,+ I. P r, c

DIFFUSION OF P2 INNOVATIOHS

How does pollution prevention While most private belts, buying insur- and public sector compare with other innovative ance, and emergency agencies agree that planning may be un- preventing pollution ideas? pleasant and theirre- makes much more sults may not be eas- sense than alterna- ily observed. They tive waste management strategies, most would also also tend to have a relatively slow rate of adoption. agree that pollution prevention technology is dif- fusing at a rate far slower than would be expected. Rogers (1995) states: This is particularly true given the advantages and benefits that P2 offers. mhe relative advantage of preventive in- This article, through comparison of pertinent novations is difficult for change agents to literature regarding the diffusion of innovations, demonstrate to their clients, because it attempts to offer some explanations for this rela- occurs at some future, unknown time. tively slow rate and some insights on speeding up Individuals have difficulties in perceiving the P2 diffusion process. the relative advantage of preventive in- novations because the sought-after con- Prevention Is Hard to Sell sequence is distant in time, and so the rela- According to Rogers (1995), a preventive inno- tive advantage of a preventive innovation vation is an idea that an individual adopts at one is a delayed reward. In contrast, point in time in order to lower the probability that nonpreventive innovations tend to pro- some future unwanted event will occur. The un- vide a desired outcome in the near future. wanted future event might not have happened any- way, even without adoption of the preventive inno- P2 innovations have been diffusing relatively vation, so the benefits of adoption may not be clear slowly, in part because they are frequently per- cut. Also, the prevented events, by definition, do not occur, and so they cannot be observed or counted. Preventive innovations such as contracep- tives, mammograms, stopping smoking, using seat Timothy C. Lindsey

CCC 10740276/98&80101-14 0 1998 John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc. Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 1998 / 1 ceived as preventive innovations. The advantages cost and its impact on other parts of the opera- of P2, like those of other preventive innovations, tion. These efforts can be clustered with other simi- tend to occur in the unknown future. lar software technologies like total quality man- In addition to sharing characteristics with pre- agement programs for improving overall business ventive innovations, the P2 diffusion process has performance. paralleled many other innovations in terms of tech- Hardware technologies pertinent to pollution nology transfer, diffusion concepts and processes, prevention may involve various types of high-ef- adoption rates, social aspects, marketing, and or- ficiency equipment, like powder paint coatings ganizational structure. This discussion outlines or separation devices such as membrane filtration basic concepts regarding how these factors relate that can remove contaminants from industrial to P2 diffusion. process solutions and extend their useful life. Al- temative chemistries that are less harmful to the The Technology Transfer Aspects of P2 environment, such as water-based cleaning chemi- A technology usually has two components: cals that replace ozone-depleting solvents, are an hardware (a tool that embodies the technology as example of chemical-based P2 hardware technol- a material or physical object), and ogy. The various P2 technologies available to software (the information base for adopters can be clustered to develop an overall The various P2 the tool) (Thompson, 1967). P2 program strategy. technologies available Almost every technology has to adopters can be software aspects. Some technolo- Diffusion of Innovations: Some Basic clustered to develop an gies are almost purely “software” Concepts overall P2 program because they center around an idea Rogers (1995) provides the following explana- strategy. and are difficult to trace in a physi- tion of diffusion and innovation: cal sense. Examples include Henry Ford’s idea of assembly-line manu- Diffusion is the process by which an in- facturing, a political philosophy like Marxism, or novation is communicated through cer- total quality management techniques. These are tain channels over time among members mainly social “technologies.” of a social system. An innovation is an Technology transfer is the exchange of techni- idea, practice, or object that is perceived cal information between the R&D workers who as new by an individual or other unit of create a technological innovation and the users of adoption. It matters little, so far as human the new idea. Eveland (1986) suggests that “if one behavior is concemed, whether or not an understands that a technology usually consists of idea is objectively new as measured by the software as well as hardware, and thus that a tech- lapse of time since its first use or discov- nology is essentially composed of information ery. The perceived newness of the idea for (matter-energy that affects an individual’s choice the individual determines his or her reac- of altematives in a decision-making situation), tion to it. If the idea seems new to the technology transfer is a communication process.” individual, it is an innovation. The software components of P2 innovations involve improving efficiency by studying the pro- As indicated in the following statement by cesses that generate waste and idenwngthe root Rogers (1995), perceptions of the newness and causes of the waste problem, as well as its total uncertainty regarding an innovation are important

2 I Winter 1998 / Pollution Pnrvention Review Timothy C. Lindsey 1

aspects that may be interpreted differently by vari- simply traditionally resistant to change, or that ous potential adopters: “The perceived newness they are irrational. A more careful analysis may of an innovation, and the uncertainty associated show that the innovation was less appropriate for with this newness, is a distinctive aspect of inno- the late adopters, perhaps because of their smaller- vation decision making, compared to other types sized operations and more limited resources. of decision making. Innovation may be perceived The individual blame orientation is common somewhat differently by each adopter and modi- in P2 technical assistance efforts. P2 change agents fied to suit the individual’s particular situation.” find it difficult to understand why companies do Individual perceptions about an innovation are not immediately discontinue existing practices and usually more important than the actual technical change their operations to adopt P2 methods. aspects. Thus, diffusion scholars such as Belasco Many change agents and pollution prevention (1989) and Sommers and Napier (1993) no longer scholars feel that the mass quantities of P2 infor- assume that an innovation is perfect for all poten- mation that are available in both printed form and tial adopters in solving their problems and meet- cyberspace should be adequate for implementing ing their needs. P2. Thei forget that P2 involves solving the pollu- tion problem at its source. In order to accomplish The Problem of the “Individual Blame this, substantialinformation needs to be gathered

Orientation” on-site at the specific facility. Many businesses lack Caplan and Nelson (1973) identify a phenom- the resources to perform the type of detailed pro- enon they refer to as an “individual blame orien- cess analysis required for successful P2. Instead of tation,” which is common in diffusion research. helping their customers find ways of accomplish- They note that this orientation implies that “if the ing the necessary process analysis, many P2 change shoe doesn‘t fit, there’s something wrong with your agents blame the customer for being resistant to foot.” An alternative point of view would blame change or irrational. the system, not the individual; it might imply that the shoe manufacturer or the marketing system Understanding Innovation Adoption Rates could be at fault for a shoe that does not fit. When the number of individuals adopting a new How a social problem is defined is an impor- idea is plotted on aamulative frequency basis over tant determinant of how we go about solving it- time, the resulting distribution is and ultimately of the effectiveness of the attempted usually an S-shaped curve. However, solution. Overemphasizing individual blame is a there is variation in the slope of the How a social problem is defined is an important common error. “S” from innovation to innovation. determinant of how we Seldom is it implied in diffusion research pub- Some new ideas diffuse relatively rap lications that the source or the channel of innova- idly, and the Scurve is quite steep. go about solving it- tions might be at fault for not providing adequate Other innovations have a slower rate and ultimately of the information,for promoting inappropriateinnova- of adoption, and the Snweis more effectiveness of the tions, or for failing to contact less-educated mem- gradual. Evidence supporting this attempted solution. bers of the audience who may especially need a concept has been provided by a number of research- change agent’s help. Change agents often feel that ers studying agricultural, consumer, and other in- late adopters are not dutifully following the ex- novations in a variety of systems (Rogers, 1958; perts’ recommendations to use an innovation. Bose, 1964; Ryan 1948; Beal and Rogers, 1960; and They frequently believe that these late adopters are Hamblin et al., 1973).

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 1998 / 3 Exhibit 1. S-shaped Curve of Diffusion

Heart of Dmsion Process

Critical Mass Achieved (Adoption becomes self-sustaining)

Innovators Adopt Time lnmwation

Exhibit 1 shows how the S-shaped curve of According to Rogers (1995), many technolo- diffusion “takes off” once interpersonal networks gists believe that advantageousinnovations will become active in spreading subjective evaluations sell themselves, that the obvious benefits of a of an innovation from peer to peer. There is an new idea will be widely realized by potential interaction effect-i.e., adopters influence those in adopters, and that the innovation will therefore their soda1 system who have not yet adopted. As diffuse rapidly. Seldom is this the case. Most more persons adopt, the effect on non-adopters innovations, in fact, diffuse at a disappointingly inaeases. slow rate. The part of the diffusion curve from about 10 The diffusion of P2 is an example of an in- percent adoption to 20 percent adoption is the novation that appears to have many obvious heart of the diffusion process. After that point, criti- benefits and advantages but is being slowly cal mass has been achieved such that the adopted. The fact that some innovations, such innovation’s further rate of adoption becomes self- as P2, diffuse relatively slowly while others dif- sustaining--and it is often impossible to stop the fuse more quickly can be explained in part further diffusion of the idea, even if one wished to through examination of the social system within do so. which they are diffusing.

4 I Winter 1998 I Polllntoa Prevention Review Timothy C. Lindsey The Social Aspects of Innovation Diffusion deemed desirable by a change agency. The change A social system is defined as a set of interre- agent usually seeks to obtain the adoption of new lated units that are engaged in joint problem- ideas, but may also attempt to slow down diffu- solving to accomplish a common goal (Rogers, sion and prevent the adoption of undesirable in- 1995). The members or units of a social system novations. may be individuals, informal groups, organiza- Persons in many different oc- The change agent usually tions, and/or subsystems. cupations can be considered P2 seeks to obtain the Because diffusion occurs within a social system, change agents: teachers, consult- adoption of new ideas, but the social structure of the system affects the ants, govemmental technical as- may also attempt to slow innovation’s diffusion in several ways. First, the sistance providers, manufactur- down diffusion and prevent social system constitutes a boundary within which ing extension agents, sales- the adoption of undesirable the innovation diffuses. Second, the system’s so- people, and others. All these innovations. cial structure affects diffusion by defining the roles change agents provide a commu- of opinion leaders and change agents, the types of nication link between a resource innovation decisions, the effects of norms on dif- system of some kind and a client fusion, and the consequences of innovation. Indi- system. In most diffusion campaigns, there is a vidual innovativeness is affected both by individu- tendency for more effective communication to als’ characteristics and by the nature of the social occur with those who are more similar to a change system in which the individuals are members agent. (Rogers, 1995). Rogers (1995) observes, “Change agents usu- Various diffusion investigations show that most ally promote the adoption of innovations, rather individuals do not evaluate an innovation on the than seeking to teach clients the basic skill of basis of scientific studies of its consequences, al- how to evaluate innovations themselves.” P2 though such objective evaluations are not entirely change agents often encourage clients to adopt irrelevant, especially to the very first individuals pollution prevention principles and technolo- who adopt. According to Rogers (1995), most gies without helping them fully evaluate their people depend mainly upon subjective evaluations own processes or how the innovation will actu- of the innovation conveyed to them from other ally be implemented. Additionally, most P2 individuals like themselves, who have previously change agents do not help the potential adopter adopted the innovation. look into how the proposed innovation will For some individuals and for some innovations, function within its processes. the trial of a new idea by a peer can substitute, at Clients are more likely to adopt an innova- least in part, for their own trial of the innovation. tion if the diffusion program meshes with their This dependence on the experience of near-peers needs. Change agents need to be aware of these suggests that the heart of the diffusion process needs and adapt their programs accordingly. consists of modeling and imitation by potential However, they should also attempt to shape adopters of their network partners who have these needs to optimize the clients’ welfare in adopted previously. the long run. This role is critical to the P2 tech- nical assistance process. Most clients that re- P2 Change Agents quest help with a waste or pollution problem A “change agent” is an individual who influ- perceive the problem as being caused by an in- ences clients’ innovation decisions in a direction adequacy in waste treatment and handling

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review I Winter 1998 / 5 methods. P2 change agents have to work closely Using Change Agent Aides with clients to change their focus so that they Rogers (1995) notes that many change agen- look upstream in their production processes to cies employ “change agent aides.” These aides are identify solutions at the source of the problem. usually socially similar to the average client, and thus provide a means of bridging the gap that fre- An Innovation Paradox quently exists between professional change agents The individuals or other units in a system who and their client audience. Even though change would benefit most from a new idea are generally agent aides have less competence credibility (that the last to adopt it, while those who adopt first is, they are perceived as less knowledgeable and generally least need the benefits of the innova- expert), they have the special advantage of safety tion. This paradoxical relationship between credibility (that is, they are perceived as more trust- innovativeness and the need for the benefits of the worthy). Because an aide is viewed as a near-peer, innovation tends to widen the socioeconomic gaps clients are not likely to perceive the aide as having among the individuals in a social system. selfish motives or manipulative intentions. Roling etal. (1976), (1981)point out that many Every state in the nation currently offers some change agents do not try to contact their lower- type of technical assistance to help industries adopt status clients because, based on past experiences, P2 innovations (Freeman, 1995). These programs they believe these clients will not be responsive to vary in intensity from simple distribution of lit- the change agents’ efforts at diffusing innovations. erature (such as case studies and vendor informa- This stereotype becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy tion) to on-site industrial site assessments, tech- that discourages initial contact with less- nology demonstrations, and feasibility studies. advantaged clients. Bierma and Waterstraat (1995) note, “Many Some P2 change agents tend to work more govemment programs have experienced the frus- closely with larger waste generators because these tration of preparing mailings, brochures, work- generators are generally more receptive to pollu- shops, and other materials for businesses-only to tion prevention innovations and to find that few, if any, companies are interested.” working with change agents than are Bierma and Waterstraat attribute the ineffective- Utilization of change smaller waste generators. The smaller ness of these government programs to the fact that agent aides may be an operations, however, tend to need the government agencies are not popular opinion lead- effective method for innovation advice that the change ers in business networks because they are perceived helping to diffuse P2 agent has to offer more than the larger as being “very different from” or even “hostile to” innovations. operations. In the P2 field, change the businesses they are trying to reach. Utilization agents could overcome the commu- of change agent aides may be an effective method nication effects gap through for helping to diffuse P2 innovations.

working closely with opinion leaders (such as Sources of Potential Change Agent Aides vendors and suppliers); Personnel from publicly owned treatment employing change agent aides (such as POTWs works (POTWs)often make good change agent and power utilities); and aides. Many POTWs operate pretreatment pro- forming focus groups composed of smaller op- grams that continuously monitor waste discharges erations to provide them with leadership in in- coming from industrial facilities and assess fees or novation decision making. penalties based on the quality and quantity of the

6 I Winter 1998 I Pollution Prevention Review Timothy C. Lindsey ,

discharges. For this reason, POTWs are in a posi- more competitive. Extensive efforts have been tion to identify customers that are in most need of undertaken to integrate P2 concepts into the P2 technical assistance. Working with POTWs can industrial technical assistance services provided help reduce the amount of inequality often asso- by NIST personnel. ciated with change agent efforts, while still address- ing high priority pollution problems. Opinion Leaders POTWs also function more closely to the pub- Rogers (1995) defines opinion leadership as lic than federal and state agencies. Their employ- “thedegree to which an individual is able to influ- ees are members of the community and understand ence other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior community concerns regarding the issues sur- informally in a desired way with relative fre- rounding waste management, such as waste quan- quency.” Opinion leadership is earned and main- tity and quality, the status of the local economy, tained by the individual‘s technical competence, the reputation and cooperativeness of various in- social accessibility, and conformity to the system’s dustry interests, and the concerns of local citizens. norms. The most striking characteristic of opinion POTWs continually bargain and compromise with leaders is their unique and influential position in their industrial customers. As members of the com- their system‘s communication structure. They are munity, they are committed to both the success of at the center of interpersonal communication net- their industrial users and the protection of the works (Rogers, 1995). public and the environment. Diffusion campaigns are more likely to be It is doubtful that POW personnel would be successful if change agents identify and mobilize able to completely take over the role of P2 change opinion leaders. Economy agents, however. POTW personnel have extensive of effort is achieved because ~iff~~i~~campaignsare expertise in treating wastes, but most of them lack contacting opinion leaders more likely to be the expertise in industrial processes required to be takes far less of the change successful if change effective P2 change agents. Therefore, the best P2 agent’s resources than con- agents identify and role for POW personnel might be to refer poten- sulting with each mobilize opinion [eadem. tial P2 adopters to other technical assistance pro- member of the client sys- viders. tem. Network messages Other promising sources of change agent aides from near-peers like opinion leaders are regarded for promoting P2 innovations include power utili- as credible in convincing individuals to adopt in- ties and manufacturing extension centers. The novations. After the opinion leaders in a system power industry is in the process of becoming de- adopt an innovation, it may be impossible to stop regulated, and individual power companies are its further spread. hustling to offer additional services, such as pro- Due to the strong influence of opinion leaders motion of pollution prevention to their industrial in the innovation diffusion process, Bierma and customers. Waterstraat (1995)advocate using opinion leaders As of February 1997, the National Institute to promote pollution prevention to businesses. of Standards and Technology (NIST) had estab- Their research concludes that businesses typically lished 78 manufacturing extension partnership tum to trusted contacts such as vendors, suppli- centers throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. ers, competitors, and accountants as sources of These centers have been developed to help credible information regarding innovations. small- and medium-sized businesses become Bierma and Waterstraat (1995) suggest that these

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review I Winter 1998 / 7 trusted contacts could be valuable sources of opin- Relative advantage over the idea it supersedes. ion leadership in the effort to promote P2, and that Compatibility with the existing values, past change agents should work closely with these opin- experiences, and needs of potential adopters. ion leaders to facilitate the P2 diffusion process. Complexity (how difficult the innovation is to understand and use). Innovation Champions Trialability (the degree to which the innovation An individual role that is often important in can be experimented with on a limited basis). the innovation process in organizations is that of Observability (the degree to which the results the innovation champion. Howell and Higgins of the innovation are visible to others). (1990) state, “The champion is a charismatic indi- vidual who throws hisher weight behind the in- Innovations that are perceived by individuals novation, thus overcoming the indifference or re- as having greater relative advantage, compatibil- sistance that a new idea often provokes in an ity, trialability, and observability, as well as less organization.” complexity, will be adopted more rapidly than According to Day (1994), most innovation other innovations (Rogers, 1995). champions are powerful individuals with a high P2 innovations differ widely in their character- office in the organization, such as company presi- istics and scope. Individual pollution prevention dent or division chief. Day found this to be par- innovations can exhibit varying degrees of these five ticularly true for innovations that are costly, vis- characteristics. Consequently, some P2 innovations ible, or radical (in the sense that the new are adopted more rapidly than others. p2 innovations idea represents a new direction for the or- When the concept of P2 is considered in total differ widely ganization). as a comprehensive environmental program or a in their The presence of a champion is also an way of doing business, it is typically viewed as very characteristics important catalyst in the diffusion of P2 complex because of the detailed process informa- and scope. innovations. P2 change agents should at- tion that is required to achieve comprehensive tempt to cultivate top management sup- pollution prevention in a facility. The trialability port for pollution prevention concepts and observability characteristics of a comprehen- prior to investing significant resources in a sive P2 program can also be problematic because customer’s facility. information regarding process-spedfic waste gen- eration conditions before and after implementa- Why Some Innovations Diffuse Faster tion of P2 programs is often lacking. than Others Change agents can sometimes use demonstra- Some innovations (like mobile telephones or tions to overcome these barriers. For instance, a VCRs) may require only a few years to reach wide- change agent might demonstrate how ultrafiltra- spread adoption in the U.S., while other new ideas tion (membrane separation) can remove oil, grease, (such as the metric system or using seat belts) re- and dirt contaminants from industrial cleaning so- quire decades to reach complete use. lutions, and thus extend the solution’s useful life. The characteristics of innovations as perceived Such a demonstration can be very effective because by individuals help to explain their different rates clients can see brown, murky solution going into of adoption. Rogers (1995) offers the following five the system, and brightcolored, clear solution com- characteristics that can influence the speed of the ing out. Demonstrations such as this make it easy innovation diffusion process: for the potential adopter to comprehend the

8 I Winter 1998 I Pollution Pmwntlon Review Timothy C. Lindsey ,

innovation’s utility. ment programs by making P2 a component of their Many companies have not adopted P2 tech- overall management philosophy. nologies because they perceive them as a potential An example of how hardware components of source of additional complexity that is not part of P2 technologies can be clustered involves combin- their “core business.” They may recognize many ing a conversion from ozone depleting solvents to of the advantages of P2, but are simply unwilling aqueous cleaners in in- to devote the necessary resources to obtain knowl- dustrial parts cleaning Service providers in the form edge regarding the P2 portion of their business- operations. This inno- of consultants, chemical just as automakers choose not to make tires. vation can be coupled management firms, and Service providers in the form of consultants, with membrane filtra- recycling technology chemical management firms, and recycling tech- tion to recycle the aque- services have become nology services have become increasingly popular ous cleaners within increasingly popular options options for assisting companies with their P2 ef- the cleaning process. for assisting companies with forts. These service organizations enable compa- The resulting process their P2 efforts. nies to reduce the complexity associated with P2 change creates a combi- by focusing on their core business, while still reap- nation of technologies ing most of the rewards of P2. that are safer, more environmentally friendly, and Under some chemical management contracts, more cost-effective than the initial solvent clean- industrial customers pay a fee for chemical services, ing operation. while the cost of the chemicals tRemselves is bome by the chemical management firm. In these cases, How Innovation Decisions Are Made many of the financial incentives associated with Rogers (1995) identifies four basic types of in- implementing P2 belong to the chemical manage- novation decisions, all of which can be influenced ment firm rather than the industrial customer. by the social system within which the innovations Therefore, the chemical management firm has are considered. Rogers explains that decisions on more incentives to employ innovative chemical whether to adopt or reject innovations fall into reduction, reuse, and recycling technologies. As the following categories: these types of innovative arrangements become more prevalent, P2 change agents will need to Optional innovation decisions4hoices that are modify the marketing strategies for their P2 inno- made by an individual independent of the de- vations to target chemical management firms as cisions of the other members of the system. well as industrial customers. Collective innovation decisions-choices that are The boundaries around any given innovation are made by consensus among the members of a often not clear-cut or distinct. In the minds of po- system. tential adopters, one innovation may be perceived Authority innovation decisions-choices that are as closely related to another new idea. Rogers (1995) made by relatively few individuals in a system suggests that if this is the case, a change agency may who possess power, status, or technical exper- find it useful to promote a cluster or package of in- tise. novations to clients, rather than to treat each new Contingent innovation decisions-choicesthat are idea separately. Some companies have successfully made only after a prior innovation decision. packaged P2 programs and technologies with their total quality management or continuous improve- Currently, most decisions to adopt P2 innova-

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review I Winter 1998 1 9 tions are optional or collective in nature. Optional consider P2 planning requirements and innovative P2 decisions come about regularly in facilities as SEP strategies. However, P2 is still primarily an op- decision makers become aware of new technolo- tional innovation decision in virtually all states. gies for improving process efficiency. Potential adopters choose to adopt or reject the innovation Uncertainty and Complexity as Barriers to based on the standard innovation evaluation cri- Change teria described above. Collective P2 decisions are Incremental innovations that do not create often arrived at in facilities that have established much uncertainty and that do not require substan- quality circles or teams devoted to pollution pre- tial technical expertise to implement tend to be vention. adopted more readily. An example of how uncer- Authority innovation decisions can rapidly ac- tainty can restrict the diffusion of an innovation celerate the innovation adoption pro- was described by Grieshop et al. (1988) in their There am efforts under cess (e.g., legislation that requires Seat- studies of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM way to make p2 more of belt use). There are efforts under way is a strategy that advocates the use of alternative an authority innovation to make P2 "? of an authority in- methods of pest control, such as careful monitor- decision. novation decision. Since 1989, ap- ing of pest numbers and damage, using natural pest proximately one-third of the states predators, and other means. The purpose of IPM is have enacted legislation with P2 plan- to control pests at a lower cost, and to decrease ning elements. These provisions typically require dependence on chemical pesticides. certain hazardous waste generators and toxic sub- Grieshop etal. (1988) found that tomato farm- stance users to prepare plans outlining how they ers in the Sacramento Valley would save an aver- intend to reduce their use of toxic substances and age of $4,260 each ($7.10 per acre) through imple- their generation of hazardous waste (Freeman mentation of IPM. One might have expected all of 1995). It should be noted that these laws focus pri- the tomato farmers in the Sacramento Valley to marily on planning; the steps identified in the immediately adopt integrated pest management. plans may or may not be carried out, depending However, this did not occur, even though a survey on the facility management's evaluation of the of 84 tomato farmers showed awareness of the in- steps' economic and operational feasibility. novation. Although economic factors were impor- Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) tant to the farmers, they viewed IPM as &My com- have become an increasingly popular method for plex. IPM consists of techniques that are essentially incorporating P2 into EPA enforcement actions. As information (such as counting eggs and worms and an altemative to paying monetary penalties to the keeping records). Many farmers were willing to give U.S. Treasury, targeted companies can agree to per- up the economic advantages of IPM in exchange form or fund environmental projects, including P2 for the simplicity associated with simply spraying projects. According to a study in EPA Region V by their fields when pests appeared. Watson et al. (1997), 63 separate enforcement ac- The charactexistics of IPM technology that have tions in that region gave rise to SEPs in 1995, and contributed to its relatively slow diffusion are simi- 42 of these (or 67 percent) involved P2 activities. lar to those of many P2 technologies. Just as the Various state agencies are also either using, or IPM adopters were required to collect much more considering the use of, SEPs that promote P2 as an extensive information regarding the condition of innovative enforcement strategy. The authoritative their uops and pest infestation, potential P2 adopt- element to P2 continues to expand as more states ers often must obtain more extensive information

10 I Winter 1998 / Pollution Prevention Review Timothy C. Lindsey . regarding their industrial processes. Information primarily through distribution of informational about what causes raw materials to become wastes, materials. They have focused on preparing fact how raw materials escape from processes, and de- sheets, case studies, Internet home pages, and da- termination of the true costs of wastes (including tabases-only to discover that they have created lost raw materials) may all be required to effectively an “information overload” problem for prevent pollution. Many industrial facilities have their intended clients, who do not have P2 change agents chosen to forego P2, and instead implement end- the time or inclination to use these could perhaps play of-pipe waste treatment and disposal programs materials. P2 change agents could per- their most distinctive- _... - _.- - because they perceive them to be less complex. haps play their most distinctive role by roleby concentrating concentrating on the promotion of on the promotion of Innovation Information “how-to” knowledge through faalita- “how-tog’ knowledae- According to Rogers (1995), the innovation tion of effective process assessments, through facilitation of decision process is essentially an information seek- feasibility studies, and technology effective process ing and information processing activity in which demonstrations. assessments, the individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty feasibility studies, and about the advantages and disadvantages of an in- The Agricultural Extension Model: technology novation. Three types of knowledge exist with re- An Example of a Successful demonstrations. spect to innovation information: Diffusion Effort According to Rogers et al. (1982), Awareness knowledge-information that an in- the government agency that has been by far the novation exists. most successful in securing users’ adoption of its How-to kmledge-information necessary to use research results is the agricultural extension ser- an innovation properly. vice. The “agricultural extension model” consists Principles knowledge-information dealing with of three main components: the functioning principles underlying how the innovation works. a research subsystem, consisting of professors of agriculture supported by the 50 state agri- Rogers (1995) suggests: cultural experiment stations and the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture; Most change agents concentrate their ef- county extension agents, who work as change forts on creating awareness knowledge, agents with farmers and other rural residents although this goal often can be achieved at the local level; and more efficiently in many client systems state extension specialists who link agricultural by mass media channels. Most change researchers to the county agents. agents perceive that creation of principles- knowledge is outside the purview of their Both the researchers and the extension special- responsibilities and is a more appropriate ists are located in state agricultural universities, and task for formal schooling. have similar levels of expertise. The agricultural extension service of the United This observation is important for P2 technical States is reported to be the world’s most successful assistance change agents, most of whom are cur- change agency (Rogers, 1988). It is an integrated rently focused on creating “awareness knowledge,” system for the innovation development and diffu-

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 1998 / 11 sion process, although this fact is not widely un- In addition, P2 technical assistance change derstood (Rogers, 1988). The stated purpose of the agents employed by the various states to offer pol- agricultural extension service, established in 1914, lution prevention assistance come from a vast va- is “to aid in diffusing among the people of the riety of backgrounds. Some have simply been trans- United States useful and practical information on ferred into the P2 field from other state programs agricultural subjects and home economics, and to in land, water, and air pollution or waste manage- encourage application of the same.” ment, while others have been hired from specific According to Rogers (1988), the total annual industrial sectors to apply their hands-on exper- budget for the agricultural extension service is ap- tise to solving waste problems at their source. proximately equal to the annual public investment Additionally, some programs are based prima- in agricultural research. This 50-50 level of fundmg rily on providing “awareness knowledge” via dis- for diffusion activities in agriculture is one reason tribution of printed and electronic informational for the success of the agricultural extension service; materials, while others supplement these materi- no other federal mission agency spends more than als with “how-to knowledge” by offering site as- a small percentage of its research expenditures on sessments, feasibility studies, and technology dem- diffusion activities (Rogers et al., 1982). onstrations. Consequently, the level and quality State extension specialists who possess exten- of services provided by the various change agents sive education and technical training interpret vary dramatically. current research findings in their specialized fields The agricultural extension model devotes sub- (such as agronomy or dairy farming) for county stantial funding for basic and applied research. By extension employees, and thus indirectly for cli- contrast, funding for P2 research is relatively lim- ents. To effectively do their job, extension special- ited. Most P2 research funds are spent on develop- ists must connect the scientific/itellectual world ing written and computer-based informational of the land grant university to the pragmatic world materials instead of performing basic and applied of the county extension agent and the farmer. research and demonstrations for potential technol- ogy adopters. How Does the P2 Model Compare? In addition, most of the P2 technical assistance Current systems in place to diffuse P2 innova- programs have been in place for only a few years. tions differ from the agricultural ex- It took many years to develop an effective agricul- tension model in many ways. No tural extension service, and it will likely take many Diffusion of pollution centralized pollution prevention dif- years to implement an effective system for diffus- prevention across all fusion effort (including funding) has ing pollution prevention innovations as well. industrial sectors would been established by the federal gov- Due to the lack of federal coordination and be a huge even if an emment that is the equivalent ofthe supervision in the P2 diffusion field, pollution pre- innovation diffusion agricultural extension service, and vention technical assistance to industry has been system similar to the no experts have been created in the relatively decentralized, as compared to the agri- agricultural extension P2 field that would be the equiva- cultural extension model. It should also be noted model existed for P2. lent of the state extension special- that agriculture is not as diverse as the vast multi- ists. Therefore, the change agents tude of industries that are attempting to adopt P2, working in P2 have relatively few nor is it as heavily regulated. Diffusion of pollu- technical personnel to consult with regarding tech- tion prevention across all industrial sectors would nical problems. be a huge task even if an innovation diffusion sys-

12 IWinter 1998 IPollution Prevention Review Timothy C. Lindsey 3 tem similar to the agricultural extension model agents to facilitate technical communications to existed for P2. potential adopters and between change agents. These technologies are examples of the “solutions Innovation in Organizations finding problems” phenomenon described by Compared to the innovation decision process March. However, while these technologies do fa- exhibited by individuals, the process in organiza- cilitate the creation of awareness knowledge, they tions is much more complex. With regard to orga- also tend to divert change agents away from the nizations, Rogers (1995) notes, “Implementation investigation of on-site source reduction opportu- typically involves a number of individuals, each nities within industrial facilities. of whom plays a different role in the innovation decision process. Further, implementation Summary and Recommendations amounts to mutual adaptation in which both the Pollution prevention is a cluster of hardware and innovation and the organization change in impor- software-based innovations that have been diffus- tant ways.” ing at a disappointingly slow rate. Most This factor provides additional insight regard- P2 innovations are preventive in nature, Pollution prevention is ing the relatively slow diffusion of P2 innovations. which places them at a disadvantage a cluster of hardware- Because implementing a complete pollution pre- compared to many other innovations, and software-based vention program involves virtually every depart- Since their sought-after COnSeqUenCeS innovations that have ment-and, in some cases, every person-in an or- will occur only in the unknown future. been diffusing at a ganization, the adoption process for a complete Additionally, @lutionprevention inno- disappointingly slow deployment of the P2 philosophy tends to be very vations, at least in the short term, tend rate. complex and time-consuming. However, certain to add to an organization’s complexity, specific innovations and process changes can be and P2 implementation can cause con- implemented in relatively short order without in- siderable discomfort as processes are changed. volving the entire organization. To date, most efforts by change agents to dif- Most organizations look for opportunities to uti- fuse P2 have focused on creating greater “aware- lize new ideas that might be beneficial. March (1981) ness” knowledge of pollution prevention concepts notes that innovation in organizations “often seems and benefits. If the P2 diffusion rate is to be in- to be driven less by problems than by solutions. creased, P2 change agents will need to focus on Answers often precede questions.” March claims creating more “how-to” knowledge. This can be that most organizations face many problems, but accomplished through the execution of effective possess knowledge of only a few innovations that process assessments, feasibility studies, and tech- offer solutions. The probability of identifymg an nology demonstrations. All of these efforts need innovation to cope with a particular problem is rela- to be supported by industry-specific P2 research tively small. But, if one begins with a solution, there based on sound theoretical principles. is a good chance that the innovation will match Another key step that could be undertaken to some problem faced by the organization. Conse- improve the diffusion rate of P2 would be to en- quently, most organizations continuously scan for list the assistance of change agent aides, opinion innovations, and match a promising innovation leaders, and innovation champions. Efforts need with one of their relevant problems. to be increased with respect to incorporating the Intemet home pages and communication net- efforts of these valuable resources into P2 diffu- works have been adopted extensively by P2 change sion endeavors.

Diffusion of P2 Innovations Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 1998 / 13 Caplan, N. and S.D. Nelson (1973), "On Being Useful: The A coordinated, centralized approach to P2 dif- Nature and Consequences of Psychological Research on Social fusion that includes research combined with a dif- Problems," Americrm P~hologist,28:199-211. Day, D.L (1994), "Raising Radicals: Different Processes for fusion strategy similar to the model used in agri- ChampioningInnovative Corporate Ventures," OrganizationSci- cultural extension needs to be developed on a ence. Eveland, J.D. (1979), "Issues in Using the Concept of 'Adop national scale. The system would need to balance tion of Innovation'," paper presented at the American Society the three levels of knowledge required to efficiently for Public Adminiitration, Baltimore. diffuse innovations: awareness knowledge, how- +1986), "Diffusion, Technology, Transfer and Implications: Thinking and Talking about Change," Knowledge, 8(2):303-322. to knowledge, and principles knowledge. Freeman, H. (1995), Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook A national system of experts performing theo- (New York McGraw-Hill). Grieshop,J.I., F.G. Zalom, and G. Miyao (1988), "Adoption and retical, principle-based research into pollution pre- Diffusion of Integrated Pest Management Innovations in Agri- vention processes on an industry-specific basis, c~lture,'Bcrlletin OftheEntomological Society OfAmerica, 34(2):77- 78. supported by regional experts possessing expertise Hamblin, R.L., RB. Jacobson, and J.L. Miller (1973), A Math- on how to implement the technologies, would be aMtical TheoryofW Chge (New York John Wiley & Sons). Howell, J.M., and C.A. Higgins (1990),"Champions of Techno- extremely useful. Standardization of P2 assessment logical Innovations," Administrative Science Quarterl~35:317- and planning methods and training of change 341. agents regarding these methods would also be ex- March, J.G. (1981), "Footnotes to Organizational Change," Ad- minis&& sciplce Quarterly, 26563-577. tremely beneficial. Efforts to promote the creation Rogers, EM. (1958), "Categorizing the Adopters of Agricultural of pollution prevention awareness through na- Practices,' Rural WOlo& 23(4):346-354. +1988), "The IntellectualFoundation and History of the Ag- tional and regional P2 roundtable organizations ricultural Extension Model," Knowledge, 9:410-510. have been relatively successful to date. However, +1995), Diffusion of Innovations (The Free Press, 4th ed.). these efforts need to be coordinated with endeav- Rogers, EM., J.D. Eveland, and A. Bean (1982), Extending the Agricultural Extenrion Model, Stanford University, Institute for ors to create principles and how-to knowledge. Communication Research, Report. Finally, regardless of whatever improvements Roling, N. (1981), "Alternative Approaches in Extension," in G.E Jones and M. Roll (eds.), Progress in Rural Extension and are made to existing P2 diffusion systems, propo- Community Derrlopment (New York John Wiley & Sons). nents of pollution prevention need to be patient; Roliig, N. etd. (1976), The Diffusion of Innovations and the Issue of Equity in Rural Development," CommunicationResearch, worthwhile innovations often require an agoniz- 3:155-159. ingly long time to diffuse. Ryan, B. (1948), "A Study in Technological Diffusion," Rural Mdw,13273-285RSQ. Ryan, B., and N.C. Gross (1943), "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed References Com in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology, 8:15-24. Bass, F.M. (1969), "ANew Product Growth Model for Consumer Sommers, D.G., and T.L. Napier (1993), "Comparison of Amish Durables," Munugement Science, 13(5):215-227. and Non-Amish Farmers: A Differenflarm-Structure Perspec- Beal, G.M., and E.M. Rogers (1957), "Informational Sources in tive," Rural Sociology, 58(1):130-145. the Adoption Process of New Fabrics," Ioumal ofHomeEcOnom- Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organization in Action (McGraw-Hill, ia, 49630634. New York). --(1960), 7'he Adoption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Watson, J.W., M.J.Dunn, R.C. Field, and J.A. Nolan (1997), In- Communiq, Ames, Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Ex- novatiWA~hesto Environmmtal Permitting andhforcement, periment Station, Special Report 26, pp. 4, 6,8, 10, 19. ChicapKent College of Law, Course Materials. Belaxo, D.B. (1989), Adoption ofCommunity WaterSystsnr: An AreuShuty in Tlvee Villages in MuhufzatKofi-Shuykh, Egypt, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Denver. . Bierma, T.J., and EL. Waterstraat (1995), "Marketing Pollution Timothy C. Lindsey is manager of the pollution prevention Prevention," Pollution Prevention Reviov, 5(2), 63-72. program at the Illinois Department of Natural Resources' Bose, S.P. (1964), The Diffusion of a Farm Practice in Indian Waste Management and Research Center. Villages," Rural Sociology, 29:53-66.

14 I Winter 1998 I Pollution Prevention Review Timothy C. Lindsey