Guest column Clean Products and Processes 2 (2001) 189–191 Q Springer-Verlag 2001

189

Clean products in a complex worldBrad Allenby

Braden R. Allenby is the Environ-ment, Health and Safety Vice Presi-dent for AT&T and an adjunctprofessor at Columbia University. Hegraduated cum laude from YaleUniversity in 1972, received his JurisDoctor from the University of Viri-ginia Law School in 1978, his Mastersin Economics from the University ofVirginia in 1979, his Masters in Envi-ronmental Sciences from RutgersUniversity in the Spring of 1989, andhis Ph.D. in Environmental Sciencesfrom Rutgers in 1992. He is co-authoror author of several engineering text-books, including Industrial Ecology(Prentice-Hall, 1995), IndustrialEcology and the Automobile (Pren-tice-Hall, 1997), and IndustrialEcology: Policy Framework andImplementation (Prentice-Hall, 1999).

One of the fundamental advances inthe way we think about environ-mental issues has been the shift offocus from remediation of existingenvironmental problems to designingenvironmentally preferable processes,operations, and products from thebeginning. This is, however, a farmore complicated approach to envi-ronmental management and regula-tion, and, if improperly implemented,can have significant negative effects.Learning how to think about thisrelatively new challenge is obviouslyan important task. In this column,therefore, I will suggest a conceptualhierarchy to facilitate such a task,using examples from the informationindustry. Simply put, as one movesfrom “traditional” end-of-pipe manu-facturing compliance technologies, tomanufacturing processes, to productsand product design, to use of theproducts, the complexity of theissues, as well as the uncertainties,increase dramatically. Using thewrong assumption set under thesecircumstances can be environmen-tally and economically counterpro-ductive.

The first stage, compliance withemissions regulations during manu-facture, is both familiar and well-studied; both benefits and drawbacksare well studied, and the necessaryunderlying methodologies and tech-nologies are well established. Whilethe simplest stage conceptually, it isalso one of the most important inmaintaining local environmentalquality.

But there is a large gap betweenthis traditional form of regulationand any other stage of the hierarchy.End-of-pipe technologies are onlyloosely coupled to the underlyingproduct and manufacturing systems,so if a wrong decision is made – say,an inappropriate level of technolo-

gical control selected – the “wasted”capital costs are relatively small, andalternatives can be easily imple-mented. Once one moves to manu-facturing process or product design,or product lifecycle management,however, technological choicesbecome coupled with other technolo-gies, and embedded in complex tech-nology systems. They cannot easily orinexpensively be reversed. Compare,for example, the difference between ascrubber on top of a facility, andintroducing MTBE (methyl tertiarybutyl ether) into gasoline. Both areaimed at maintaining air quality, butthe costs of reversing an inappro-priate decision are far different. OnceMTBE is introduced, because it iscoupled to other technologies (forexample, petroleum refining technol-ogies, gasoline distribution systems,underground tank systems), it cannoteasily be pulled from the market, andits environmental impacts are farwider because it is an integral part ofa market technology, not a controltechnology. Replacing scrubbers maycost thousands of dollars; the MTBEexperience will cost billions.

However, the second stage – tochange manufacturing processesthemselves – can be a desirable andmore robust way to achieve cleanerproduction, so long as the cautionsabove are borne in mind. Forexample, switching from a chlori-nated solvent cleaning system to anaqueous cleaning system is the mostfailsafe way to eliminate many oppor-tunities for accidental spills ormishaps involving a hazardous mate-rial. It may, however, have otherimplications: for example, aqueouscleaning systems often require moreenergy than equivalent chlorinatedsolvent-based systems. Moreover,process and product design are notindependent. Thus, for example,

190

when AT&T switched some of theircleaning systems from chlorinatedsolvents to aqueous, it had to rede-sign its circuit boards by replacingopen relays with sealed relays,because the open ones were corrodedby water. Thus, even material andprocess substitutions that look simpleon their face often have unexpectedimplications because they are an inte-gral part of a complicated productdesign and manufacturing system.This example also illustrates ageneral principle that is easily under-stood but often difficult to implementin practice: perhaps the most criticalstep in defining any technology orproduct as “green” is drawing theappropriate boundary around theanalysis. Regardless of how rigorousthe assessment methodology is, theinitial step of drawing the boundaryis frequently almost entirelydependent on good judgment.

The third stage is to design theproduct properly: after all, around75–80% of a product’s environmentalimpact is fixed as a result of itsdesign. Here one enters new policyrealms – product takeback, forexample – and a much more complexintellectual structure, captured by theconcept of industrial ecology. Somethings are clear: any analysis thatdoes not extend over the lifecycle ofthe product is probably questionable,for example. But there are productsand there are products. A major cate-gory of product is “dispersive,” orconsumed during use: think of thingsas disparate as tires, food, pesticides,or petroleum. With such products,toxicity of any components or impu-rities has to be a major considera-tion, since exposure is in many caseslikely. Beyond dispersive products,one must also differentiate, at least,between “simple” and “complex”products. A “simple” product is onewhose function is dependent prima-rily on material composition (paper,perhaps, or aluminum foil), while a“complex” product is one whosefunction is dependent on intellectualcapital (a computer or airplane, forexample). A life cycle assessment toolthat is useful for a “simple” productis unlikely to be useful for a“complex” one.

Finally, it is important to recog-nize that in many cases in developed

economies it is not products, butservices, that provide final quality-of-life to the consumer. Thus, forexample, people don’t buy automo-biles because they like a ton and ahalf of material in their driveway, nordo they buy a computer because theyyearn for plastic. Rather, they arebuying the functionality – and, in areal sense, it is this functionality inthe context of the real worldeconomy that in most casesoutweighs by a considerable amountthe environmental and social impactsof other levels of the hierarchy.Consider the hypothetical productionof a computer specialized to enablethe destruction of rain forests: themanufacturing facility may be state ofthe art, the computer design itselfflawless, but few would consider theresult to be anything but an environ-mental abomination. Or consider amore realistic product: the modernlarge airplane. One could understandand manage the environmentalimpacts of the manufacturingprocess, the material selection, theproduct design – and still not capturethe major impacts of the technology,which enables tourism and travel ona scale unprecedented in history, andthe concomitant major, if unpredict-able and uncertain, environmentalchanges. But how much of thisshould be attributed to the tech-nology, especially as importantcomponents of the problem arerelated to demographic and economicchanges (globalization of economicactivity; people living longer with theresources and the health to travel)? Isa modern jet green or not, and bywhat criteria? And note that we aredriven to care deeply about this ques-tion not merely by intellectualcuriosity, but because that’s what’shappening in the actual world. Thedilemma is that, hard and intractableas these issues may be, we cannot ingood conscience ignore them,because they are real.

Let me close by applying thisschematic model to the telecommuni-cations industry. Compliance withend-of-pipe regulations is, of course,assumed. Moreover, process designand product design in the electronicsmanufacturing sector has long beensubject to Design for Environmentapproaches: while there is always a

lot that can be done, products areincreasingly designed to be environ-mentally preferable across their lifecycle. One driver for this evolution,of course, is product takeback – so,in this case, it is not just physicaldesign, but product management,that must be considered as part ofthe package of a “green” approach.In the case of telcom systems, anumber of products are combinedinto a physical network, consisting ofswitches, landlines, wireless systems,customer premises and wirelessequipment, internet routers, and theequipment necessary to support suchnetworks – vehicles, manned andunmanned switch locations, etc. Thisforms yet another level at whichenvironmental issues must beaddressed – the level of physicalinfrastructure.

Finally, however, it must be recog-nized that the raison d’être formobilizing all these materials, themanufacturing processes, productdesign, and network operation is toprovide services. Here we truly gobeyond the state of the art. We maybegin to understand some of theimplications of a service such as tele-work in a “triple bottom line”context, where the economic, envi-ronmental, and social dimensions areall evaluated. Data obtained fromAT&T’s annual survey of its tele-workers (about 25% of AT&T’smanagement employees telework oneor more days a week) indicate thatteleworkers are more efficient andproductive, as well as more satisfiedwith their job, personal life, andfamily life. Environmentally, ofcourse, telework has the immediateeffect of reducing automobile emis-sions and thus contributing to globalclimate change and local photochem-ical smog production; it also savesresources. Last year, for example,AT&T estimates that its teleworkingprogram saved emissions of55,000 tons of carbon dioxide,380,000 tons of hydrocarbons, 2.9million tons of carbon monoxide,and 200,000 tons of nitrogen oxides,as well as saving 5.6 million gallonsof gasoline. Data also indicate that,contrary to some concerns, tele-workers did not do errands or other-wise drive when working at home inpatterns that reduced or eliminated

191

the benefits of teleworking. Still,there is a lot we don’t yet knowabout the longer term social,economic, and environmental impli-cations of telework – and yet it is aservice that, all things considered, iswell understood. When one turns toa service that is both newer andgrowing far more rapidly, e-commerce, both our knowledge andour analytic ability are overwhelmed.What does it mean, for example, toask what the “life cycle impacts” of e-commerce are? Or what its social andenvironmental impacts are right now,much less will be in the future? And,more difficult yet, what are the “lifecycle impacts” of the Internet? It is

not too much to say that we haven’ta clue.

And yet, services such as e-commerce are precisely the mecha-nisms by which many products –such as the personal computers,network switches, Internet routers,and communications devices of manykinds – both fulfill their function forconsumers and generate their mostprofound social and environmentaleffects. They cannot be left out ofassessments of products, manufac-turing, or material selection. It isonly at this highest level, the level ofthe service or function provided, thatwe can truly understand what a cleanproduct or process is. That does not

mean we should stop working onmethodologies applicable to manufac-turing or product design or eliminateend-of-pipe controls, of course.Rather, it calls us to strive to under-stand these activities and products intheir real world context, so that wecan be comfortable that the steps wetake, at whatever level, are appro-priate and truly environmentallypreferable. Finally, the complexity ofthese situations serves as a usefulcaution: our ignorance is substantial,and we underestimate it at not justour peril – but the peril of our envi-ronment as well.