WHAT'S AHEAD
PULPING/BLEACHING
PULP & PAPER editors examine the numerous efforts being made to help mills close their effluent loop. Experts at paper companies, industry research organizations, and supplier companies will be interviewed to explore the latest process and equipment developments for minimizing water use and handling problematic non-process elements. Other articles will report on ways to make pulp quality and productivity improvements with low investment costs.
PROCESS CONTROL
Several in-mill reports feature new and faster pulp and paper process sensors that offer improved control capabilities. An interview with paper industry control experts analyzes how higher-powered and easier-to-use systems are improving mill operator decision-making.
|
|
From the Editors
Communication vs credibility
Communication vs credibility or the past six or seven years, one of the phrases most heard at pulp and paper industry conferences has been, "We need to tell our story better." Communicating the gospel of the paper industry has been the subject of conference papers, roundtable panel sessions, and one-on-one debates. Articles and columns have been dedicated to it. But all this chatter about telling the industry's story raises the question-Is this just "talking the talk?" And shouldn't the industry really concentrate on "walking the walk?"
One of the articles in this issue, beginning on p. 103, reports on a new regulatory challenge for the pulp and paper industry regarding public disclosure of hazardous processes and products. Similar to the "community right-to-know" groundwork laid in SARA Title III, the EPA has developed communication initiatives seemingly in an effort to keep the public informed about the facilities that are part of their community.
The EPA's Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule, part of the new Clean Air Act, basically requires industrial facilities to analyze their operations for possible hazards to the community (including developing worst-case scenarios), develop a prevention plan and overall risk management plan, and then communicate those plans to the surrounding community. As the article explains, compliance requirements fall into three programs-based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, with Program 1 as the most lax and Program 3 as the most stringent. Pulp mills, with SIC Code 2611, fall under Program 3.
WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT? The author of the article-Patrick Hurston, a senior associate with Washington, D.C.-based risk communication consultants Bivings Woodell-raises some very interesting points about how the industry might benefit from this mandated rule. He also hints at the difficulty that technical people have in communicating what is important to the general public.
For example, Hurston writes, "... to the surrounding community that may not have the level of scientific literacy of a mill's employees, it is more important that they can eat the fish from the local river than that the mill implemented process and product modifications that have reduced fish dioxin body burdens to non-detect levels according to the best current analytic methods."
Hurston's article has raised some discussion among P&P's editors about whether "telling the story" is enough to combat a poor image and why the industry continues to preach that message to itself. The real issue here is credibility, not communication. A credible company does not need to defend itself against every charge. A credible company typically has the reputation and support of the community that would deflect half-truths or lies lobbed at it by an environmental rights group or a disgruntled community activist.
Technical Editor Kirk Finchem uses an example of catalog sales giant L.L. Bean. If someone stated that L.L. Bean had the worst customer service of any catalog company in North America, people familiar with the company's reputation would scoff.
Some companies have built the reputation for being credible suppliers of goods and services, and unfounded charges cannot tarnish their image. But defense was not the goal of their efforts, and that's why it worked.
A CREDIBILITY GAP? Unfortunately, credibility isn't easy to achieve among industrial companies. The stereotype of a sprawling industrial facility that belches pollution and shackles its workers to a boring production line isn't a ploy by the 20th Century media. Such a perception began with the Industrial Revolution, and most manufacturing sites across all industries have been unable to change that perception.
Trying the spin doctor approach so popular in politics is not going to succeed. If it did, we would all know our representatives as the flag-waving, baby-kissing, well-meaning, honest neighbors that their advertisements proclaim them to be.
And attempts at media manipulation through blanket advertising or public relations-type stories in the local press won't overcome the community's bad feelings following an accidental spill in the local river. Locals at Mandy's Stop-n-Eat who aren't directly tied to the mill and spend their time fishing in that river want to know what action is being taken to keep that from ever happening again. Without an answer they can believe, those locals will forever be a mill's enemies.
Having good credibility means you don't have to continuously "tell (or sell) your story." If the community (or even the country) knows that you will do the right thing and give candid answers when something does go wrong, then your story is already told. 
|
