Introduction
Management of organizations has become more focused on corporate social responsibility due to the effects the change in the environment has on the performance of the organizations (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Organizations have to find ways to conserve the environment.
Their activities should take into consideration the impact on the environment. Conservation of the environment has become a strategic focus for most organizations. This is because it enhances the sustainability of the business and also enhances the corporate image of the organization. Different policies could be adopted to reduce the number of emissions from a local plant.
Policies Recommended
One policy I would use to reduce the number of emissions from a local power plant is to change the power used in the plant (Hussein, 2004). Some sources of energy contribute to pollution than others. For instance, the use of petrol as a source of power produces more emissions than the use of electricity. I would therefore make use of electricity or any other renewable source of energy that is more environmentally friendly. This could ensure efficiency in the power plant besides eliminating or reducing emissions into the environment. Most power plants make use of coal which produces more emissions than solar energy or wind energy. Adoption of this policy could be quite expensive to the power plant but I would recommend that it be implemented in several phases (Morgeinstern & Portney, 2004).
Another policy I would adopt is to recycle waste products from the power plant. I would seek to ensure that all the by-products from the power plant are put into productive use. There are a lot of waste products that are emitted into the environment and they become pollutants. They could be recycled and put to better use. This would have the advantage of reducing the number of emissions into the environment and at the same time enhancing the profitability of the organization.
The waste products can be made to be of economic value through recycling. For instance, plastic papers used to wrap some of the purchases for the power plant could be melted and made into plastic materials such as buckets and toys (Biswas, 2007).
Why the Policies Would Work
I am convinced that the policies outlined above would work for various reasons. One of the reasons is that the policies are realistic and they have been tried elsewhere and they have worked. It is not the first time for organizations to consider adopting renewable and environmental sources of energy and also consider recycling waste products.
The two policies have been tried by other organizations to be economically and financially feasible. Another reason why the two policies would be effective in reducing the number of emissions is that they are more reliable than most other policies (Biswas 2007).
I am convinced the policies would work because I would first seek support from all employees, management, and all the concerned parties. The policies do not hurt the interests of any of the concerned parties and therefore the chances of those policies receiving unanimous support are very high. The management will be eager to earn extra revenue for the organization and enhance a good image of the company among other benefits (Werther & Chandler, 2010).
Benefits of Each Action
The policies I have recommended have several benefits besides that of reduction of emission of wastes into the environment.
The first and most important benefit is that it would be a way of complying with various legislations that seek to conserve the environment. Most governments and environmental sustainability organizations have proposed and even developed legal frameworks to reduce emissions into the environment.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) of the United States has proposed pollution controls (Jacobson, 2009). The two policies would therefore help the power plant to comply with some legal provisions.
Another main benefit that the power plant would gain from the two policies is an increase in revenue.
Recycling waste products would create value and by-products which would be of economic value to the power plant and the economy as a whole. This will mount to additional revenue for the power plant. Substitution of coal with solar energy or wind energy would increase the reliability and profitability of the power plant. This is because wind and solar energy are renewable and they are more efficient than coal energy. This would mean more profitability in the long run. The new policies will reduce some costs such as the cost of enhancing safety, the cost of dumping waste products, and other related costs (Hussein, 2004).
Another benefit is that the new policies would make the power plant a safer place to work in. Coal has emissions that affect the health of the employees. Substitution of coal with wind or solar energy would make the place more secure and the company will be able to attract top talent in the organization. This is because potential employees will perceive a low health risk of working in the power plant (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
The two policies would create a positive image of the power plant to the general public. The public has been up in arms trying to compel organizations to reduce pollutants being emitted into the environment. The proposed policies would make the general public very happy and enhance the good image of the power plant to the public. This is a big asset that could become useful to the power plant in times of crisis. Adoption of the two policies would create employment for the locals. This is because recycling of the waste products would create another line of business which would necessitate a new workforce (Biswas, 2007).
The Costs for the Actions
The policies proposed come along with their costs. Replacement of the coal energy source with solar or wind energy would require huge investments. The power plant would have to incur capital costs of purchasing other machinery and employing qualified people to run the new machinery. The power plant would also need to purchase equipment and machines for recycling the waste products. New employees would also be required therefore there is a cost of recruitment and selection of employees. There is also a social cost associated with the two policies. These policies would render the services of some employees irrelevant and the power plant would have to lay them off. The services of employees who have specialized in coal technology will not be required in the power plant. The power plant should therefore be prepared to incur huge capital outlay but the reduce amount of usage of working capital in the future (Biswas, 2007; Hussein, 2004).
How to Decide the Best Level of Emission Reduction
It is hard to decide the optimum or the best level for emission reduction to the power plant. It is not logical to aim at reducing emissions to zero and it is also dangerous not to reduce emissions. There are many factors to be considered in deciding the optimum level. One way to decide the best level of emission reduction is the use of the economic model of cost-benefit analysis. The attempts to reduce the level of emission should not overcome the benefits that an organization and the environment will get from the reduction in the emission. In other words, organizations should understand that emission reduction has benefits as well as costs. A cost-benefit model would thus recommend the level of reduction in emission up to a point where the benefits outweigh the costs (Hussein 2004).
The best level of emission could also be determined through the use of regulation provisions. Governments and organizations have sought the help of an expert to determine the best level of reduction in emissions. These levels are mostly incorporated in legal frameworks for environmental control. Therefore, the best level of reduction of emissions would be a level that has been recommended by the experts or legal provisions on conservation of the environment.
Conclusion
Emission reduction has become a strategic issue in organizations. Apart from ensuring the sustainability of the environment in the future, this focus has other benefits. These benefits include the realization of extra revenue, compliance with environmental laws, ensuring profitability in the long run, and building on the corporate image of the organization among others. However, the reduction of emissions comes with huge costs in terms of investments and other social implications. It is, therefore, a tricky affair for an organization to set the best level for reduction of emissions. A proposed method of setting the optimum level of reduction in emissions is the cost-benefit analysis. An organization could also follow a legal framework to achieve the optimum level of reduction in emissions (Morgenstern & Portney, 2004).
References
Biswas, M. (2007).Environmental economics. New Delhi, ND: Mittal Publications.
Hussein A. M. (2004). Principles of environmental economics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jacobson A. (2009). Wind energy and air emission reduction benefits: A primer. Virginia, VA: DIANE Publishing.
Kotler, P. & Lee N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. New Jersey, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Morgenstern, R. & Portney P. (2004). New approaches on energy and the environment. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Werther, W. & Chandler, D. (2010). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. London: SAGE Publisher.