cleaner production and eco-efﬁciency initiatives in...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e15www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

+ MODEL

Cleaner production and eco-efficiency initiatives in WesternAustralia 1996e2004

Rene van Berkel*

Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U 1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia

Accepted 21 June 2006

Abstract

This paper summarises developments in the promotion and implementation of cleaner production (CP) and eco-efficiency (EE) in WesternAustralia (WA), in four stages: groundwork (1996e1999), experimentation (1999e2002), roll out (2002e2004) and reorientation (2004onward). The remoteness of WA and the dominance of the minerals, energy and agribusiness industries, contributed to the late interest inCP and relatively slow start. Pioneers in government, industry and academia started to come together in 1998e1999. Subsequent clarificationof concepts and design of programs resulted in a two-pronged strategy to create both a supply and demand for CP services. This enabled a rapidincrease in interest in CP, which started to level in 2004. Although this is partially due to external circumstances, it also appears that the limits ofcurrent CP and EE theory and practice have been reached. These limits appear to be at least two fold. First, current policies and program designsappear not yet able to achieve a step-increase in the number of businesses involved in CP. Insights from innovation and social marketing theoryand practice are now being incorporated in the design and delivery of the next generation of CP programs. Second, it appears that mainstream CPtools are insufficiently catered to the technological and organisational complexity of many industries. Greater engineering and managementdepth in CP tools might be required to mainstream CP in routine process design, continuous improvement and change management practices.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cleaner production (CP); Eco-efficiency (EE); Western Australia (WA)

1. Introduction

The completion of Australia’s National Cleaner Production(CP) Demonstration Project in 1995 [1,2], sparked the devel-opment of a national framework for CP implementation. West-ern Australia (WA) remained a relative outsider to thisdevelopment for at least two reasons. First, CP did not strikeeasy accord with the dominant mining, minerals, energy andagricultural industries, given its roots in the manufacturing in-dustry (e.g. [3e9]). Second, the then prevailing antagonismbetween business and environmental regulators preventedeffective stakeholder input. When the National Frameworkwas finally launched in 1998 [10] there was no sign of CP

* Tel./fax: + 61 8 9275 2950.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0959-6526/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012

Please cite this article as: Rene van Berkel, Cleaner production and eco-efficie

(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

uptake in WA. A remarkable turnaround has been achievedsince then, which is being discussed here.

This historic account of key CP developments starts in 1996and is roughly divided into four periods, here referred to asgroundwork (Section 3), experimentation (Section 4), rollout (Section 5), and reorientation (Section 6). In hindsightthese are the logical benchmarks to discuss WA’s CP journey.However these were not laid out in advance, nor were the tran-sitions instant and complete in time. Section 2 provides essen-tial contextual information on WA, and Section 7 reflects onthe overall achievements and challenges ahead.

2. Context

Western Australia (WA) is the largest sub-national state inthe world, with a land mass of 2.5 million square kilometres (athird of the Australian continent) and a population of less then

ncy initiatives in Western Australia 1996e2004, Journal of Cleaner Production

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

2 R. van Berkel / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e15

+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 million (w10% of Australia’s total), which is highly concen-trated in the greater Perth metropolitan area (w75% of WA’spopulation) [11]. WA is isolated from the rest of Australiaby deserts and highly arid land, which over millions of yearshas led to the formation of unique and varied landscapes andseascapes supporting a significant biodiversity of flora andfauna. WA generates about 12% of Australia’s total factor in-come and about 25% of Australia’s export earnings [12]. Theeconomy relies heavily on three sectors (in 2001/2002) [11]:

1. Energy: mainly off shore gas (18,560 million m3) and oil(19,756 megalitres) and some coal in the South West fordomestic use

2. Minerals and metals: iron ore (180 million tonnes) anddiamonds (30 million carats) in the far north, gold(185,700 kg) and nickel in the Goldfields and other inlandareas, and bauxite and minerals sands on the South Westcoastal plain

3. Agriculture: traditionally broadacre wheat and sheep in-dustry, but more recently diversified into horticulture, viti-culture and aquaculture

Despite the fact that significant and diverse CP experiencehad been built up by the mid-1990s, both nationally [2,5] andinternationally (e.g. [4,6e8,13e16]), there was not much evi-dence that CP could be implemented in these core sectors ofthe WA economy.

Even though WA had formally committed itself to environ-mental stretch targets, for example through the State’s Recy-cling Blueprint [17], the environmental policy practice wasthroughout the 1990s driven by the command and control par-adigm, with deep-rooted distrust between industry, govern-ment and the community. Communication on industry’senvironmental initiatives was scarce, with perhaps the excep-tion being post mining ecosystem reconstruction (‘mine-siterehabilitation’ [18,19]). Environmental impacts were particu-larly visible in the Swan Canning River System, in the heartof the Perth metropolitan area, due to spills and algae blooms.

The hazardous waste fire at Waste Control in the EasternSuburbs of Perth on 15 February 2001 tragically illustratedthe failure of the State’s environmental policies [20]. By coin-cidence this happened less then a week after the Labour Partywon Government in WA with the help of the green, anti-logging, vote. This led to sweeping reforms in waste andenvironmental management and policy and their implementationand enforcement, with a renewed strategic commitment to zerowaste [21e23].

The State Government also developed over a two-yearconsultative process, its State Sustainability Strategy[24,25]dthe first of its kind in Australiadwhich is now beingimplemented with the assistance of a State SustainabilityRoundtable (a high level expert advisory body to the Premier).A similar strategic sustainability planning process took placein several of the leading corporations, in particular those inthe minerals and metals industries that participated in theglobal Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development(MMSD) Project [26,27].

Please cite this article as: Rene van Berkel, Cleaner production and eco-efficien

(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

3. Groundwork (1996e1999)

The State Recycling Blueprint [17], released in 1993, wasa report on the state of recycling in WA. Its underlying principlewas to identify the most practical and appropriate waste minimi-sation and recycling strategies to half landfilling by 2000. De-spite its focus on waste diversion from landfill, the Blueprintdid put industrial waste minimisation on the agenda. Of partic-ular significance was the recommendation for a system of land-fill levies to fund waste minimisation initiatives. The landfilllevy came into effect on 1 July 1998 (at A$1/tonne for inertwaste and A$3/tonne for putrescible waste), and the Waste Man-agement and Recycling Fund (WM&RF) was created to providegrants for waste minimisation initiatives. The Fund was ear-marked to serve five strategic objectives, one being CP. TheBlueprint also recommended to draft an industrial waste mini-misation policy. A draft was released for public consultationin 1998 [28], but it was never finalised, nor formally acted upon.

Simultaneously government initiated an industrial environ-mental risk assessment with a focus on protection of waterbodies, i.e. the Swan River and groundwater. It covered 522light industries during 1997e1999, and found significant andwidespread deficiencies in chemical storage, waste manage-ment, waste and storm water management, emergencypreparedness and general environmental awareness [29]. Itrecommended to ‘‘promote best management practices in pol-lution prevention as the preferred approach to managing envi-ronmental risk’’. Even though the report did not specificallymention CP, the overall intent of the recommendations wasto foster the uptake of preventive environmental strategiesby light industries, i.e. CP.

These government initiatives came however only to fruitionthrough commitment and leadership from the business sector.CSBP, the State’s largest fertiliser producer and manufacturerof industrial chemicals, invited in 1996, Prof. Don Huisingh(then associated with Erasmus University of Rotterdam, TheNetherlands) to address its leadership conference on CP andlobby the State Government and Curtin University of Technol-ogy into a more proactive role in CP. Edmonds Managementsucceeded in the same period to bring Mr Bjorn Stigson (Pres-ident of the World Business Council for Sustainable Develop-ment (WBCSD)) to WA for a public seminar on EE as thebusiness link to sustainable development.

By 1997, synergies started to develop between these initia-tives and by mid-1998, the following had been achieved tokick-start CP:

� CSBP agreed to sponsor Australia’s first full professorialchair in CP at Curtin University of Technology. The authorwas recruited and commenced at Curtin in February 1999.� Curtin University of Technology approved the creation of

a professional master’s program in CP.1

1 Given that this paper is focused on the implementation of CP in businesses

and other organisations in WA, the development of curricular initiatives in CP

is not further addressed here. More information on teaching developments is

available on http://www.c4cs.curtin.edu.au).

cy initiatives in Western Australia 1996e2004, Journal of Cleaner Production

http://www.c4cs.curtin.edu.au

3R. van Berkel / Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2006) 1e15

+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

� The Waste Management and Recycling Fund was estab-lished and provided its first two grants in the CP category.First, a three-year grant for the establishment of a Centreof Excellence in CP (CECP) at Curtin University of Tech-nology. Second, a grant for a feasibility study for an envi-ronmental accreditation scheme for small businesses in themotor trade sector.

This stage concluded with an international Eco-Efficiencyworkshop on 24e25 May 1999, co-presented by CECP andWBCSD. It showcased international best practice to an invitedindustry, government and community audience, and facilitatedlocal industries to come forward with examples of EE or alikefrom their own operations [30]. It was a resounding success fortwo reasons. First, the examples presented by leading localbusinesses confirmed that CP and EE were doable. Second,participants experienced that they could learn from the ap-proaches adopted by other businesses in other industry sectors.The participants expressed a desire for an ongoing platform forlearning-by-sharing, which led to creation of the WA Sustain-able Industry Group (WA SIG).

4. Experimentation (1999e2002)

4.1. Clarification of concepts and benefits

Business and government representatives expressed con-cern that the CP terminology appeared complicated andcluttered. Pollution Prevention for example referred to thedivision in the WA Department of Environmental Protectionin charge of environmental permits. The work of this divisionwould not qualify as Pollution Prevention in the internationalarena (e.g. [3,31]). Despite the National Cleaner ProductionStrategy only being formally endorsed in December 1998[10], the Commonwealth government jumped ship in February1999 and re-invigorated its CP initiatives under the new um-brella of EE [32], further confusing the meaning of CP.

A pragmatic approach was therefore advocated in WAto view CP and EE as ‘‘complimentary concepts, with


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

Eco-Efficiency focusing on the strategic side of business(‘value creation’) and Cleaner Production on the operationalside of business (‘production’)’’ [33]. This allowed continueduse of internationally accepted definitions of CP [34] and EE[15,35], while stressing their mutual interrelatedness as wellas their connectedness to other preventive environmental man-agement strategies (see Fig. 1). As a result, it became commonto promote CP and EE as being concerned with seven EE ‘ob-jectives’ and involving five ‘prevention practices’ (see Table 1).

Upon clarification of the concepts, the challenge remainedto identify compelling business examples that would resonatewith the WA business community. In doing so, two obstacleswere faced. First, the general absence of Australian businessexamples that demonstrated the whole range of EE objectivesand CP practices. The 2001 review of the case studies containedin Australia’s pre-eminent database of then 109 company exam-ples found for example that this collection inadequately coveredthe full range of CP practices and EE objectives [36]. Second,many regarded the available CP expertise and experience asnot applicable to WA, given the lack of specific examplesthat related to the key sectors of the WA economy (energy,minerals and agribusiness). A considerable effort was thereforedevoted to customisation of the generic CP and EE conceptsand methods to the oil and gas [37], minerals processing[38,39], agribusiness [40] and coal sectors [41]. With someeffort it was then possible to identify excellent examples ofCP practices (see Table 2).

In developing CP communications, CECP aimed for consis-tency in core messages. Inspired by international examples(e.g. [42,43]), three core messages were pursued, that summa-rise the why, what and how:

1. Why consider cleaner production? Taking care of the envi-ronment makes good business sense. This means that CP isa business improvement opportunity, to reduce costs, risksand liabilities, and enhance efficiency, productivity andprofitability.

2. What is cleaner production? CP is an opportunity generat-ing strategy, seeking improvements in regards to

Pollution

ControlReuse,

Recovery

& Recycling

Cleaner

Production

Eco Efficiency

regulation

driven

business

driven

cure prevention

pollutant

focus

process /

facility

focus

lifecycle / system

focus

multi

media

single

media

Pollution

Prevention

Toxics Use

Reduction

Waste

Minimisation

Environment

Design for

Fig. 1. Cleaner production concepts [33].



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Cleaner production and eco-efficiency

Cleaner production Eco-efficiency

The continuous application of an integrated preventative environmental

strategy to processes, products and services to increase efficiency and

reduce risks to humans and the environment [34]

The delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human

needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological

impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle, to a level at least

in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity [35]

Prevention practices (e.g. [44,100,101]:

1. Good housekeeping: improve operation, maintenance and management

procedures

2. Input substitution: use environmentally preferred and ‘fit-for-purpose’

process inputs

3. Technology modification: improve the production facility

4. Product modification: change product features to reduce its lifecycle

environmental impacts

5. (On Site) Reuse and recycling: recover and reuse materials, energy and water

Eco-efficiency objectives [35]:

1. Reduce the material intensity of goods and services

2. Reduce the energy intensity of goods and services

3. Reduce the dispersion of toxic substances

4. Enhance recyclability of materials

5. Maximise sustainable use of renewable resources6. Extend product durability

7. Increase the service intensity of goods and services

housekeeping, input materials, equipment and technology,product design and management of non-product outputs.This means that CP is NOT a rigid solution but a ‘frameof mind’ allowing opportunities to be identified in eachof the five categories of prevention practices (Table 1).

3. How to do cleaner production? CP is best achievedthrough a structured approach involving identification ofwaste sources, diagnosis of waste causes and option gen-eration and screening. This implies that CP requires a sys-tematic review of the company’s operations, products andprocesses, and can generally NOT be copied from any-where else [44].

These core messages provide a structural framework butwith a degree of flexibility in their application. The selectionof case studies to underpin each message and the relative im-portance of the messages are varied to customise to the targetaudience.

4.2. Strategy and program development

The program and content development by various agenciesover the period 1999e2002 led to a two-pronged strategy, bestcharacterised as supply and demand strategies for CP services(see Fig. 2).

� The supply strategy is aimed at building operational, tech-nical and managerial capability in businesses to assess andimplement CP opportunities through information dissemi-nation, professional development and on site technical as-sistance. Some refer to this as marketing. This is howevertroublesome as marketing works best for gadgets, and lessfor concepts, like CP. Moreover it leads to the simplifica-tion of CP to ‘things everybody can do’. These are how-ever most often not the most beneficial opportunities inany specific business context.� The demand strategy is concerned with influencing the op-

erating environment of businesses to elicit and augmentincentives for CP and identify and manage its barriers,through: compliance, conformance and competition.


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

Some refer to this as regulation and co-regulation. How-ever, environmental legislation and use of market based in-struments and voluntary initiatives are in their own rightinadequate to generate genuine business interest. Compe-tition and conformance elements are essential to positionCP as a competitive, business improvement strategy, ratherthan just an environmental necessity of doing business,and thereby generate the strategic interest and leadershipthat is necessary to let company CP programs flourish.

Promotion of best practices takes place at the intersectionof demand and supply. Best practice promotion is supportiveof putting CP and EE on the business, government, communityand political agendas.

Four key WA programs are focused upon here to illustratethe diversity and synergy within the context of this two-pronged strategy. These include: small business support pro-gram (through CECP2), ‘learning-by-sharing’ program andWA CP Statement (both through WA SIG3) and Green Stampprogram (by the Motor Trades Association (MTA) and WADepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP)).4

4.2.1. Small business support programThe small business support program (offered through

CECP) is the prime example in the supply strategy. Over

2 The Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production (CECP) is hosted by Cur-

tin University of Technology and promotes the implementation of CP and EE

in particular in small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), with funding sup-

port from the WA Waste Management and Recycling Fund (WM&RF) (http://

www.cleanerproduction.curtin.edu.au).3 The WA Sustainable Industry Group (WA SIG) operates as a platform of

business, public sector, environment, engineering and education professionals,

dedicated to business leadership for a clean and competitive WA. The opera-

tions of the WA SIG are directed by a Charter and governed by a multi-stake-

holder steering committee, while CECP convenes and facilitates the WA SIG).

Moreover, WA SIG is a member of the Regional Network of the World Busi-

ness Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and signatory to the In-

ternational Declaration on CP administered through the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) (http://www.wasig.curtin.edu.au).4 Since 1999 DEP has amalgamated with the Waters and Rivers Commission

to form the Department of Environment (DoE).


http://www.cleanerproduction.curtin.edu.au

http://www.cleanerproduction.curtin.edu.au

http://www.wasig.curtin.edu.au


+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Company examples

Company Sector CP Initiatives

Atlas Drycleaning [102] Dry-cleaning Improved plant lay out, installation of skylights and rationalisation and

insulation of steam pipes, reduced gas consumption and air-conditioning load

BP (Kwinana) Refinery [103] Oil refinery Better operating and maintenance procedures, improved condensate and process

water recovery and reuse, upgrade of process units and no flaring policy all

contributed to water and energy savings

Iluka Resources [104] Minerals processing

(synthetic rutile)

Installed after burner, instead of wet scrubber, to treat off gases from synthetic

rutile kiln, and feed into waste heat recovery boiler to generate electricity, thereby

reducing overall energy and water consumption

Perth Zoo [105] Zoo, recreational Passive solar design of buildings, better irrigation and pond management practices,

recycling stations, composting of animal wastes

Solarhart [106] Metal products (solar

hot water systems)

Skylights and better light controls, replacement of compressed air driven tools,

better loading and handling provisions for tanks through enamel furnance

a number of trials and iterations during 1999e2002 (see e.g.[45,46]) it evolved to a program with one primary target group(entrepreneurs) and two secondary target groups (intermediar-ies and practitioners). An implementation level was first devel-oped and 20 businesses completed it in 2000e2001. For smallbusinesses, the program was then developed into three levels,best characterised as awareness (level 1), understanding (level2) and implementation (level 3). They articulate in principleinto one another. Each covers the why, what and how of CPand has its own delivery format and resources, as illustratedin Table 3. Program delivery is further enhanced with support-ive information materials, in particular company case studies(ten developed over 2000e2001) and sector specific factsheets (in 2000e2001 for example for the dry-cleaning andbuilding sectors [47,48]).

4.2.2. Learning-by-Sharing ProgramThe WA SIG learning-by-sharing program promotes and

advances best practices in CP, EE and sustainability-led inno-vation. Unlike the small business and Green Stamp programs,learning-by-sharing is not specifically directed at predeter-mined learning outcomes. Instead it provides for organisedand facilitated topical networking among professionals work-ing in the business environment and sustainability field. Atypical activity involves an overall scene-setting presentation


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

with some three to five case study presentations, followed bya panel discussion. Example topics addressed in 2000e2002included: benchmarking and reporting of environmental per-formance, energy efficiency topics and eco-industrial parks.There would be typically a seminar-like event every secondmonth, with additionally some two to three site visits annually,and an annual CP and EE Roundtable (from 2001 onward).Networking is further enhanced through electronic newslettersand the website.

4.2.3. WA CP StatementThe WA CP Statement is the prime example in the demand

strategy. Its development was initiated by the request from theDepartment of Environmental Protection to WA SIG to pro-vide input into its draft industrial waste minimisation strategy[28]. The WA SIG recommended that a collaborative approachbe developed instead of a regulatory approach and in 2000drafted the WA CP Statement as the basis for such collabora-tive approach. The Statement was initially based on the UNEPInternational Declaration on CP [49].

The WA CP Statement [50] presents a vision for the greaterapplication of CP and EE for a clean and competitive WA,achieved through collaboration between industry, State and lo-cal government, professional and community organisations,and the education sector. It is therefore best seen as a Statement

building operational,

technical and

managerial capability

to asses and

implement Cleaner

Production

opportunities

creating a decision

making context

conducive to

consideration and

implementation of

Cleaner Production

creating DEMAND

for CP services

creating SUPPLY

of CP services

through:information dissemination

(case studies,fact sheets,checklists, guidelines,

training, etc)assistance (capacity

building, on-site auditing,demonstrations, etc)

through

Compliance (legislation, publicpolicy and strategy)

Conformance (industry andprofessional standards, codes of

practice, accreditation etc)Competition (business benefits)

Best Practice Promotion

(awards, learning bysharing, etc)

Fig. 2. A two-pronged cleaner production strategy.



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Overview of the small business support program

Target group Aim Format Resources

Entrepreneurs (owners and

operators of small to medium

sized enterprises) [107]

Raise awareness for business

and environmental benefits of CP

(level 1)

20e30 minute awareness raising session (often

integrated in other industry event)

12 minute video and

checklist

Create understanding of CP

opportunities (level 2)

1.5 hour workshop (typically co-hosted by

industry association or local government, could

be made sector specific or cover multiple sectors)

Participant’s workbook

Enable implementation of CP in

own business (level 3)

5 workshops of 1.5 hours, leading to development

of CP action plan specific to own business

(typically delivered to groups of 5e10 businesses,

either from one industry sector or from range of

industry sectors)

Participant’s manual

Intermediaries (e.g. local government,

staff, catchment coordinators, industry

association staff) [108]

Facilitate participants to become CP

advocates in their day to day work

3 workshops (half day) plus site visits and

participants’ case studies (typically delivered to

groups of 10e20 participants)


Practitioners (e.g. consultants,

environmental managers)

Develop participant’s knowledge of

and skills in CP tools

One day training program (typically delivered to

groups of 8e15 participants)


of Intent calling on industry, government, business, commu-nity and professional stakeholders to consider CP and EE se-riously and act accordingly. The explanatory notes to theWA CP Statement [50] provide greater details as to specificroles a number of stakeholders could play in promoting the up-take of CP in WA.

The WA SIG created a register of signatory organisations,which was launched on 24 May 2001. Organisations becomea signatory to the WA CP Statement by signing a Memorandumof Understanding (MoU) with WA SIG. The MoU commits theSignatory organisation to support the intent of the Statementand develop and implement an action plan for furthering CPand EE within its own operations and/or among its constituen-cies. Upon formation of the Signatory register, the WA SIGdeveloped further resources for the WA CP Statement, in par-ticular the Implementation Guidelines [51], which were for-mally launched at the 2nd WA CP and EE Roundtable inJune 2002. By then the signatory register had expanded to64 signatory organisations.

4.2.4. Green Stamp ProgramThe Green Stamp Program was initiated in late 1999. Envi-

ronmental risk audit protocols, environmental guidelines, train-ing and accreditation criteria were developed for mechanicalworkshops, car body workshops, panel and paint workshopsand wrecking yards. Moreover a three-tiered accreditationscheme was established. Level 1 is an awareness level, anddoes not entitle businesses to use the program logo. Businessesin level 1 must hold all relevant licences and be operating ina manner that meets all legislative requirements. For level 2accreditation, businesses must achieve level 1 and have imple-mented a minimum number of possible practices, typically halfof the beyond compliance practices available within the sub-sector. For level 3 accreditation, businesses must have achievedlevel 2, and have developed and endorsed for implementationan environmental management plan [52].

The Green Stamp program has a strong focus on environ-mental risks, as reflected in its listed key issues:


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

� Storage practices associated with chemicals and other haz-ardous substances;� Pre-treatment of wastewater from the workshop prior to

approved disposal;� Spill management to prevent pollution of ground and

stormwater systems;� Correct disposal of waste products (preferably to recycling

or reuse);� Air quality management;� Energy and resource conservation; and� Development and implementation of environmental man-

agement plans [53].

Except for energy and resource conservation, none of thesekey issues has a particular focus on CP or EE. The first tenbusinesses were accredited on 27 November 2002, and bothMTA and DEP have since promoted accredited workshops,through their websites, newsletters and the media.

The Green Stamp program is an example of a sector spe-cific environmental accreditation scheme, similar to schemesin other sectors, such as the Greensmart Program for the hous-ing industry (by the Housing Industry Association [54] and theResponsible Care Program for the chemicals industry (by thePlastics and Chemicals Industries Association [55]). Its suc-cess is conditional on consumers willing to make the extra ef-fort, and possibly pay the extra cost, to get their cars servicedat accredited workshops. The Green Stamp program raises ex-pectations on the environmental performance of its programparticipants (i.e. conformance pull ). Moreover, the availabilityof the environmental accreditation scheme, and the actual and/or perceived market benefits thereof, are expected to drawmore businesses into the program (i.e. competitiveness pull ).

The period of intense developments in CP and EE concepts,contents, strategy and programs came to an end around 14June 2002 at the occasion of the 2nd WA CP and EE Round-table. This coincided with the third signing ceremony for theWA CP Statement and the release of the resource materialsfor the small business support program. Each program



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

described here had reached a degree of maturity and demon-strated its applicability and effectiveness in at least a dozenbusinesses.

5. Stage 3: roll out (2002e2004)

The challenge now changed to scaling-up of programs, i.e.to replicate their success in significantly larger numbers of or-ganisations with a significantly lower effort per organisation.This coincided with a marked increase in the consultationefforts for the development of a WA State SustainabilityStrategy (for which the initial consultation paper had beenlaunched in December 2001 [25]). The roll out of the key pro-grams is first summarised, followed by the new trends andtopics that started to surface.

5.1. Small Business Support Program

The CECP maintained ownership and responsibility for theroll out of the Small Business Support Program. It providedannually three availabilities of its implementation program(level 3), one availability of its stakeholder and practitionerprograms and co-hosted level 2 introductory sessions in col-laboration with a range of local government and industrystakeholders (as per Table 3). Moreover it developed sectorspecific information sheets for food [56], metals [57], printing[58] and health care industry [59], and 16 additional WA com-pany case studies.

The programs were widely supported and advertisedthrough industry associations, local governments and catch-ment groups, and the benefits for the participants remainedconsistently high. The average annual savings from compara-tively straightforward opportunities identified through partici-pation in the implementation program was about A$4000. Theparticipation levels however remained low, with an annual av-erage of ten organisations in the implementation program (for2002e2004), thirty-five in the introductory program (2003e2004), nine in the intermediaries program (2002e2004) andsix in the practitioners program (2002e2004).

In its 2003 review, CECP identified three (clusters of) per-tinent barriers towards the greater consideration and imple-mentation of CP specifically among SMEs:

� Misunderstandings of nature and benefits of CP. That is,a narrow interpretation of potential benefits focused on en-vironmental risk reduction;� Moderate to low levels of environmental awareness and

compliance, as a result of comparatively low environmen-tal and resource use costs, and limited enforcement activ-ities on environmental regulations; and� Volatile nature of small business, including its ownership

and workforce.

CECP therefore increasingly focused its communicationstowards positioning CP as a business efficiency and businessrisk reduction strategy.


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

5.2. Learning-by-Sharing Program

Enthusiasm for the Learning-by-Sharing Program offeredthrough the WA SIG remained high over 2002e2004, as re-flected in the doubling of its participants’ base between Febru-ary 2002 and April 2004 (to 475 participants representing 275organisations). The management and delivery of the programmatured over this period, with a division of program eventsin four main categories:

1. Best practice seminars: once-off topical seminar with sev-eral case study presentations and forum session, on for ex-ample: sustainable development reporting, greening ofsupply chain, life cycle assessment, environmental man-agement systems, etc.);

2. Policy forums: consultative forums on aspects of govern-ment policy for sustainable development, aligned withthe development of the WA State Sustainability Strategy[23,25];

3. ‘How-to’ workshop series: series of workshops on inter-related topics providing participants with practical toolsto implement EE in their own organisations, in particularthe Energy Efficiency and Management Series (2002e2003) and the 2004 Eco-Efficient Entrepreneur Series);and

4. News and alerting service: through an electronic newslet-ter on EE and Corporate Sustainability issues with rele-vance to WA businesses and other organisations.

5.3. WA CP Statement

Signatories commit to develop and implement an ActionPlan to implement CP in their operations and/or promote CPamong their constituency. Fig. 3 shows that the rapid growthover the first 12 months slowed down as a result of reductionof the recruitment drive. From the total 108 organisations thatbecame Signatory at any of the first eight signing ceremonies,91 remained as active Signatories by the end of 2004. Ninehad been removed, five of these as a result of failure to deliveron the commitment to develop an action plan, and four uponthe organisations’ own request (three of these after completionof their initial two-year commitment period). Five governmentsignatories merged into two new government departments andtwo tertiary institutions merged, leading to three ‘new’ signa-tories taking over the initial commitments from seven initialsignatories.

Fig. 4 shows the Signatories by organisation type. Fig. 5shows the efforts of the Signatory Organisations with regardto the development and endorsement of their action plans.As of December 2004, 69 Signatory Organisations have an ac-tion plan in place (76% of the active Signatory Organisations)Given the lag-time between becoming signatory and the for-mal obligation to submit an action plan, the level of formalnon-conformance with the action plan commitment remainedcomparatively low (10%). Although the WA SIG would be en-titled to remove the nine non-conforming signatories from the



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

89

24

47

64

73

85 8691

Round 7(July 04)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Round 1(May 01)

Round 3(June 02)

Round 2(Nov 01)

Round 4(Nov 02)

Round 5(June 03)

Round 6(Nov 03)

Round 8(Nov 04)

num

ber o

f sig

nato

ries

Fig. 3. Growth of the register of signatory organisations to the WA CP Statement (2001e2004).

Register, it has not yet done so, as all appear to be working onthe promotion and/or implementation of CP.

The actions taken by Signatories typically cover fivecategories:

1. Implementation within own operations: development,evaluation and implementation of CP opportunities withinSignatory’s operations.

2. Awareness, promotion and recognition: promotional activ-ities of the Signatory to foster consideration of CP by itsconstituency, e.g. members, staff, suppliers, contractors,customers, etc.

3. Policy, advocacy and regulation: policy, networking andlobbying initiatives of the Signatory to create a policyand regulatory environment conducive to the considerationand implementation of CP.

4. Education and training: delivery of award and non-awardcourses by the Signatory to increase knowledge and skillsof industry’s (para-) professional staff and students on CP.

5. Research and development: (applied) research conductedby the Signatory to develop and support the implementa-tion of novel CP technologies, practices and policies.

‘Implementation’ and ‘awareness and promotion’ are themost frequently occurring actions, each typically addressedin around 75% of the action plans, followed by ‘policy and ad-vocacy’, typically addressed in around 60% of the action plans[60]. ‘research and development’ and ‘education and training’are the least frequently occurring type of actions, with cover-age in approximately 25% of the action plans. Two years intotheir commitment period, Signatories are requested to providean outcome statement against their initial action plan. Table 4summarises some outcomes statements.

5.4. Green Stamp Program

The MTA maintained a strong ownership of the GreenStamp Program, which received great interest from other


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

industry sectors and states for its practical and sector-specificapproach to raising SME’s environmental awareness and im-proving compliance. As a result Green Stamp became a na-tional program for the motor trade sector in early 2003 anda multi-sector initiative in WA in late 2003 (with the launchof pilots in the printing and cleaning industries).

Although initially designed as an environmental accredita-tion scheme, over the years it evolved more and more into anindustry association-led environmental awareness and capacitybuilding program. Key program activities are now:

� Provision of obligation-free environmental audits;� Compilation of industry specific environmental guidelines;� Publication of environmental service providers’ directo-

ries; and� Delivery of industry specific environmental training [52].

While interest in the environmental awareness componentshas remained high, this appears not to have been matched withsimilar interest in the accreditation scheme. The number ofGreen Stamp accredited motor trades businesses increased

industry33%

industry association14%

state government19%

local government18%

professionalassociations

3%

community groups5%

tertiary education8%

Fig. 4. Signatories by organisation type (status November 2004, n ¼ 91).



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

17 17 19

10

6

0 0

69

0

0

2

1

0

0 0 0

2

6

1

7

3

19

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Round 1 (May 01)

Round 2(Nov 01)

Round 3(June 02)

Round 4(Nov 02)

Round 5(June 03)

Round 6(Nov 03)

Round 7(July 04)

Round 8(Nov 04)

Total

% o

f sig

nato

ries

from

eac

h ro

und

action plan in place draft action plan no action plan

3

Fig. 5. Status of action plan development among current signatory organisations (December 2004).

from 10 at the launch of the accreditation register in November2002 to 26 in April 2005 [61], with no differentiation betweenlevel 2 and level 3 accreditations. The first six printing industryGreen Stamp certificates were awarded in December 2004 [62],while no accreditations had been awarded in the cleaningindustry by April 2005.

5.5. New initiatives

Simultaneously the focus of the CP and EE initiatives inWA started to broaden, outside their traditional domains ofin-plant resource efficiency drives. Prominent new foci were:

1. Supply chain management: the recognition that an impor-tant part of the environmental footprint of businesses andin particular service organisations is defined by the organ-isation’s procurement of goods and services, sparked inter-est in greening of supply chain initiatives. The WA SIGdedicated a best practice seminar to this topic in early2003 and its importance was further highlighted in thehealth care sector project by CECP [59,63]. Simultaneouslya significant local capacity for life cycle assessment (LCA)was created with the execution of a prominent researchproject into the applicability of LCA for improving theEE of grain-supply chains [40]. This included in depthcase studies on bread, beer and cooking oil [64].

2. Industrial symbiosis5 [65,66]: this involves businesses,other organisations and the community in exchanges ofpreviously wasted resources (materials, energy, water,etc.) for net competitive and environmental advantage

5 The creation of regional resource exchange networks is also referred to as

Industrial Ecology. This is however a broader field that studies ‘‘the flows of

materials and energy in industrial and consumer activities, of the effects of

these flows on the environment, and of the influences of economic, political,

regulatory and social factors on the flow, use, and transformation of re-

sources’’. Industrial Symbiosis is therefore better regarded as one of the prom-

inent subsets within Industrial Ecology.


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

(see e.g. [67]). Three quite distinct examples started to sur-face in 2001e2002 in WA and gained significant momen-tum thereafter.

a. Kwinana Industrial Area: a heavy industrial area atthe southern end of the Perth Metropolitan area ishome to alumina, nickel and oil refineries, chemical,pigment and cement plants, power stations and a di-versity of supportive industries. A 2001 study intothe economic impacts of the area, identified impres-sive lists of up to 100 existing and potential syner-gies, including for example cogeneration plants,exchanges of industrial gases, water recovery andreuse schemes and useful applications of selectedinorganic waste streams [68e70].6

b. Shenton Sustainability Park: the WA Water Corpora-tion aims to attract compatible business activitiesinto the buffer zone of the Subiaco waste water treat-ment plant in the Perth metropolitan area, and usethis as an incubator for research, technology transferand education on sustainable urban living [71].

c. Narrogin: the integrated wood processing pilot pro-ject in rural Narrogin [72], combines planting of Mal-lee trees to combat dry-land salinity, with the use ofthe wood crop for integrated production of high gradecharcoal, eucalypt oil and renewable energy.

3. Corporate sustainability: a number of factors contributedto a general broadening of the agenda from strictly re-source efficiency and environmental improvement to thebroader business case and agenda for sustainable develop-ment. Contributing factors included: public consultationprocesses as part of the development of the WA State Sus-tainability Strategy; persistent community concerns aboutenvironmental health impacts of key industrial facilities;

6 The reported synergies in this study included both ‘regular’ supply syner-

gies (approximately 2/3 of the reported synergies) and industrial symbiosis

involving by-product synergies (approximately 1/3 of the reported synergies).



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Example outcomes achieved and reported by Signatories to the WA CP Statement (Feb 2004) [60]

Signatory Category Reported outcomes

Alcoa World Alumina Australia e

WA Operations

Business � Investigated feasibility of residue neutralisation, and adopted plans for progressive

implementation at Kwinana by 2006

� Planned trial for 2004 on sand separation and reuse from bauxite residue

� Built water pumping station to harvest and use lower quality feed water for Pinjarra refinery

� Commissioned feasibility study into 2GL water reuse from Mandurah’s waste water

treatment facility

� Approved construction of cogeneration plant at Pinjarra Refinery

� Major industry partner to the Collaborative Research Centre for Sustainable Resource

Processing

SJOG Hospital e Subiaco Business � Environmental management policy has been documented and approved

� Environmental responsibility is added in all job descriptions and comprehensive staff

education strategy is in place

� Electricity and gas consumption dropped by 2% and 18% respectively during 2001e2002,

and remained constant in 2003 despite 3% growth in used floor space

� Progressive replacement of sterilisers with more water efficient sterilisers

� Reduction of clinical waste generation by 8%, as a result of better housekeeping

Hatch Associates Business � Adopted sustainable development as core principle in corporate manifesto and standards

� Reviewed plant design practices and developed a sustainable plant design framework which

is being trialled in clients’ engineering design projects

� Added CP and eco-efficiency to the standard technology evaluation procedures

Kwinana Industries Council Industry association � Implementation of Kwinana Regional Synergies Initiative, including assessment of the

economic contributions and environmental initiatives of industries in the region and

facilitation of the development of new synergy initiatives with regard to water reuse,

coordinated recycling of dry recyclables and energy efficiency

Drycleaning Institute of

Australia (WA)

Industry association � Included CP principles and practices in induction booklet for industry operators

� Implemented training program on safe handling of PERC solvents

� Facilitated the development of three dry-cleaning CP case studies

Department of Environment State government � Developed an Eco-Office Guide (to reduce energy and paper consumption in the office,

replace hazardous materials and reduce traffic), implemented it in own operations and

assisting other government agencies with implementation

� Coordinated the development of a three tier awareness, training and implementation

program for CP in small businesses

� Promotion of CP and eco-efficiency through the annual WA Environment Awards

� Leading contributor to the whole-of-government water and greenhouse strategies

Wheatbelt Development Commission State government � Provided a liaison between primary producers and industry in the region and the WA

Sustainable Industry Group

� Adopted CP in the region’s strategic plan and incorporated in the regional Natural Resource

Management Strategies

Swan TAFE Tertiary education � Developed and started delivery of professional courses on installation of cleaner technologies,

such as energy saving electrical designs and devices in homes, CNG motors, smart controls

for air-conditioning, etc.

� Implementing an energy smart program to reduce energy use by 12% over 5 years

Curtin University of Technology Tertiary education � Restructure of undergraduate engineering degrees to incorporate CP and engineering

sustainable development progressively into all engineering curricula (from 2004 onward)

� Continued operation of Centre of Excellence in CP and WA Sustainable Industry group to

foster consideration and uptake of CP in the Western Australian industry

� Success in acquiring major new sustainability-inspired research initiatives, such as for

instance the Collaborative Research Centres for Sustainable Resource Processing, Desert

Knowledge, Sustainable Tourism and Greenhouse Technologies

Environment Institute of Australia Professional association � Promotion of the activities of the WA SIG to its membership basis

� Adopted CP and eco-efficiency as core themes for the association’s national conference

the World Summit on Sustainable Development, includingthe release of national and international industry and com-munity contributions thereto (e.g. [73,74]). The extensioninto Corporate Sustainability was reflected in the 2003revision of the Charter for the WA Sustainable Industry


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

Group, and increasingly supported by businesses and in-dustry and professional associations.

The roll out period ended in mid-2004, as the programs didplateau and faced more profound competition. The closest



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

transition date would be 2 July 2004, at the occasion of the 5thanniversary celebrations for the WA SIG. This was just afterthe creation of the WA State Sustainability Roundtable to ad-vise government on the implementation of its State Sustain-ability Strategy. It also marked the end of the fundingsupport from the WA Waste Management and RecyclingFund to the CECP to act as convenor and facilitator for theWA SIG.

In hindsight the roll out period was a period of both excite-ment and frustration. The growth of the Signatory Register tothe WA CP Statement and the level of conformance of Signa-tories by far exceeded the initial expectations, and indeed cre-ated a groundswell of initiatives, involving a growing diversityof stakeholders in the uptake of CP and associated conceptsand tools. Meanwhile however there was also disappointmentthat existing programs were not able to achieve significantscale-ups, while the evaluation of the effectiveness of differentprograms was further complicated by a general lack of consid-eration of program monitoring and evaluation issues.

6. Reorientation (2004e?)

Reflecting on the mixed results in the roll out phase, twogrand challenges emerged. The first challenge is to motivatemore businesses to consider and implement CP and EE. It isa challenge primarily for the design and contents of CP programsand exists most profoundly for SMEs. The second challenge is toassist organisations with demonstrated CP commitment moreeffectively in identifying and implementing their best CP solu-tions. It is a challenge primarily for the CP methods and technol-ogies and exists most profoundly for process industries. Eventhough no definitive answers have been found so far, the follow-ing provides some background to each of these two grand chal-lenges and scopes potential ways forward.

6.1. Design and contents of CP programs

Information-based promotional strategies have traditionallydominated CP programs for small businesses (e.g. [9,75e77]).Policy makers and CP facilitators alike have reverted to differ-ent theoretical bodies to underpin and improve CP strategies,most profoundly to environmental psychology and technologydiffusion theories.

Environmental psychology investigates why individualsanddto a lesser degreedorganisations adopt environmentallypreferred behaviours, such as source separation for kerbside re-cycling, use of public transport, and uptake of energy and watersaving devices and practices. The insights gained have been in-tegrated into what is now known as Community Based SocialMarketing (CBSM) [78]. Its effectiveness is due to its prag-matic approach, which involves: identifying barriers to asustainable behaviour, designing a strategy that utilizes behav-iour change tools, piloting the strategy with a small segment ofa community, and finally, evaluating the impact of the programonce it has been implemented across a community.

CBSM has demonstrated its effectiveness for comparativelysimple changes in routine individual behaviour, in regards to


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

energy and water use habits, waste segregation practices, pur-chasing decisions and transport choices. In the framework ofCP promotion, CBSM provides an opportunity to strengthenthe involvement and participation of employees in goodhousekeeping type measures, such as effective sorting of wastestreams, more conscious use of personal protective equipment(earplugs, gloves, etc.), double sided printing and copying andswitching off lights and office equipment. Organisations thathave been comparatively effective in engaging their staff inCP, such as Westpac [79] and St John of God Healthcare Sub-iaco [63], have either incidentally or purposefully adoptedmany of the CBSM concepts in their extensive environmentaleducation strategies.

Application of CBSM to motivate companies to considerCP is however faced with a series of interrelated difficulties:

� Being a problem solving and opportunity creating strategy,CP does not lend itself to pre-programmed behaviours thatcan be universally replicated.� CP will often require new skills and capabilities, that need

to be ‘learned’dat the individual as well as the institu-tional leveldand will not simply result from buying an-other oil, cleaner or paint for running the business.� CP uptake is the result of a sequence of behaviour changes

by different individuals and departments in an organisa-tion, as compared to the direct ‘actioneresult’ relationthat exists with changes in individual behaviour. Someonein the organisation has to take the lead to start consideringCP, convince management to change its behaviour, seekinvolvement of staff in development and evaluation ofCP options, seek approval for implementation and securestaff involvement in implementation.

A competing school of thought considers the uptake of CPas an example of a technology diffusion process. Technologyis then broadly understood as the application of technologicalknowledge, including equipment, operational and maintenanceprotocols, management systems and skills. Three competingtechnology diffusion models exist [80]:

� The epidemic model assumes that uptake of new technol-ogy will progress autonomically upon provision of an en-dogenous mechanism, most profoundly information on thetechnology availability and its benefits.� The threshold model assumes that new technology will

only be considered and adopted once a critical thresholdhas been achieved, for example the collapse of a traditionalmarket, stringent environmental conditions/dischargelimits, or steep increase in relative costs.� The forces model assumes that adoption of new technol-

ogy is the result of thedorganisation-specificdinterplaybetween six groups of factors: economic consequences;regulatory pressure; market growth; applicability of tech-nology; societal pressure; and business and other risks.

On the basis of technology specific studies [80], it appearsthat the forces model best explains factual technology



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

diffusion, as it incorporates the decision-making context of theorganisations adopting the new technology. Moreover, theforces model can be used to employ tacit knowledge of expertsto predict patterns and rates of technology diffusion.

The broad implication of technology diffusion theory forpromotion of CP is that CP and EE depend on companiesbecoming pro-active. Proactive companies seek improvementson their own as part of their competitive strategies rather thanin response to specific regulations [81]. This does not happenon its own, despite some stimuli for it. Making companiespro-active requires change at multiple levels: the government-business relation has to change, producers and consumers mustdevelop new competencies and the economic conditions haveto change too. WA SIG is an example partnership that fosteredmore proactive business, government and community attitudesand practices.

Armed with insights from innovation diffusion theory CECPdeveloped and piloted a two-tiered approach to engaging smallbusiness in CP initiatives. The first tier comprises of a semi-structured telephone introduction with small business operatorsto discuss their business efficiency, innovation record and envi-ronment and energy management. The introduction is designedto raise business awareness for the cost of resource use in theirbusiness (in particular energy, water and materials use andwaste and waste water disposal). The second tier is a prelimi-nary on-site appraisal of the likely size and nature of the busi-ness opportunity that might arise from the implementation ofCP in the given business. The consultant assists the companyto compile an inventory of key areas of waste generation andwater and energy uses, and estimates the proxy costs to thebusiness. This results in an eco-map [82]. The approach waspilot tested in the Malaga Industrial Area (in Perth), and itsresults were used to produce a guidance manual for localgovernment to engage small businesses in CP [83].

In the Malaga pilot, 122 firms were randomly approached[83]. Thirty-five firms dropped out as they no longer had oper-ations in Malaga or their manager was not available. Of the 87managers (or equivalent owner) spoken to, 48 completed theintroductory phone conversation. For 23 of these a preliminaryon site appraisal was completed. Overall, the approach hada success rate of 1 in 3 in terms of being able to introduceCP and talk about resource efficiency issues with the businessowner or manager. The success rate for completing an on sitepreliminary appraisal was one in six from the businesses ini-tially approached through the cold calling method. This com-pares very favourably with other written communicationefforts, which typically have had a turn out of at best 1 outof 20e30 written invitations. Twenty-seven percent of the busi-ness managers to which CP was introduced, appeared to haveno idea of resource costs, while about half had at least someidea (in most cases they were aware of energy costs). Whileonly three businesses had heard about CP, 30% of the busi-nesses visited displayed some simple CP practices: sky-lighting; dry clean up before wet cleaning of work places andequipment; installation of energy efficient equipment; and re-use of packaging from incoming goods for products. For all23 businesses that completed the on-site preliminary appraisal


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

new opportunities were identified. Given the limited time spentfor the preliminary appraisals (typically 0.5e1.0 hour), the op-portunity identification was biased for good housekeeping andcomparatively simple technological fixes.

6.2. CP methods and tools

Materials and energy intensive process and utility industriesare generally well aware of the business imperative to use nat-ural resources efficient to remain competitive. While commit-ment to EE is therefore not at stake, there remains a degree ofscepticism regarding the incremental benefits of explicit con-sideration of EE compared to existing internal resource effi-ciency drives. This scepticism has a two-fold basis. First, asEE outcomes have been achieved in the past through regularprocess and project development, without specific consider-ation of EE objectives or CP practices, it is questioned whyspecific EE initiatives would still be necessary. This is furtherreinforced by the many environmental and energy audits thathave only addressed peripheral use areas (such as lightingand air-conditioning in offices and warehouses), while not ad-dressing the principal uses in the core processes. Second,mainstream CP tools appear not suitable in heavy processingindustries. The traditional engineering based approaches [84]rely heavily on mass balances. These are however resource-intensive to establish for complex process systems that involvemulti-phase reactions and complex materials with fluctuatingchemical, mineralogical and physical properties. Moreover,these often do not capture the components of principal envi-ronmental concern, such as the minor elements or the compar-atively small losses from process streams. The systems based[85] and quality management approaches [86] on the otherhand are often considered too simple to initiate option identi-fication in complex process environments.

There is a degree of optimism that systemic and explicitconsideration of CP and EE in project and process develop-ment can generate better and more eco-efficient outcomes(e.g. [87e89]). There is some evidence that more eco-efficientplants have been achieved where engineers and managers havemore vigorously pursued EE objectives [90]. The challenge re-mains to provide frameworks, tools and metrics that can feedand anchor EE thoroughly in mainstream project realisationcycles, rather execute EE opportunity assessments upon pro-ject completion. Preliminary, largely conceptual, effortsshow that such might be possible, even though this is stillfar from being widely applicably in the engineering designteams [91,92].

Likewise there is optimism that the limitations in CP toolsas organisational change agents [93,94] can be addressedthrough the application of insights from organisational changetheory and practice [95e97]. These efforts appear to havebeen most useful in explaining ex post the level of successand appropriateness of CP interventions in businesses. Theguidance for improved design and implementation of CP ini-tiatives derived from such business analyses, has been mostlyconceptual [94,97], and uncertainties remain over its effective-ness. While organisational change initiatives favour values or



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

principles driven top-down implementation of CP initiatives,others highlight the opportunity for bottom-up approachesbased on established lean manufacturing and business im-provement concepts, such as Kaizen engineering (or total pro-ductivity management, [98]) and six sigma management [99].

7. Discussion

The uptake of CP and EE in WA appeared to have laggedbehind the uptake in the rest of Australia during the 1990s.This appears understandable in the context of the limitedsize and relative isolation of WA, the dominance of theminerals, energy and agribusiness sectors and local businessegovernment relations. A concerted effort to define and clarifyconcepts, strategies and programs, and their subsequent rollout, resulted in a remarkable growth of CP activity in a rela-tively short period of time. The WA Sustainable IndustryGroup was of particular significance, in particular throughits innovative use of a voluntary partnership program usingthe WA CP Statement. This was however only possiblethrough the support of the Centre of Excellence in CP, thewidespread buy in from the private sector, government andprofessional and community organisations, and a conducivepolitical environment with sustainability high on the agendaof the state government and key industry sectors.

The growth in the uptake of CP and EE started to level in2004, for a number of reasons, both external and internal toCP. External reasons included greater competition on the cor-porate sustainability agenda (due to greater prominence ofother sustainability topics including transparency, sustainabletechnology and corporate social responsibility), drying up ofdedicated funding support for CP and EE programs, theunprecedented growth experienced across the resources indus-tries since 2003, and the eminent shortages in water and powersupplies in particular in the South Western part of the state. Si-multaneously however, there is also growing evidence that WAhas approached the limits of CP and EE theory and practice.This applies both to designing and delivering programs thatcan achieve a step-increase in the number of businesses (inparticular small businesses) that consider and implement CPas well as to providing the engineering, management and othertools to enable inclusion of CP in plant design and optimisa-tion in the process and utility industries. New directionshave been identified to drive CP and EE to their next tiers ofapplication, through greater application of technology diffusiontheory and practice in program design and delivery, and greaterengineering and management depth in CP methods and tools,in particular for complex processes and organisations

Acknowledgements

Prof. van Berkel’s chair in CP is co-sponsored by CSBPLimited. The WA Waste Management and Recycling Fundproudly supports the Centre of Excellence in CP.


(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

References

[1] EA. Environment and business profiting from cleaner production: cleaner

production manual. Canberra (ACT): Environment Australia; 1995.

[2] EA. Environment and business profiting from cleaner production.

Canberra (ACT): Environment Australia; 1995.

[3] Zosel T. How 3M makes pollution prevention pay big dividends.

Pollution Prevention Review 1990;1(1):67e72.

[4] Freeman H, editor. Industrial pollution prevention handbook. 1st ed.

New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.

[5] EPA. Cleaner production case studies. Canberra (ACT): Environmental

Protection Agency; 1993.

[6] UNEP. Cleaner production worldwide. Paris, France: United Nations

Environment Programme; 1993.

[7] UNEP. Cleaner production worldwide, Vol. II. Paris, France: United

Nations Environment Programme; 1995.

[8] van Berkel C. Cleaner production in practice: methodology develop-

ment for environmental improvement of industrial production and eval-

uation of practical experiences. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam;

1996.

[9] van Berkel R, Kortman JGM. Waste prevention in small and medium

sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production 1993;1(1):21e8.

[10] ANZECC. Towards sustainability: achieving cleaner production in

Australia. Canberra (ACT): Australia and New Zealand Environment

and Conservation Council; 1998.

[11] ABS. 2003 Western Australia at a glance. Canberra (ACT): Australian

Bureau of Statistics; 2004.

[12] DoIR. Economic structure of Western Australia. Perth (WA): Australia:

Department of Industry and Resources; 2004.

[13] UNEP. Cleaner production in the Asia Pacific economic cooperation

region. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme; 1994.

[14] van Berkel R, Crul M, de Hoo S, Koppert P. Business examples with

waste prevention: ten case studies from the Dutch PRISMA Project.

In: Crul M, editor. PREPARE: manual and experiences. The Hague:

Ministry of Economic Affairs; 1991.

[15] DeSimione L, Popoff F, editors. Eco-efficiency: the business link to

sustainable development. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press;

1997.

[16] CEST. Waste minimisation: a route to profit and cleaner production.

London: Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology; 1995.

[17] DCT/WAMA. State recycling blueprint. Perth, WA: Department of

Commerce and Trade and Western Australian Municipal Association;

1993.

[18] EPA. Rehabilitation and revegetation. In: Best practice in environmental

management in mining. Canberra (ACT): Environmental Protection

Agency; 1995.

[19] EA. Landform design for rehabilitation. In: Best practice in environ-

mental management in mining. Canberra (ACT): Environment

Australia; 1998.

[20] de Vos A, Spickett J. The Bellevue (WA) chemical fire: an environ-

mental health management review. Environmental Health 2005;5(2):

62e76.

[21] WAste2020. Towards zero waste: WAste 2020 Taskforce Report and

Recommendations. Perth (WA): WAste 2020 Taskforce; 2001.

[22] WMB. Strategic directions for waste management. Perth (WA): Waste

Management Board; 2004.

[23] GoWA. Focus on the future: the Western Australian state sustainability

strategy (consultation draft). Perth (WA): Government of Western

Australia; 2002.

[24] GoWA. Hope for the future: the Western Australian state sustainability

strategy (a vision for quality of life in Western Australia). Perth (WA):

Government of Western Australia; 2003.

[25] GoWA. Focus on the future: opportunities for sustainability in Western

Australia. Perth (WA): Government of Western Australia; 2001.

[26] MMSD. Breaking new ground: mining, minerals and sustainable

development (the report of the MMSD Project). London, UK: Earthscan

Publications; 2002.



+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

[27] Sheeny B, Dickie P. Facing the future: the report of the MMSD Aus-

tralia Project. Melbourne, Vic: Australian Minerals and Energy Envi-

ronment Foundation; 2002.

[28] DEP. Industrial waste reduction strategy; consultation draft. Perth

(WA): Department of Environmental Protection; 1998.

[29] SRT/WRC. Swan canning industry survey: pilot survey findings. Perth,

WA: Swan River Trust and Waters and Rivers Commission; 1999.

[30] Lang T, van Berkel R. Report of the Perth eco-efficiency workshop.

Perth (WA): John Curtin International Institute; 1999.

[31] USEPA. Pollution prevention 1997: a national progress report. Wash-

ington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1997.

[32] EA. Profiting from environmental improvement in business: an eco-

efficiency information kit for Australian industry. Canberra (ACT):

Environment Australia; 1999.

[33] van Berkel R. Cleaner production in Australia: revolutionary strategy or

incremental tool? Australian Journal of Environmental Management

2000;7(3):132e46.

[34] UNEP. Government strategies and policies for cleaner production. Paris:

United Nations Environment Programme; 1994.

[35] WBCSD. Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact. Geneva:

World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2000.

[36] van Berkel R, Clark T, Brereton S. Update and review of eco-efficiency

and cleaner production case studies. Perth (WA): Curtin University of

Technology; 2001.

[37] van Berkel R. Cleaner production for sustainable development in the oil

and gas industry: opportunities and implications for environmental and

strategic management, Environmental management in oil and gas. Fre-

mantle (WA): IIR Conferences; 2000.

[38] van Berkel R. Application of cleaner production principles and tools for

eco-efficient minerals processing. In: Proceedings Green Processing

2002. Cairns (QLD): Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy;

2002.

[39] van Berkel R. Eco-efficiency in the Australian minerals processing

sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press. doi:10.1016/

j.jclepro.2006.06.017.

[40] van Berkel R. The application of life cycle assessment for improving

the eco-efficiency of supply chains. In: From farm to fork: linking pro-

ducers to consumers through value chains. Perth (WA): Muresk Insti-

tute; 2002.

[41] Pagan R, Prasad P, DaCosta J, Van Berkel R. Cleaner production appli-

cations for coal utilisation. In: Proceedings National Environmental

Engineering Conference. Australia: Brisbane (QLD); June 2004.

[42] Svenningsen N, Radka M, van Berkel R. Cleaner production in pulp and

paper mills: a training resource package. Bangkok: United Nations

Environment Programme; 1998.

[43] Chandak S, Wadhwa R, Kumra S. From waste to profits: guidelines

for waste minimisation. New Delhi: National Productivity Council;

1994.

[44] van Berkel R. Introduction to cleaner production assessments with

applications in the food processing industry. UNEP Industry and

Environment Review 1995;18(1):8e15.

[45] Altham J. Benchmarking to trigger cleaner production in small busi-

nesses: drycleaning case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.005.

[46] Howgrave-Graham A, van Berkel R. Assessment of cleaner production

uptake: method development and trial with small businesses in Western

Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, in press. doi:10.1016/

j.jclepro.2006.07.004.

[47] Brereton S, van Berkel R. Guidelines for minimising waste in residen-

tial construction. Perth (WA): Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Produc-

tion; 2001.

[48] Altham J, van Berkel R. Cleaner production information for drycleaning

industry. Perth (WA): Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production;

2000.

[49] UNEP. International declaration on cleaner production. Paris: United

Nations Environment Programme; 1998.

[50] WASIG. Western Australian cleaner production statement. Perth (WA):

WA Sustainable Industry Group; 2001.

Please cite this article as: Rene van Berkel, Cleaner production and eco-efficienc

(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

[51] WASIG. Implementation guidelines for the WA cleaner production

statement. Pert (WA): WA Sustainable Industry Group; 2002.

[52] Riegler B. Green Stamp Program: bringing cleaner production to West

Australian small and medium businesses. Department of Environment;

2004.

[53] McPhee C. Becoming Green Stamp accredited. Perth (WA): Motor

Trade Association of WA; 2004.

[54] HIA. Greensmart program. Canberra (ACT): Housing Industry Associ-

ation; 2005.

[55] PACIA. Responsible care. Melbourne (VIC): Plastics and Chemicals

Industries Association; 2005.

[56] Bossilkov A, Clark T. Eco-efficiency in the food industry. Perth (WA):

Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production; 2002.

[57] Bossilkov A, Clark T. Eco-efficiency in the metals industry. Perth (WA):


[58] Bossilkov A, Clark T. Eco-efficiency in printing industry. Perth (WA):


[59] Bossilkov A, van Berkel R. Cleaner production in health care. Perth

(WA): Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production; 2003.

[60] van Berkel R. Promotion and implementation of cleaner production and

eco-efficiency through voluntary partnerships: the case of the Western

Australian cleaner production statement, in: 5th Asia Pacific Roundta-

ble on Cleaner Production. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 2004.

[61] MTA-WA. Green Stamp accreditation. Perth (WA): Motor Trade Asso-

ciation of WA; 2005.

[62] PIAA. Green Stamp project gets green light. Perth (WA): Printing In-

dustries Association of Australia; 2004.

[63] Bossilkov A. St John of God Health Care Subiaco: organisational

change to deliver sustained eco-efficiency. Perth (WA): Centre of Excel-

lence in Cleaner Production; 2003.

[64] Narayanaswamy V, Altham J, Van Berkel R, McGregor M. Environ-

mental life cycle assessment (LCA) case studies for Western Austra-

lian grain products. Perth (WA): Curtin University of Technology;

2004.

[65] van Berkel R. Industrial ecology, in: Marinova D, Annadale D, Philli-

more J, editors. The international handbook of environmental technol-

ogy management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publications; 2006.

p. 13e32.

[66] White R. Preface. In: Allenby B, Richards D, editors. The greening of

industrial ecosystems. USA: National Academy Press; 1994.

[67] Chertow M. Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annual Re-

view of Energy and Environment 2000;25:313e37.

[68] Sinclear-Knight-Merz. Kwinana Industrial Area economic impact study.

Perth (WA): Kwinana Industries Council; 2002.

[69] Taylor M. Waste and emission reduction through regional synergies in

the Kwinana Industrial Area. In: Green processing 2002. Cairns (QLD):

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; 2002.

[70] van Beers D, van Berkel R, Bossilkov A. Capturing regional synergies

in the Kwinana Industrial Area: 2005 status report. Perth (WA): Centre

for Sustainable Resource Processing; 2005.

[71] George S. Shenton Sustainability Park: prospects for an eco-industrial

park. In: Amstrong R, Ruane S, Newman P, editors. Case studies in sus-

tainability: hope for the future in Western Australia. Perth (WA): Mur-

doch University; 2002.

[72] Stanton-Hicks E. Oil mallees: native flora with myriad benefits. In:

Amstrong R, Ruane S, Newman P, editors. Case studies in sustainabil-

ity: hope for the future in Western Australia. Perth (WA): Murdoch

University; 2002.

[73] UNEP. Industry as a partner for sustainable development: 10 years after

Rio (the UNEP Assessment). Paris, France: United Nations Environ-

ment Program; 2002.

[74] WBCSD. The business case for sustainable development: making a dif-

ference toward the Johannesburg summit and beyond. Geneva: World

Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2001.

[75] Dieleman H, van Berkel R, Reijenga F, de Hoo S, Brezet H, Cramer J,

et al. Choosing for prevention is winning. In: Crul M, Brezet H, de

Hoo S, editors. PREPARE: manual and experiences. The Hague: Min-

istry of Economic Affairs (for EuroEnviron); 1991.

y initiatives in Western Australia 1996e2004, Journal of Cleaner Production

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.004






+ MODEL

ARTICLE IN PRESS

[76] Backman M, Huisingh D, Persson E, Siljebratt L. Preventive environ-

mental protection strategy: first results of an experiment in Landskrona

Sweden. In: Crul M, Brezet H, de Hoo S, editors. PREPARE: manual

and experiences. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs (for Euro-

Environ); 1991.

[77] van Berkel R, Chandak S, Sethi P, Luken R. From waste to profits: to-

wards financial and environmental dividends from waste minimization

in small scale industries in India. Vienna, Austria: United Nations In-

dustrial Development Organisation; 1995.

[78] McKenzie-Mohr D. Community based social marketing. McKenzie-

Mohr and Associates; 2003.

[79] DEH. Energy efficiency case study Westpac. Canberra (ACT): Depart-

ment of Environment and Heritage; 1999.

[80] Kemp R. Futures analyses of technical change, in: Gordon Research

Conference on Industrial Ecology. Oxford; 2004.

[81] Kemp R, Andersen M. Strategies for eco-efficiency innovation. The

Hague: Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning, and Housing;

2004.

[82] Engel H. Eco-mapping: a visual, simple and practical tool to analyse and

manage the environmental performance of small companies and craft in-

dustries. International Network on Environmental Management; 1998.

[83] Howe M. A guidance manual on a model approach for local government

to facilitate cleaner production in small businesses. Perth (WA): Centre

of Excellence in Cleaner Production; 2004.

[84] USEPA. Waste minimisation opportunity assessment manual. Cincin-

nati (OH): United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1988.

[85] Pojasek R. Improving environmental performance with a systems ap-

proach. Environmental Manager 1997;9(1):1e5.

[86] USEPA. An organisational guide to pollution prevention. Cincinnati

(OH): United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2001.

[87] CMA. Designing pollution prevention into the process: research, devel-

opment and engineering. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufacturers

Association; 1993.

[88] Allen D, Shonnard D, editors. Green engineering: environmentally con-

scious design of chemical processes. New York, USA: John Wiley &

Sons; 2002.

[89] WBCSD. Innovation, technology, sustainability and society. Geneva:

World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2002.

[90] Baird G. Eco-efficiency in Pinjarra efficiency upgrade, in: 2005 Eco-

efficient entrepreneur series. Perth (WA); 2005.

[91] Twigge-Molecey C. Approaches to plant design for sustainability. In:

Green processing 2004. Fremantle (WA): Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy; 2004.

[92] van Berkel R, Narayanaswamy V. Sustainability as a framework for in-

novation in minerals processing. In: Green processing 2004. Fremantle

(WA): Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; 2004.

Please cite this article as: Rene van Berkel, Cleaner production and eco-efficienc

(2006), doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.012.

[93] Stone L. Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisa-

tional change agents I. Achieving commitment and on-going improve-

ment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;14(1):1e14.

[94] Stone L. Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organisa-

tional change agents. II. Leadership, support, communication, involve-

ment and programme design. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;

14(1):15e30.

[95] Dunphy D, Griffiths A, Benn S. Organisational change for corporate

sustainability. London: Routledge; 2003.

[96] Doppelt B. Leading change toward sustainability: a change manage-

ment guide for business, government and civil society. Sheffield: Green-

leaf Publications; 2003.

[97] Winsemius P, Guntram U. A thousand shades of green e sustainable

strategies for competitive advantage. London: Earthscan Publications;

2002.

[98] Imai M. Gemba Kaizen: a commonsense, low-cost approach to manage-

ment. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.

[99] Barney M. New six sigma: leaders’ guide to achieving rapid business

improvement and sustainable results. Prentice Hall Inc.; 2003.

[100] USEPA. Waste minimisation opportunity assessment manual. Cincin-

natti (OH): United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1988.

[101] de Hoo S, Brezet H, Crul M, Dieleman H. Manual for the prevention of

waste and emissions. In: Crul M, Brezet H, de Hoo S, editors. PRE-

PARE: manual and experiences. The Hague: Ministry of Economic

Affairs (for EuroEnviron); 1991.

[102] Clark T, Brereton S. Cleaner production e energy efficiency and waste

minimisation e Atlas Dry Cleaners. Canberra (ACT): Department of

Environment and Heritage; 2001.

[103] Clark T, Brereton S. Cleaner production initiatives: BP Refinery Kwi-

nana. In: Eco-efficiency and cleaner production case studies. Canberra

(ACT): Department of Environment and Heritage; 2001.

[104] Clark T, Brereton S. Waste heat recovery power generation e plant and

new markets for wastes e Iluka resources. Canberra (ACT): Depart-

ment of Environment and Heritage; 2001.

[105] Clark T, Brereton S. Cleaner production e water, energy and waste re-

duction e Perth Zoo. Canberra (ACT): Department of Environment

and Heritage; 2001.

[106] Clark T, Brereton S. Cleaner production e energy efficiency and waste

minimisation e Solahart. Canberra (ACT): Department of Environment

and Heritage; 2001.

[107] Bossilkov A, Clark T, van Berkel R. Protecting your profit: more

profits with less waste. Perth (WA): Centre of Excellence in Cleaner

Production; 2002.

[108] van Berkel R, Clark T, Lang T. Cleaner production training for local

government. Perth (WA): Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production;

2003.

y initiatives in Western Australia 1996e2004, Journal of Cleaner Production

cleaner production and eco-efﬁciency initiatives in...

Documents