,+ 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