughly be described as the Earth’s “climate.” The hydrosphere (water) absorbs a major fraction of the incoming radiation. Most radiation is absorbed at low latitudes around the equator, but this energy is dissipated around the globe in the form of winds and ocean currents. Wave motion may play a role in the process of transferring mechanical energy between the atmosphere and the ocean through wind stress. Solar energy is also responsible for the distribution of precipitation which is tapped by hydroelectric projects, and for the growth of plants used to create biofuels.

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

“Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.”

Each of these sources has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.

Wind power

 Vestas V80 wind turbines

Airflows can be used to run wind turbines. Modern wind turbines range from around 600 kW to 5 MW of rated power, although turbines with rated output of 1.5–3 MW have become the most common for commercial use; the power output of a turbine is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so as wind speed increases, power output increases dramatically. Areas where winds are stronger and more constant, such as offshore and high altitude sites, are preferred locations for wind farms.

Since wind speed is not constant, a wind farm’s annual energy production is never as much as the sum of the generator nameplate ratings multiplied by the total hours in a year. The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. Typical capacity factors are 20-40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites. For example, a 1 megawatt turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 megawatt-hours in a year, but only 0.35x24x365 = 3,066 MWh, averaging to 0.35 MW. Online data is available for some locations and the capacity factor can be calculated from the yearly output.

Globally, the long-term technical potential of wind energy is believed to be five times total current global energy production, or 40 times current electricity demand. This could require large amounts of land to be used for wind turbines, particularly in areas of higher wind resources. Offshore resources experience mean wind speeds of ~90% greater than that of land, so offshore resources could contribute substantially more energy. This number could also increase with higher altitude ground-based or airborne wind turbines.

Wind power is renewable and produces no greenhouse gases during operation, such as carbon dioxdie and methane.

Water power

Energy in water (in the form of kinetic energy, temperature differences or salinity gradients) can be harnessed and used. Since water is about 800 times denser than air, even a slow flowing stream of water, or moderate sea swell, can yield considerable amounts of energy.

One of 3 PELAMIS P-750 Ocean Wave Power engines in the harbour of Peniche/ Portugal.

There are many forms of water energy:

·         Hydroelectric energy is a term usually reserved for large-scale hydroelectric dams. Examples are the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State and the Akosombo Dam in Ghana.

·         Micro hydro systems are hydroelectric power installations that typically produce up to 100 kW of power. They are often used in water rich areas as a Remote Area Power Supply (RAPS). There are many of these installations around the world, including several delivering around 50 kW in the Solomon Islands.

·         Damless hydro systems derive kinetic energy from rivers and oceans without using a dam.

·         Ocean energy  describes all the technologies to harness energy from the ocean and the sea:

o   Marine current power. Similar to tidal stream power, uses the kinetic energy of marine currents

o   Ocean thermal energy  conversion (OTEC) uses the temperature difference between the warmer surface of the ocean and the colder lower recesses. To this end, it employs a cyclic heat engine. OTEC has not been field-tested on a large scale.

o   Tidal power captures energy from the tides. Two different principles for generating energy from the tides are used at the moment:

o   Tidal motion in the vertical direction — Tides come in, raise water levels in a basin, and tides roll out. Around low tide, the water in the basin is discharged through a turbine, exploiting the stored potential energy.

o   Tidal motion in the horizontal direction — Or tidal stream power. Using tidal stream generators, like wind turbines but then in a tidal stream. Due to the high density of water, about eight-hundred times the density of air, tidal currents can have a lot of kinetic energy. Several commercial prototypes have been build, and more are in development.

·         Wave power  uses the energy in waves. Wave power machines usually take the form of floating or neutrally buoyant structures which move relative to one another or to a fixed point. Wave power has now reached commercialization.

·         Saline gradient power,  or osmotic power, is the energy retrieved from the difference in the salt concentration between seawater and river water. Reverse electrodialysis (RED), and Pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) is in research and testing phase.

·         Deep lake water cooling,  although not technically an energy generation method, can save a lot of energy in summer. It uses submerged pipes as a heat sink for climate control systems. Lake-bottom water is a year-round local constant of about 4 °C.

Solar energy use

Monocrystalline solar cell

In this context, “solar energy” refers to energy that is collected from sunlight. Solar energy can be applied in many ways, including to:

•           Generate electricity by heating trapped air which rotates turbines in a Solar updraft tower.

•           Generate electricity in geosynchronous orbit using solar power satellites.

•           Generate electricity using photovoltaic solar cells.

•           Generate electricity using concentrated solar power.

•           Generate hydrogen using photoelectrochemical cells.

•           Heat and cool air through use of solar chimneys.

•           Heat buildings, directly, through passive solar building design.

•           Heat foodstuffs, through solar ovens.

•           Heat water or air for domestic hot water and space heating needs using solar-thermal panels.

•           Solar air conditioning

Biofuel

Plants use photosynthesis to grow and produce biomass. Also known as biomatter, biomass can be used directly as fuel or to produce liquid biofuel. Agriculturally produced biomass fuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol and bagasse (often a by-product of sugar cane cultivation) can be burned in internal combustion engines or boilers. Typically biofuel is burned to release its stored chemical energy. Research into more efficient methods of converting biofuels and other fuels into electricity utilizing fuel cells is an area of very active work.

Liquid biofuel

Information on pump, California.

Liquid biofuel is usually either a bioalcohol such as ethanol fuel or a bio-oil such as biodiesel and straight vegetable oil. Biodiesel can be used in modern diesel vehicles with little or no modification to the engine and can be made from waste and virgin vegetable and animal oil and fats (lipids). Virgin vegetable oils can be used in modified diesel engines. In fact the Diesel engine was originally designed to run on vegetable oil rather than fossil fuel. A major benefit of biodiesel is lower emissions. The use of biodiesel reduces emission of carbon monoxide and other hydrocarbons by 20 to 40%.

In some areas corn, cornstalks, sugarbeets, sugar cane, and switchgrasses are grown specifically to produce ethanol (also known as grain alcohol) a liquid which can be used in internal combustion engines and fuel cells. Ethanol is being phased into the current energy infrastructure. E85 is a fuel composed of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline that is sold to consumers. Biobutanol is being developed as an alternative to bioethanol. There is growing international criticism about biofuels from food crops with respect to issues such as food security, environmental impacts (deforestation) and energy balance.

Solid biomass

Sugar cane  residue can be used as a biofuel

Solid biomass is mostly commonly usually used directly as a combustible fuel, producing 10-20 MJ/kg of heat.

Its forms and sources include wood fuel,  the biogenic portion of municipal solid waste, or the unused portion of field crops. Field crops may or may not be grown intentionally as an energy crop,  and the remaining plant byproduct used as a fuel. Most types of biomass contain energy. Even cow manure still contains two-thirds of the original energy consumed by the cow. Energy harvesting via a bioreactor is a cost-effective solution to the waste disposal issues faced by the dairy farmer, and can produce enough biogas to run a farm.

With current technology, it is not ideally suited for use as a transportation fuel. Most transportation vehicles require power sources with high power density, such as that provided by internal combustion engines. These engines generally require clean burning fuels, which are generally in liquid form, and to a lesser extent, compressed gaseous phase. Liquids are more portable because they have high energy density, and they can be pumped, which makes handling easier. This is why most transportation fuels are liquids.

Non-transportation applications can usually tolerate the low power-density of external combustion engines, that can run directly on less-expensive solid biomass fuel, for combined heat and power. One type of biomass is wood, which has been used for millennia in varying quantities, and more recently is finding increased use. Two billion people currently cook every day, and heat their homes in the winter by burning biomass, which is a major contributor to man-made climate change global warming. The black soot that is being carried from Asia to polar ice caps is causing them to melt faster in the summer. In the 19th century, wood-fired steam engines were common, contributing significantly to industrial revolution unhealthy air pollution. Coal is a form of biomass that has been compressed over millennia to produce a non-renewable, highly-polluting fossil fuel.

Wood and its byproducts can now be converted through process such as gasification into biofuels such as woodgas, biogas,  methanol or ethanol fuel; although further development may be required to make these methods affordable and practical. Sugar cane residue, wheat chaff, com cobs and other plant matter can be, and are, burned quite successfully. The net carbon dioxide emissions that are added to the atmosphere by this process are only from the fossil fuel that was consumed to plant, fertilize, harvest and transport the biomass.

Processes to harvest biomass from short-rotation poplars and willows, and perennial grasses such as switchgrass, phalaris, and miscanthus, require less frequent cultivation and less nitrogen than from typical annual crops. Pelletizing miscanthus and burning it to generate electricity is being studied and may be economically viable.

Biogas

Biogas can easily be produced from current waste streams, such as: paper production, sugar production, sewage, animal waste and so forth. These various waste streams have to be slurried together and allowed to naturally ferment, producing methane gas. This can be done by converting current sewage plants into biogas plants. When a biogas plant has extracted all the methane it can, the remains are sometimes better suitable as fertilizer than the original biomass.

Alternatively biogas can be produced via advanced waste processing systems such as mechanical biological treatment. These systems recover the recyclable elements of household waste and process the biodegradable fraction in anaerobic digesters.

Renewable natural gas is a biogas which has been upgraded to a quality similar to natural gas. By upgrading the quality to that of natural gas, it becomes possible to distribute the gas to the mass market via gas grid.

Geothermal energy

Krafla Geothermal Station in northeast Iceland

Geothermal energy is energy obtained by tapping the heat of the earth itself, usually from kilometers deep into the Earth’s crust. It is expensive to build a power station but operating costs are low resulting in low energy costs for suitable sites. Ultimately, this energy derives from heat in the Earth’s core. The government of Iceland states: “It should be stressed that the geothermal resource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource.” It estimates that Iceland’s geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100 years, compared to the current production of 140 MW. Radioactive elements in the earth’s crust continuously decay, replenishing the heat. The International Energy Agency classifies geothermal power as renewable.

Three types of power plants are used to generate power from geothermal energy: dry steam, flash, and binary. Dry steam plants take steam out of fractures in the ground and use it to directly drive a turbine that spins a generator. Flash plants take hot water, usually at temperatures over 200 °C, out of the ground, and allows it to boil as it rises to the surface then separates the steam phase in steam/water separators and then runs the steam through a turbine. In binary plants, the hot water flows through heat exchangers, boiling an organic fluid that spins the turbine. The condensed steam and remaining geothermal fluid from all three types of plants are injected back into the hot rock to pick up more heat.

The geothermal energy from the core of the Earth is closer to the surface in some areas than in others. Where hot underground steam or water can be tapped and brought to the surface it may be used to generate electricity. Such geothermal power sources exist in certain geologically unstable parts of the world such as Chile, Iceland, New Zealand, United States, the Philippines and Italy. The two most prominent areas for this in the United States are in the Yellowstone basin and in northern California. Iceland produced 170 MW geothermal power and heated 86% of all houses in the year 2000 through geothermal energy. Some 8000 MW of capacity is operational in total.

There is also the potential to generate geothermal energy from hot dry rocks. Holes at least 3 km deep are drilled into the earth. Some of these holes pump water into the earth, while other holes pump hot water out. The heat resource consists of hot underground radiogenic granite rocks, which heat up when there is enough sediment between the rock and the earths surface. Several companies in Australia are exploring this technology.

Renewable energy commercialization

Costs

Source                         2001 energy costs                              Potential future energy cost

Electricity

Wind                           4–8 ¢/kWh                                                      3–10 ¢/kWh

Solar photovoltaic       25–160 ¢/kWh                                                            5–25 ¢/kWh

Solar thermal               12–34 ¢/kWh                                                  4–20 ¢/kWh

Large hydropower      2–10 ¢/kWh                                                    2–10 ¢/kWh

Small hydropower       2–12 ¢/kWh                                                    2–10 ¢/kWh

Geothermal                 2–10 ¢/kWh                                                    1–8 ¢/kWh

Biomass                       3–12 ¢/kWh                                                    4–10 ¢/kWh

Coal (comparison)       4 ¢/kWh         

Heat

Geothermal Heat         0.5–5 ¢/kWh                                                   0.5–5 ¢/kWh

Biomass — heat          1–6 ¢/kWh                                                      1–5 ¢/kWh

Low Temp Solar Heat 2–25 ¢/kWh                                                    2–10 ¢/kWh

All costs are in 2001 US$-cent per kilowatt-hour.

New generation of solar thermal plants

The 11 megawatt PS10 solar power tower in Spain produces electricity from the sun using 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats.

Aerial view of one of the SEGS plants.

Since 2004 there has been renewed interest in solar thermal power stations and two plants were completed during 2006/2007: the 64 MW Nevada Solar One and the 11 MW PS10 solar power tower in Spain. Three 50 MW trough plants were under construction in Spain at the end of 2007 with 10 additional 50 MW plants planned. In the United States, utilities in California and Florida have announced plans (or contracted for) at least eight new projects totaling more than 2,000 MW.

In developing countries, three world bank projects for integrated CSP/combined-cycle gas-turbine power plants in Egypt, Mexico, and Morocco were approved during 2006/2007.

There are several solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert which supply power to the electricity grid. Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) is the name given to nine solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which were built in the 1980s. These plants have a combined capacity of 354 MW making them the largest solar power installation in the world.

World’s largest photovoltaic power plants

Several large photovoltaic power plants have been completed in Spain in 2008: the Parque Fotovoltaico Olmedilla de Alarcon (60 MW), Parque Solar Merida/Don Alvaro (30 MW), Planta solar Fuente Alamo (26 MW), Planta fotovoltaica de Lucainena de las Torres (23.2 MW), Parque Fotovoltaico Abertura Solar (23.1 MW), Parque Solar Hoya de Los Vincentes (23 MW), the Solarpark Calveron (21 MW), and the Planta Solar La Magascona (20 MW).

First Solar 40 MW PV Array installed by JUWI Group in Waldpolenz, Germany

Waldpolenz Solar Park, which will be the world’s largest thin-flim photovoltaic (PV) power system, is being built at a former military air base to the east of Leipzig in Germany. The power plant will be a 40-megawatt solar power system using state-of-the-art thin film technology, and should be finished by the end of 2009. 550,000 First Solar thin-film modules will be used, which will supply 40,000 MWh of electricity per year.

Topaz Solar Farm is a proposed 550 MW solar photovoltaic power plant which is to be built northwest of California Valley in the USA at a cost of over $1 billion. Built on 9.5 square miles (25 km2) of ranchland, the project would utilize thin-film PV panels designed and manufactured by OptiSolar in Hayward and Sacramento. The project would deliver approximately 1,100 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually of renewable energy. The project is expected to begin construction in 2010, begin power delivery in 2011, and be fully operational by 2013.

High Plains Ranch  is a proposed 250 MW solar photovoltaic power plant which is to be built by Sun Power in the Carrizo Plain, northwest of California Valley.

However, when it comes to renewable energy systems and PV, it is not just large systems that matter. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics or “onsite” PV systems have the advantage of being matched to end use energy needs in terms of scale. So the energy is supplied close to where it is needed.

Environmental and social considerations

While most renewable energy sources do not produce pollution directly, the materials, industrial processes, and construction equipment used to create them may generate waste and pollution. Some renewable energy systems actually create environmental problems. For instance, older wind turbines can be hazardous to flying birds.

Land area required

Another environmental issue, particularly with biomass and biofuels, is the large amount of land required to harvest energy, which otherwise could be used for other purposes or left as undeveloped land. However, it should be pointed out that these fuels may reduce the need for harvesting non-renewable energy sources, such as vast strip-mined areas and slag mountains for coal, safety zones around nuclear plants, and hundreds of square miles being strip-mined for oil sands. These responses, however, do not account for the extremely high biodiversity and endemism of land used for ethanol crops, particularly sugar cane.

In the U.S., crops grown for biofuels are the most land- and water-intensive of the renewable energy sources. In 2005, about 12% of the nation’s corn crop (covering 11 million acres (45,000 km²) of farmland) was used to produce four billion gallons of ethanol—which equates to about 2% of annual U.S. gasoline consumption. For biofuels to make a much larger contribution to the energy economy, the industry will have to accelerate the development of new feedstocks, agricultural practices, and technologies that are more land and water efficient. Already, the efficiency of biofuels production has increased significantly and there are new methods to boost biofuel production.

Hydroelectric dams

The major advantage of hydroelectric systems is the elimination of the cost of fuel. Other advantages include longer life than fuel-fired generation, low operating costs, and the provision of facilities for water sports. Operation of pumped-storage plants improves the daily load factor of the generation system. Overall, hydroelectric power can be far less expensive than electricity generated from fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and areas with abundant hydroelectric power attract industry.

However, there are several major disadvantages of hydroelectric systems. These include: dislocation of people living where the reservoirs are planned, release of significant amounts of carbon dioxide at construction and flooding of the reservoir, disruption of aquatic ecosystems and birdlife, adverse impacts on the river environment, potential risks of sabotage and terrorism, and in rare cases catastrophic failure of the dam wall.

Hydroelectric power is now more difficult to site in developed nations because most major sites within these nations are either already being exploited or may be unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations.

Wind farms

Wind power  is one of the most environmentally friendly sources of renewable energy

A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources:

•           It occupies less land area per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated than any other energy conversion system, apart from rooftop solar energy, and is compatible with grazing and crops.

•           It generates the energy used in its construction in just 3 months of operation, yet its operational lifetime is 20–25 years.

•           Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution produced by its construction are tiny and declining. There are no emissions or pollution produced by its operation.

•           In substituting for base-load coal power, wind power produces a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and a net increase in biodiversity.

•           Modern wind turbines are almost silent and rotate so slowly (in terms of revolutions per minute) that they are rarely a hazard to birds.

Studies of birds and offshore wind farms in Europe have found that there are very few bird collisions. Several offshore wind sites in Europe have been in areas heavily used by seabirds. Improvements in wind turbine design, including a much slower rate of rotation of the blades and a smooth tower base instead of perchable lattice towers, have helped reduce bird mortality at wind farms around the world. However older smaller wind turbines may be hazardous to flying birds. Birds are severely impacted by fossil fuel energy; examples include birds dying from exposure to oil spills, habitat loss from acid rain and mountaintop removal coal mining, and mercury poisoning.

Other issues

Sustainability

Renewable energy sources are generally sustainable in the sense that they cannot “run out” as well as in the sense that their environmental and social impacts are generally more benign than those of fossil. However, both biomass and geothermal energy require wise management if they are to be used in a sustainable manner. For all of the other renewables, almost any realistic rate of use would be unlikely to approach their rate of replenishment by nature.

Transmission

If renewable and distribution generation were to become widespread, electric power transmission and electricity distribution systems might no longer be the main distributors of electrical energy but would operate to balance the electricity needs of local communities. Those with surplus energy would sell to areas needing “top ups”. That is, network operation would require a shift from ‘passive management’ — where generators are hooked up and the system is operated to get electricity ‘downstream’ to the consumer — to ‘active management’, wherein generators are spread across a network and inputs and outputs need to be constantly monitored to ensure proper balancing occurs within the system. Some governments and regulators are moving to address this, though much remains to be done. One potential solution is the increased use of active management of electricity transmission and distribution networks. This will require significant changes in the way that such networks are operated.

However, on a smaller scale, use of renewable energy produced on site reduces burdens on electricity distribution systems. Current systems, while rarely economically efficient, have shown that an average household with an appropriately-sized solar panel array and energy storage system needs electricity from outside sources for only a few hours per week. By matching electricity supply to end-use needs, advocates of renewable energy and the soft energy path believe electricity systems will become smaller and easier to manage, rather than the opposite.

Controversy over nuclear power as a renewable energy source

In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy. He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun’s expected remaining lifespan of five billion years. Nuclear energy has also been referred to as “renewable” by the politicians George W. Bush, Charlie Crist,  and David Sainsbury.

Inclusion under the “renewable energy” classification could render nuclear power projects eligible for development aid under various jurisdictions. However, it has not been established that nuclear energy is inexhaustible, and issues such as peak uranium and uranium depletion are ongoing debates. No legislative body has yet included nuclear energy under any legal definition of “renewable energy sources” for provision of development support. Similarly, statutory and scientific definitions of renewable energies usually exclude nuclear energy. Commonly sourced definitions of renewable energy sources often omit or explicitly exclude nuclear energy sources as examples.Nuclear fission is not regarded as renewable by the U.S. DOE on the website “What is Energy?”

There are also environmental concerns over nuclear power, including the dangerous environmental hazards of nuclear waste and concerns that development of new plants cannot happen quickly enough to reduce CO2 emissions, such that nuclear energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY:

There are many energy sources today that are extremely limited in supply. Some of these sources include oil, natural gas, and coal. It is a matter of time before they will be exhausted.

Estimates are that they can only meet our energy demands for another fifty to seventy years. So in an effort to find alternative forms of energy, the world has turned to renewable energy sources as the solution. There are many advantages and disadvantages to this.

Renewable energy sources consist of solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, ocean and biomass. The most common advantage of each is that they are renewable and cannot be depleted. They are a clean energy, as they don’t pollute the air, and they don’t contribute to global warming or greenhouse effects. Since their sources are natural the cost of operations is reduced and they also require less maintenance on their plants. A common disadvantage to all is that it is difficult to produce the large quantities of electricity their counterpart the fossil fuels are able to. Since they are also new technologies, the cost of initiating them is high.

Solar energy makes use of the sun’s energy. It is advantageous because the systems can fit into existing buildings and it does not affect land use. But since the area of the collectors is large, more materials are required. Solar radiation is also controlled by geography. And it is limited to daytime hours and non-cloudy days.

Wind energy uses the power of the wind to produce electricity. Although it is the largest job producer, it is reliant on strong winds. Wind turbines are large and, although you can use the area under them for farming, many consider them unattractive looking. They are also very noisy to operate. In addition, they threaten the wild bird population.

Hydroelectric energy uses water to produce power. This is the most reliable of all the renewable energy sources. On the down side, it affects ecology and causes downstream problems. The decay of vegetation along the riverbed can cause the buildup of methane. Methane is a contributing gas to greenhouse effect. Dams can also alter the natural river flow and affect wildlife. Colder, oxygen poor water can be released into the river, killing fish. And the release of water from the dam can cause flooding.

Geothermal energy uses steam from the Earth’s ground to generate power. It uses smaller land areas than other power plants. They can run 24 hours per day, every day of the year. Disadvantages are that it is very site specific and, along with the heat from the Earth, it can also bring up toxic chemicals when obtaining the steam. Drilling geothermal reservoirs and finding them can be an expensive task.

Biomass electricity is produced through the energies from wood, agricultural and municipal waste. It helps save on landfill waste but transportation can be expensive and ecological diversity of land may be affected. In addition, its process needs to be made simpler.

Ocean energy is a clean and abundant energy form. It does, however, have high costs. Ocean thermal energy also requires close to a forty degree Fahrenheit difference in water temperature year round. In addition, construction and laying pipes can cause damage to the ecosystem.

There are many advantages to the use of renewable energy sources. There are also some disadvantages. The fact is energy demands will continue to increase. Through research and development, as well as, new technologies, the hope is many of the disadvantages of renewable sources of energy can be eliminated and we can successfully incorporate it into our power supplies.

N.Sankari
http://www.articlesbase.com/electronics-articles/renewable-energy-707358.html

I took an Environmental Economics course in undergrad and absolutely loved it! Are there any good books out there on the subject? Nothing dry though. I’m looking for something interesting, like "Freakenomics" but with an environmental theme.

Small is Beautiful. I can’t remember the author. It was written in the sixties but I think it has been up dated.

In analyzing dozens of partnerships, some successful — and some less so — we’ve identified the following series of fundamental lessons.

1. KNOW YOUR OWN SITUATION WELL BEFORE PICKING AN APPROPRIATE PARTNER
Be clear on your environmental issues when you sit down with others. AUDIO analysis is a good place to start. Then educate yourself on your business’s key problems, and learn which groups specialize in the issues you face.

2. KNOW WITH WHOM YOU’RE DEALING
All partners, especially NGOs, are not created equal. Sustainability expert John Elkington has developed a playful, but useful, typology of NGOs. He breaks them into sharks, orcas, sea lions, and dolphins. Sharks are always on the attack, smelling blood and weakness from miles away. Orcas use fear and bullying. Sea lions play it safe and stay close to issues they know well. Dolphins are intelligent, creative, and can help fend off sharks. The point is that some NGOs are easier to work with than others. Avoid the sharks.

3. BE PATIENT
If we could share only one lesson, this would be it. Trust builds over time. It can take years to make the case internally for reaching out. As Chiquita’s Dave McLaughlin says, “We aren’t making Tang here. It isn’t just ‘add water and stir.’” Nurture long-term relationships.

4. LEARN EACH OTHER’S CULTURE AND VALUES
IKEA spent six months with World Wildlife Fund just discussing values before launching a partnership. The differences between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations can be large, but different values and cultures are not insurmountable. Still, it takes effort to learn to talk the other guy’s language.

5. SET WORKABLE GOALS
Partnership goals need to be carefully developed and specified. They must achieve environmental progress that satisfies all the partners but also be relevant to and supportive of core business objectives. Set modest short-term goals and exceed them. And never overpromise publicly.

6. ESTABLISH CHAMPIONS
Each partner needs a clear operational leader for the project and relationship. Backing from the highest level is also vital. IKEA reports regularly to the CEO on its World Wildlife Fund partnership. You also need critical line managers to climb art board. McDonald’s work on its supply chain took off only when the supply chain managers, not just the corporate responsibility people, stepped into the process.

7. THINK BIG, BUT START SMALL
The commitment to green the supply chain is a worthy goal, but it can’t be done overnight. Pilot programs provide a way to test assumptions, establish trust, and build base for bigger and broader future partnership initiatives.

8. COORDINATE COMMUNICATIONS
Great partnerships can turn sour very quickly when one side prematurely declares victory. NGOs see greenwashing and companies hear gloating. You can’t assume that the way you would talk about an issue is how the other side would. In the same spirit, don’t announce environmental breakthroughs until you have credible evidence of progress.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston

Author Bio
Daniel C. Esty, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), is the Hillhouse Professor at Yale University and Director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale (www.yale.edu/CBEY).  Author and editor of nine books and dozens of articles, Dan is one of the world’s leading corporate environmental strategy experts with twenty years of experience working with companies of all sizes and across many industries worldwide.  He served as senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1990s and is presently Chairman of Esty Environmental Partners (www.EstyEP.com).

Andrew S. Winston, co-author of Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage (Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 978-0-470-39374-1), advises some of the world’s leading companies on how to profit from environmental thinking.  He is also a highly respected and dynamic speaker, exploring the business benefits of going green with audiences around the world.  Andrew’s earlier career included corporate strategy at Boston Consulting Group and management positions in marketing and business development at Time Warner and MTV.  See www.andrewwinston.com for more information.

Daniel C. Esty And Andrew S. Winston
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/eight-lessons-learned-on-partnering-738709.html

Green design agency. It does exist. Private businesses and government institutions in the UK (as elsewhere in the world) have a number of requirements. Profit is a key driver, as are its people. The planet is the third. The “triple bottom line: as it is called (People, Profit and the Planet) underlines the need for sustainable design within the drivers of any business.

The remit of a green design agency is creating visual impact with less environmental impact, while encouraging clients to consider the environmental impact of their production.

Malcolm Buttel is director of Oxygen Creative, a graphic design agency based in Tiverton Devon.

“We took control of our environmental impact as a business, applying practical environmental management techniques to what we do. Our environmental policy details how we use less energy at work, how we only use paper from sustainable sources with bio inks in our production, and how simple things like a car sharing scheme have helped us save 1000 litres a year in petrol alone.

“I am now a member of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, and our business meets the criteria of BS8555 – the British Standard that is an equivalent to ISO14001. If nothing else, our clients know that they’re dealing with someone who takes being green seriously.”

So internal practices are important, but so is the output. It’s important that an agency considers the use of recycled paper stock with a high Post Consumer Fibre (PCF) recycled content, especially using recycled paper stock that has not been de-inked as well as unbleached or non-chlorine bleached paper stock which releases harmful toxins that could affect marine life. Think about using vegetable based printing inks such as soy inks which are renewable and emit less toxic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

So, less ink is better – but a good designer can use less ink and still create maximum impact!

Green papers could be: 100% Post-Consumer Waste (PCW)
Processed Chlorine Free (PCF)
Uncoated
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified.

Even a graphic design agency web design agency can contribute. In addition to their own green living they can host websites on greener servers where energy and CO2 is offset.

Considerations for any “marketing product” include:

* reducing the amount of materials required for production
* using paper and materials made with recycled, post-consumer waste
* printing with low-VOC inks
* what production methods require the least amount of transport
* which vendors use renewable energy
* if the product can fulfill more than one purpose
* if the end-product is biodegradable or recyclable
* if the end-product can be replaced by a digital, rather than printed, format
* just-in-time production to reduce number of units produced and warehoused
* which vendors sell products certified by third party NGOs.

Always as a design agency to show you its environmental policy and look for their certification to BS8555 or ISO14001 which shows they have independent accreditation of their dedicated to environmental management; an environmental graphic design agency such as Oxygen Creative in Tiverton, Devon serves as a benchmark.

Steve Lodge
http://www.articlesbase.com/graphic-design-articles/green-design-agency-you-can-achieve-sustainable-graphic-and-web-design-735989.html

Societal marketing: McDonald’s
Business executives are often perplexed by the continuous expansion of society’s expectations of corporations. For example, in the corporate world, numerous laws and extensive government regulation affect virtually every aspect of business activities. They touch “almost every business decision ranging from the production of goods and services to their packaging, distribution, marketing, and service” (Carroll, 1979, p. 98). Thus, not only are companies held responsible for maximizing profits for the owners and shareholders and for operating within the legal framework, they are also expected to support their employees’ quality of work life, to demonstrate their concern for the communities within which their businesses operate, to minimize the impact of various hazards on the global environment, and to engage in purely social or philanthropic endeavors.
Among researchers, this issue has provoked an especially rich and diverse literature investigating the role of business in society. Research in this area has followed two major streams. The most popular of these studies have focused on the relationship between a firm’s social responsibility and its financial performance (McGuire, J., Sundgren, A., & Scheeweis, T., 1988, p. 858). The other stream of studies has examined the effect of board members’ demographic and non-demographic characteristics on their individual corporate social responsiveness orientation (Wood, 1991, p. 389).
Since the societal marketing involves some kind of corporate response to social demands, the first step is to identify and classify the numerous social needs. There are three categories of such needs. First, survival needs consist of the various needs that are necessary for individual members of the social segment to survive, such as food, shelter, and the preservation or restoration of one’s health.
A second category is concerned with safety needs. These are the needs that are necessary to protect the members of the social segment from external and internal threats. Not only do nations have defense establishments for protection from external threats, but they also enact and enforce laws to protect individuals and groups from others in society. Such laws cover numerous areas ranging from environmental protection to safeguarding individual liberties.
The third category is composed of various growth needs which, in turn, can be broken down into material needs and spiritual needs. The former are concerned with the enrichment of the social segment through economics (the allocation of limited resources) and technology (the use of tools and techniques to generate wealth). Spiritual needs are related to the spiritual growth of the social segment; they include metaphysics, education, science, arts, and entertainment.
Social segments expect different agents to fulfill these needs. These agents can be an individual (e.g., a parent who supports a family), a group (e.g., political parties and interest groups who represent their members), a business organization (e.g., a corporation which supports inner city revitalization), a not-for-profit organization (e.g., a hospital that provides services to the community), and government (e.g., for protection from external threats). Both the type and extent of the needs to be fulfilled and the agent who is expected to satisfy these needs will depend upon the social segment’s culture and ethics, the legal environment, and the degree to which the members of the social segment perceive that such needs are not fulfilled.
As a key member of society, a corporation should take into account the societal needs that are expected to be met by business. These needs constitute a social demand. Thus, social demand incorporates not only demand for a firm’s products and services, but also extends to the fulfillment of other societal needs. With this framework in mind, it can be stated that the scope of a business organization, i.e., what products and services it provides, is determined both by the organization itself and by society’s expectations. In other words, it can be said that a given firm operating in two different social segments has, in effect, two different scopes. Failure on the part of an organization to understand and satisfy the various demands of the social segments within which it operates will lead to its rejection by society and its eventual demise. Consequently, a firm’s mission and objectives should not only address traditional organizational concerns such as profitability and markets served, but should also be concerned with determining and meeting various societal expectations.
One of the aspects of the societal marketing includes alliances that have arisen between environmentalist groups and businesses in the last decade. The new relationships have been described as path breaking and innovative (e.g., Long & Arnold, 1995; Wasik, 1996). Typically, they are distinguishable from the prior charitable (e.g., donations to or sponsorships of environmental causes) and commercial relationships (e.g., calendars, T-shirts produced for environmental groups) because they engage the expert knowledge of the environmental group and involve it, to varying degrees, in joint problem solving or strategic decision making with the corporate partner (Clair, Milliman, & Mitroff, 1995, p. 188). In this category are green product endorsements, audits by environmental groups of business programs or practices, and joint projects of the type engaged in by green alliance between McDonald’s and Environmental Defense Fund, where the corporate partner’s business practices are evaluated and improved according to ecological criteria.
Green alliances also function rhetorically in a more complex way than traditional business-environmentalist relationships. Here I follow Levy who has pointed out that environmental management – that is, corporate practices to reduce the ecological harm of economic processes – serves symbolic and political purposes by helping to construct business as green and thus to legitimate its role as manager of the natural environment (1997, p. 127). Green alliances, a strategy within corporate environmental management, also have symbolic and political value – for both partners. The corporation borrows not only the environmental expertise, but also the credibility, of the ecology group, which by its allegiance implicitly or explicitly endorses company actions – e.g., producing earth-friendly products and services or operating in pollution-free ways (Ottman, 1994, p. 86). The partnership also brings corporate actors into the group of those to be entrusted with the work of saving the earth.
McDonald’s is the leader of the fast-food industry, with worldwide operations employing approximately 500,000 people in 11,000 restaurants and serving 22 million customers a day. At the time Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) approached McDonald’s, its entanglement in controversy over its packaging frustrated the company. From EDF’s perspective, McDonald’s leadership position, its problematic history of waste management, and the iconic value of waste management as an environmental issue made the company an attractive candidate for partnership. EDF saw significant opportunity for both environmental action and a major, high visibility, opportunity to test its innovative approach to environmental problem-solving through corporate partnerships.
With environmentalism on the rise among the general public in the 1980s, consumer-driven businesses were particularly subject to and sensitive about public pressure (Livesey, 1993, pp. 2-4). Plastic had been demonized by several environmentalist organizations including the grassroots groups Greenpeace and CCHW. The use-and-dispose philosophy at the core of McDonald’s business and its distinctive plastic clamshell sandwich boxes, which helped to make the company one of the largest single users of polystyrene in the United States, had made McDonald’s a continuing target of ecology groups (Livesey, 1993, p. 4).
Throughout the late 1980s, McDonald’s instituted and publicized a number of environmentally positive steps in its domestic operations. It reduced consumption, for instance, by using lighter weight paper in straws, paper bags and other items and recycled paper and cardboard packaging. In 1987, it switched from polystyrene (used for the clamshells) blown with CFCs, the family of chemicals which destroy the ozone layer, to plastic foam that used hydrocarbon blowing agents (Annual Report, 1989, pp. 10-15). In 1989, the company instituted a pilot program in 450 New England stores to recycle its plastic clamshells (Livesey, 1993, pp. 12-14). In April, 1990, it committed $100 million, or one quarter of the company’s annual building and remodeling budget, to buy recycled materials for restaurant construction, remodeling, and operations under a program called “McRecycle” (Livesey, 1993, pp. 13-14).
In 1989 and 1990, McDonald’s bolstered its environmental management practices with a proactive public relations campaign. The centerpiece was the 1989 Annual Report, which highlighted the issue of the natural environment. McDonald’s also offered in-store flyers to educate customers about the company’s environmental management practices, policies, philosophies, and positions on particular issues such as rainforest beef and the ozone problem. Brochures on environmental topics, including packaging, were available from its public relations department. In addition, McDonald’s worked with several different environmental and nonprofit groups (e.g., the World Wildlife Fund and the Smithsonian Institution) to coproduce elementary school materials on the environment.
McDonald’s 1989 annual report represents an aggressive attempt by the company to manage the public discourse around the company’s role as an environmentally responsible corporate citizen and construct itself as green. The report belongs to the category of epideictic advocacy, the discourse of praise and blame that is commonly used to establish or consolidate value premises, especially in corporate issue management campaigns; such discourse often serves as a basis for later persuasive efforts (Cheney & Vibbert, 1987, p. 183). Epideictic rhetoric works by building on shared premises and borrowing from values and beliefs embedded in the common culture. In this case, given the new ecological awareness of the public, McDonald’s positions itself as having concerns ecological and practical, social as well as economic.
As described by the media, the 1989 Annual Report looks “more like an Audubon Society brochure than a financial statement” (Horovitz, 1991, p. D2). Nature pictures, poetry, and quotations from national and international figures prominent in the environmental movement (e.g., Gro Brundtland) are interspersed throughout the report, along with product and financial information. The cover contains a four-page foldout picture of the Northwest American forest with a quotation from Chief Seattle about man’s proper relationship to the earth. The report itself is “dedicated” to a “discussion of the [environmental] challenges which lie ahead” (McDonald’s Annual Report, 1989, p. 2). The discussion is contained in a 10-page supplement.
The themes of dialogue, rational discourse, pragmatic solutions, the value of individual effort, and stewardship or shared social responsibility for the earth that are played out in the supplement are initially articulated in the shareholders’ letter. This letter is as notable for what it omits as for what it says. It at once implicates the reader, inviting dialogue, and yet leaves the situation ambiguous, particularly vis-a-vis the company’s responsibility and intentions.
The supplement contains several distinct parts: an answer to a letter from Dan Getty, an 11-year-old boy who calls for responsible action from McDonald’s (Annual Report, 1989, pp. 7-8); a general outline of McDonald’s philosophy and historical commitment to “responsible [environmental] conduct,” including company founder Ray Kroc’s mandate to crews to clean up litter near McDonald’s restaurants (p. 9); three sections addressing facts and expert opinions about solid waste management, resource conservation, and recycling (pp. 10-15); and a collective call “to Help [sic]” in solving the challenge of the environment (p. 16).
The letter of response to 11-year-old Dan Getty illustrates several of the rhetorical strategies McDonald’s uses to achieve a symbolic identification with its customers and the general public. First, McDonald’s constructs itself as a naive, non-expert, and innocent individual actor. Like Dan Getty and “people of all ages,” McDonald’s is “asking questions about our environment” and learning that the answers to environmental issues are “complex” (Annual Report, 1989, p. 7). It eschews inaction in the face of complexity: “It’s easy for each of us to claim we’re not responsible for these complex forces. But then we have to ask, ‘Who is?’ “(p. 8). At the same time, it sounds a cautionary note: It is important “to do what is environmentally sound, when the responsible course of action becomes clear” (p. 7). Who or what will provide clarity leading to action is left ambiguous.
Second, McDonald’s positions itself as one of a community of stewards of the earth: “Each of us, knowing what we have at stake, must make a commitment to a course of action that will preserve and enhance the environment we hold in trust for future generations. . . . You can count us in” (p. 8). Through appeal to the words of Gala theory originator James Lovelock – “It’s personal action that counts” (quoted in McDonald’s, 1989, p. – and founder Ray Kroc’s dictum – “None of us is as good as all of us” (quoted in Annual Report, 1989, p. – the boy’s call for help from McDonald’s is transformed into a call for everyone to act. The actions and identification that it invites are personal. Identifying with its customers, McDonald’s asks that they identify with it. McDonald’s puts itself on a level with the 11-year-old. Thus, through rhetorical sleight, of-hand – in Cheney’s (1992) words “the sheer juxtaposition of images . . . as a substitute for reasoned discourse, for argument” (p. 174) – McDonald’s equates natural persons with the corporate persona, and power differences – the differences between producer and consumer, corporate giant and small child – are made to disappear: The people at McDonald’s, no different from people everywhere, must act to save the earth. Of course, at one level, McDonald’s people are like people everywhere and, like them, probably hold a range of opinions about the problem of the natural environment. However, at another level and at the same time, McDonald’s people constitute a corporate body.
McDonald’s defends its environmental record by listing specific actions that it has taken to manage waste and conserve resources by reducing, reusing and recycling materials. It cites experts who support its position on plastic packaging and who point out the small contribution of the entire quick-service restaurant industry to America’s waste. It also criticizes “the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ syndrome – or NIMBY” (for instance, people in McDonald’s communities who opposed company incinerators in their neighborhoods) as posing barriers to responsible waste solutions (Annual Report, 1989, p. 11).
Also, McDonald’s emphasizes individual personal action: Plant a tree, switch off a light, recycle a clamshell. Yet, it also describes itself as a proactive corporate actor looking for opportunities to work with individuals, public officials, and other companies, as well as with the communities we serve.
The more McDonald’s constituted itself as “green,” the more it was required to accommodate environmental issues affected by its business practices. McDonald’s attempts at recycling, resource reduction, incineration, and the like were not simply symbolic. The company was both the subject and the object of its own eco-discourse. The emerging storyline it constructed had positive environmental effects at the material level, in addition to opening the company to potential dialogue with EDF.
In April 1991, the McDonald’s-EDF joint task force released its final product, a corporate waste reduction policy and a comprehensive waste reduction action plan with 42 initiatives. Many real environmental improvements were generated by the task force. For instance, environmental criteria were integrated into corporate packaging decisions which before had been driven by quality and cost criteria (see McDonald’s Final Report, 1991). The media mostly praised the results of the alliance (Reinhardt, 1992, p. 14), and the story was recycled over several years (e.g. Gutfeld, 1992). Ultimately, the partnership entered the green business literature as a milestone marking a change in the relationships between business and environmental groups (Long, F. J., & Arnold, M. B., 1995, p. 80).
Thus, McDonald’s steps in managing environmental issues are the examples of societal marketing. People become increasingly aware of the damage that can be caused to the environment by products, packaging, by-products and production processes. They may gradually learn to adopt more environmentally friendly products and, in particular, reject throwaway products. Green issues are increasingly seen as important by consumers and this is being reflected in the types of products consumers want to use. Organizations have to change the nature of their products to meet these requirements. Many companies appear to possess a social conscience or see the benefits of meeting the demands of green issues; this is the case with McDonald’s.
The belief that environmental responsibility is now a corporate function is based on research indicating that consumers want such changes and will theoretically repay industry investments by accepting higher prices. In a survey by Dagnoli (1990), 82% of the respondents claimed to have changed their purchasing decisions because of environmental concerns. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed also reported that a company’s environmental reputation influenced their choice of brands. Environmentalism is enough of a concern that 78% of the respondents said they would switch to an environmental container if it were priced 5% higher than a less-environmentally friendly container. Another 47% said they would pay as much as 15% more for environmental packaging.
Businesses currently involved with the environmental movement have noticed the increasing number of markets influenced by environmentally concerned consumers, and naturally are hoping this trend can boost their companies’ long run profits. Proactive companies like McDonald’s are attempting to take leadership roles in the area of environmentally friendly products in order to gain a competitive advantage (Smyth, 1991, p. 70).
For McDonald’s, environmental marketing has become one of the primary societal marketing tools. Although much confusion still exists concerning the specifics of green marketing, one thing that has been learned is that consumers will not always pay more for green products (Winski, 1991, p. 3). Despite consumer claims to the contrary, the initial sales of environmentally friendly products and packaging have been slow (Reitman, 1992, B1). Recent trends indicate a lack of willingness to actually pay premium prices for such products (Wasik, 1992, p. 17).
Thus, today’s market for environmentally-friendly goods is greater than ever. To capitalize on this movement, managers and marketers, as McDonald’s case shows, must promote the environmental benefits of their products and maintain prices in a range near that of their competitors that do not emphasize environmental concerns. Promoting the environmental friendliness of products will be most attractive to some customers, while attributes aimed at convenience will be attractive to others. Although these aspects of the product mix are important, competitive pricing of environmentally-friendly goods may be the key to capturing a significant market share. Once high market shares are reached, cost reduction programs should allow producers to increase profit margins from green products.

Andrew Sandon
http://www.articlesbase.com/marketing-articles/societal-marketing-mcdonalds-75498.html

International Company and Ethics
The issue of business ethics is engaging companies more and more – both domestically and internationally. This trend is accentuated by high-profile examples of breaches of accepted standards of ethical behavior. For example, the recent Enron case where inadequate checks and balances within the firm enabled unethical behavior to occur, a development made easier by the failure of the external auditor to fulfill its role properly. Assumptions about ethics and business are influenced inevitably by fundamental beliefs about the role of business in society. On the one hand, there are those who believe that the sole social responsibility of business is to generate profit. For some proponents of this view, profit generation itself takes on a moral dimension whereas others see profits as the key to wealth generation – the main way of addressing social issues (Davies, 1997, p. 88). On the other hand, others believe that the role of business is much broader than that of profit generation and that all those who are affected by the way a company operates – shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the local community, future generations (especially in relation to environmental issues) – have a legitimate interest and stake in the way a company conducts itself.
Many of these concerns are relevant to business whether it is domestic or international in nature. However, international business poses particular challenges and questions over and above those facing purely domestic business. In order to reconcile doing business internationally and remain ethical, the company should follow the main principles of human rights, comply with legal norms related to labor, avoid corruption and correspond to standards of environmental protection. Even though it is not easy to combine making profit and adjusting to ethical principles, sometimes failure to comply with legal norms and standards my result in negative public image for the international company and loss of customers. Therefore, international company can suffer even more damages if it decides not to follow the ethical principles.
The first issue related to ethics is human rights. It is a generally accepted principle that international company should not engage in direct infringement of human rights the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is commonly taken as the appropriate benchmark. However, some people would go further, preferring companies to refrain from doing business in countries known to infringe human rights on a systematic basis. Opponents of this view argue that if an international company abstains from conducting business in a country with an ethically dubious regime, the only concrete result is to hand over business opportunities to companies without such reservations (Barlett and Ghoshall, 1998, p. 110).
On coming to office in 1992, for example, President Clinton proposed to withdraw MFN status from China as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 in which many pro-democracy demonstrators were killed (Kepstein, 2001, p. 108). Such action would have provoked retaliation against US companies operating in China and US business lobbied hard to persuade the president to change his mind. They argued that US business interests would be irrevocably damaged in a rapidly growing market and that the outcome would not be an improvement in human rights in China but a boost to the business prospects of American business rivals in China. The lobbying campaign was successful: the link between trade and human rights was broken and replaced by the doctrine that the possibility of bringing about change is greater if business and other links and contacts are maintained.
International labor issues can be linked with human rights, especially regarding matters of forced labor and child labor. Ethical labor issues also occur outside the framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in circumstances where certain labor practices may be legal and commonplace in the host country but do not necessarily represent fair and equitable treatment of the workforce. The issue facing an international company is: does it maximize its competitive advantage by locating in a low-cost/low-regulation country and adopt local practices or does it refrain from reaping all the labor cost benefits by adopting higher standards and more ethical practices than strict compliance with local legal norms requires? A firm may choose to take the latter path and still experience significant competitiveness gains.
Corporate codes of conduct governing general corporate behavior and treatment of the workforce in particular are not new. Their modern manifestation began in the mid-twentieth century in the form of codes from the International Chamber of Commerce and other collective codes (Donaldson, 1989, p. 55). Their popularity surged once more in the 1990s in response to pressure from NGOs, the emergence of corporate social responsibility as a key consideration for firms and the phenomenon of socially responsible investment and shareholder action. Additionally, discussion of the possible inclusion of labour regulation under the WTO umbrella encouraged international firms to assume greater responsibility for their own labor standards, if only to demonstrate that international regulation was unnecessary. Corporate codes of conduct take many forms. Many international firms have developed their own individual codes to cover their own employees and those of their contractors and suppliers. Some industries have developed their own codes. Whatever form they take, codes are necessary for the positive public image of international company and they demonstrate that the company reconciles doing business and acting ethically. Codes need to comply with a number of conditions before they can be said to operate equitably and with credibility (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 88):
1.the contents of the code must be clearly worded and, at a minimum, comply with core standards;
2.the company adopting the code must be committed to it and be prepared to provide the resources to ensure its implementation, including training, information systems for monitoring and compliance and staff to implement new procedures;
3.knowledge of the code throughout the organization is essential to its implementation: in particular, employees of the firm and its subcontractors and suppliers must know of the contents of the code and a reporting system must be established that enables workers to report infringements without fear of reprisals;
4.the code should be subject to verification by independent assessors who have access to the site unannounced at any time.
The application of such codes can enhance internal governance and facilitate internal management across geographically dispersed sites. There is some evidence to show that real commercial benefits can be gained from the proper application of fair and equitable labor standards, although more widespread research needs to be done on this (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 111). Provided the code of conduct adopted by a firm has external credibility, it can both protect and enhance a firm’s reputation, particularly important these days when more is expected of firms in terms of corporate social responsibility.
Levi Strauss is one of the world’s largest brand-name clothes manufacturers and also one of the first international companies to adopt a corporate code of conduct to apply to all contractors who manufacture and finish its products and to aid selection of which countries in which to operate (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 118). The Code of Conduct has two parts:
1.Business partner terms of engagement: Levi Strauss uses these to select business partners that follow workplace standards and practices consistent with its policies and to help identify potential problems. In addition to meeting acceptable general ethical standards, complying with all legal requirements and sharing Levi Strauss’s commitment to the environment and community involvement, Levi Strauss’s business partners must adhere to the following employment guidelines:
-Wages and benefits: business partners must comply with any applicable law and the prevailing manufacturing and finishing industry practices.
-Working hours: partners must respect local legal limits on working hours and preference will be given to those who operate less than a 60-hour working week. Levi Strauss will not use partners that regularly require workers to work in excess of 60 hours. Employees should also have at least one day off per week.
-Child labor: use of child labor is not permissible in any of the facilities of the business partner. Workers must not be below 15 years of age or below the compulsory school age.
-Disciplinary practices: Levi Strauss will not use business partners who use corporal punishment or other forms of physical or mental coercion.
-Prison/forced labor: no prison or forced labor is to be used by business partners nor will Levi Strauss use or buy materials from companies using prison or forced labor.
-Freedom of association: the rights of workers to join unions and to bargain collectively must be respected.
-Discrimination: while respecting cultural differences, Levi Strauss believes workers should be employed on the basis of their ability to do their job
-Health and safety: Levi Strauss undertakes to use business partners who provide a safe and healthy working environment and, where appropriate residential facilities
2.Country assessment guidelines: these are used to address broad issues beyond the control of individual business and are intended to help Levi Strauss assess the degree to which its global reputation and success may be exposed to unreasonable risk. It was an adverse country assessment that caused Levi Strauss to cease its engagement in China in the early 1990s, largely on human rights grounds – a decision that has subsequently been reversed. In particular, the company assesses whether:
-the brand image will be adversely affected by the perception or image of a country among customers;
-the health and safety of employees and their families will be exposed to unreasonable risk;
-the human rights environment prevents the company from conducting business activities in a manner consistent with the global guidelines and other company policies;
-the legal system prevents the company from adequately protecting trademarks, investments or other commercial interests;
-the political, economic and social environment protects the company’s commercial interests and brand corporate image.
Levi Strauss is the example of the company that successfully combines doing business and following ethical practices. As we see, the company code of ethics demonstrates that Levi Strauss complies with the most labor norms and environmental standards; at the same time such actions of the company do not have any negative impact upon its business. On the contrary, since Levi Strauss has positive public image the customers should be more attracted to its products.
Some of the other important ethical issues that the company should consider is bribery and corruption. Bribery/corruption is not as clear-cut an issue as might first appear; indeed it can be rather a grey area. In some cultures, it is regarded as perfectly normal to give an official or host a gift (Asgary and Mitschow, 2002, p. 245). In others, only minimal value token gifts or no gifts at all are allowed. A problem arises when it is the norm for a contract to be signed only after the payment of a ‘commission’ to a key official or officials (Asgary and Mitschow, 2002, p. 240). Such circumstances place international companies in a difficult position: without payment of these commissions, the contract will not materialize and, if they do not make the payment, many other companies will (although that is not an ethical justification for going ahead with the commission). The position of the US is unequivocal about this: it regards all such payments as bribes and, as such, they are both unethical and illegal. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Law forbids US companies from making improper payments to foreign governments, politicians or political parties to obtain or retain business. Therefore, the only choice that American companies have regarding bribery is not to make any payments regarded as bribes; otherwise, it can be considered that a company violates the law.
The last ethical challenge that international companies face is related to environmental protection. Firms can encounter damaging publicity as a result of the environmental outcome of their activities as pollution attracts more and more media attention (Barlett and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 98). For many, environmental protection and corporate responsibility in this field has a clear ethical dimension. This debate is couched in terms of the ‘global commons’ in which all human beings have both a stake and a responsibility to ensure the well-being of the environment for future generations (Donaldson, 1989, p. 211).
In order to reconcile doing business and meeting environmental ethical standards an international company should comply with the following underlying principles in environmental policy.
The first norm refers to the “polluter pays principle.” It stipulates that polluters should pay the full cost of the environmental damage they cause (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 100). Environmental costs are often referred to as ‘externalities’ (for example, damage to health, rivers, the air, etc. arising from economic activity) that are not incorporated into the costs of a product but are borne by society as a whole (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 100). By making the polluter pay the full cost of its activities, including externalities, this principle provides an incentive to make products less polluting and/or to reduce the consumption of polluting goods. This internalization of external costs can be met through the use of market-based, policy instruments.
The other principle refers to prevention. If the company decides to follow the prevention principle it changes to products and processes to prevent environmental damage occurring rather than relying on remedial action to repair damage after it has taken place (Davies, 1997, p. 108). This implies the development of ‘clean technologies’; minimal use of natural resources; minimal releases into the atmosphere, water and soil; and maximization of the recyclability and lifespan of products.
In conclusion, international business adds an extra dimension to ethical issues within the firm. All organizations have their own culture based on common language and terminology, behavioral norms, dominant values, informality/formality, etc. This inevitably becomes more complex when an organization has a presence in more than one country. Some companies believe a strong corporate culture is a means of overcoming diverse national cultures whereas others evolve different cultures in different organizations and incorporate cultural diversity in their management strategy. Many organizations like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s do use core brands but still adapt their products for local markets and follow ethical standards, either out of necessity or to maximize returns. Ethics and corporate social responsibility are closely related. Debates about corporate social responsibility have been dominated by labor and environmental issues but a growing number of corporate governance scandals involving multinationals is increasing pressure for stricter regulation. International companies can reconcile doing business internationally and remaining ethical if they comply with labor and environmental norms enacted at the international level and establish and follow the code of ethics. In the long run, corporate commitment to sound ethical principles and socially responsible behavior is good for business.
Produced by ProfEssays ( www.professays.com ) – professional custom essay writing service: custom essays, custom term papers, custom academic papers, custom research papers, compositions, book reports, case study. No plagiarism, high quality, prompt delivery.

Andrew Sandon
http://www.articlesbase.com/ethics-articles/international-company-and-ethics-67615.html