Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:10:53.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of the Priorities of ‘Actors’ in the Framework of Environmental Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Michael G. Royston  and
Joseph C. Perkowski
Michael G. Royston
Affiliation:
Faculty Member, Environmental Management, Centre d'Etudes Industrielles, 1231 Conches, Geneva, Switzerland
Joseph C. Perkowski
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One major source of uncertainty in industrial planning is due to the conflicting uses of environmental components by the proponent of an action and the various ‘actors’ who share the proponent's environment. These actors may be government agencies, health authorities, conservancy organizations, or individual citizens. As they all share the environment with the proponent of the action, there should also be a sharing of the decision-making process.

Difficulties of identifying potential actors at the non-governmental level can be reduced by undertaking a rigorous analysis of the environmental components, of the uses which they serve, of the way in which the uses may be impaired by proposed activities, and hence of which users are most likely to be concerned.

The result of such an approach, which constitutes a new style of management ‘from the outside–in’ rather than ‘from the inside–out’, is that industry must involve itself in a broader-based and more imaginative planning process than hitherto. Failure by industry to do this will result in either a progressive erosion of the freedom of decision-making (by increased government interference) or in progressive blocking of industry's plans and consequently a reduction in its ability to achieve its corporate objectives of profit–growth–security in the face of conflict over its operations, its siting proposals, and its products.

Suitable realization by managements of the interdependence of their actions with those of others should lead to the addition of a truly environmental dimension to their traditional function—even without the governmental intervention and pressure-group counteractivity which have become increasingly evident with the growth of the environmental movement in recent years.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Summer 1975 , pp. 137 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1965). Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: xi + 193 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Anon. (1974). Hier entsteht ein neuer Ruhrpott. Spiegel Report über die Industrialisierung der Unterelbe. Der Spiegel, Nr. 44, 10 28, pp. 49–67.Google Scholar
Boddewyn, Jean (1974). External affairs: a corporate function in search of conceptualisation and theory. Organisation and Administrative Sciences, 5, pp. 67–111.Google Scholar
Brooks, Harvey (1964). The scientific advisor. Pp. 73–96 in Scientists and National Policy-making (Ed. Gilpin, Robert & Wright, Christopher). Columbia University Press, New York & London: x + 212 pp.Google Scholar
Bryan, William L. (1974). Toward a viable environmental movement. J. Appl. Behavioral Sci., 10, pp. 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Eleanor (1972). Expanding the Environmental Responsibility of Local Government. Center for Public Affairs, Claremont, California: iii + 60 pp.Google Scholar
Craik, Kenneth H. (1970). The environmental dispositions of environmental decision-makers. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 389, pp. 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladwin, Thomas N. & Royston, Michael G. (in press). An environmentally-oriented mode of industrial project planning. Environmental Conservation.Google Scholar
Gregory, Roy (1974). Planning control of large energy projects. New Scientist, 63, pp. 796–800.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Klaus (1974). Ein Schuss ins Blaue. Manager Magazin, Nr. 11, pp. 55–63.Google Scholar
Kaynor, Edward R. & Howards, Irving (1973). Attitudes, Values and Perceptions in Water Resources Decision-making within a Metropolitan Area. University of Massachusetts Publication, Amherst, Massachusetts: iii + 140 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kotler, Philip (1972). Marketing Management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey: xiv + 885 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Like, Irving (1971). Multi-media confrontation—the environmentalists strategy for a no-win agency proceeding. Ecology Law Quarterly, 1, pp. 489–95.Google Scholar
Macneill, J. W. (1971). Environmental Management: Constitutional Study Prepared for the Government of Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa: xiv + 191 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Matthews, William H. (1975). Objective and subjective judgements in environmental impact analysis. Environmental Conservation, 2(2), pp. 121–31, 1 fig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, Anthony M. (1974). On participation in political protest movements. J. Appl. Behavioral Sci., 10, pp. 181–207.Google Scholar
Perl, Martin L. (1972). The scientific advisory system: some observations. Science, 177, pp. 1166–71.Google Scholar
U. N. (1972). United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Press release HE/79, 20 06, 5 pp.Google Scholar
Ven, Andrew H., van der Emmett, Dennis C. & Koenig, Richard Jr., (1974). Frameworks for interorganizational analysis. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 5, pp. 113–29.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas W. Jr., (1971). International Environmental Action—a Global Survey. Dunellen Publishing Company, New York: xviii + 364 pp., illustr.Google Scholar