More stories
never told

The August issue's column, "Some stories never told" (P&P, August 1997, p. 9), related that some paper companies have resisted publicizing what the industry would consider "good stories" due to a fear of reprisal. The examples given from the experiences of Pulp & Paper's editors included reprisal from environmental regulatory agencies, company shareholders, and the financial community.

Following publication, other taboo stories were related to our editors. The consensus was that it's a shame that groups such as those mentioned above could have such a chilling effect on sharing experiences, especially since these stories have nothing to do with competitive advantage but have everything to do with a positive image of the industry.

Besides verbal communications, P&P did receive some anecdotes from readers in written form that are worth sharing. One is a short tale of economic vs environmental benefit. The other relates how one company thought information could get it into trouble.

A STICKY SITUATION. A writer using the pen name "Cantankerous Chemist" comments that our August editorial is "nothing new to the paper industry." Right around the time of the original Earth Day (1972), C.C. worked in the labs of a major paper company (now defunct) while attending graduate school at night.

C.C. recounts developing a process for recycling adhesive overspraying. The project, C.C. writes, was driven "because of environmental complaints, so I wanted to publish it in the new TAPPI Environmental Section. I was denied permission, as the concept was a 'trade secret.'"

C.C. finished graduate school, moved on, and years later asked one of the mill engineers if they had ever installed the environmental upgrade. "Yes," C.C. was told, "but on the basis of adhesive cost savings, not environment." The writer finishes with, "I had been eager for publications, but now I have 400+. So it doesn't really matter what flakes the managers are."

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS. William Ryan, a sales engineer at Seattle's Coastal Environmental Systems, wrote about what he called "the distressing closed lip approach to management prevalent in many industries today."

At a recent Canadian environmental conference, Ryan was approached by a "self-proclaimed middle manager at the corporate level of a large, multi-national paper company." Ryan explains that Coastal makes meteorological instrumentation widely used in the industry. He writes, "Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r), and associated Risk Management Planning implementations, many heavy industries such as pulp and paper are seeing an immediate need for a historical record, as well as real-time availability to weather data, trending etc., in the event of accidental and planned chemical releases."

Ryan says the manager sought him out based on recommendations and requests from plant managers. "He expressed a definite interest in our products and services. We discussed the potential for five of his plants requiring this type of equipment."

Ryan continues, "I normally take these trade show comments with a grain of salt. However, even I was encouraged by our conversation. We agreed on a time to discuss this project further, and I worked up some preliminary numbers that seemed to his liking." Ryan returned to his office feeling the manager was one of a handful of quality leads.

At the agreed upon time, the follow-up call was made. "He informed me, in no uncertain terms, that his boss had directed him to forego all further communication with me. 'Upper management' had determined that they didn't really need-or in fact want-this type of weather data."

The manager explained that company management was basically afraid to have "too much information" available, in that it could "get them into trouble" in the long run. Ryan asked how information could get them into trouble. "His response was that management felt, to coin a phrase, "what they don't know can't hurt them."

Ryan sums his experience up this way: "It is attitudes like this that has stifled technology at many heavy industries in the U.S. and perhaps overseas. For a person (or corporate culture) to be afraid of technological advances in a day and age where technology changes yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, or even hourly is a distressing thought.

"Until people free their minds and, more importantly, their mindset, we will forever live in a reactive, rather than proactive society. Like the old ad says, 'You can pay me now or pay me later.' Unfortunately, 'pay me later' is too often accompanied by huge fines, pink slips, and job searches. Scapegoats abound in the world today. I just hope these guys are ready to be rounded up and subsequently ankle-bit by the blue heelers that are the EPA and other regulatory agencies."