T he spiraling worldwide demand for environmental protection is thrusting a bewildering set of challenges upon international corporations. The regulatory system that requires U.S. companies to reduce noxious emissions into the air and water and dispose of hazardous waste safely is spreading to other nations as the threats to human health from environmental pollution become better known. Many countries, especially in Europe, are moving beyond the regulation of end-of-pipe emissions to pollution prevention. The global concern with waste disposal, for example, has led to greater pressures on international companies to reduce packaging in consumer and industrial products, recycle materials, and lower waste disposal costs for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. At the same time, these corporations face equaliy serious challenges in responding strategically to the business implications of ever-changing environmental regulations. The parameters of strategic action are often set by external forces, but beyond complying with local laws, corporations have wide latitude in how they adapt to envirc bnmental standards. Translating broad corporate “green” policies into environmental management systems requires companies to understand those forces, develop a vision of the future, and articulate operational strategies for achieving it. Some management theorists, such as Henry Mintzberg, argue that strategic planning, as it has been practiced by most corporations, is really Str~teX’icproRrammi~g. Companies that understand the differences between planning and strategic thinking engage in a strategy-making process that captures what managers learn from experience and synthesizes that learning into programs for achieving their “vision” for the future. Most firms have both environmental policies and business strategies that must be reconciled if they are to be implemented effectively. Strategic programming elaborates and operationalizes the strategy making process. It involves: 1. co&@ation-clarifying and explicating strategies so that their consequences can be worked out in detail; 2. elaboration-articulating policies into plans and actions that specify what must be done to realize each strategy; and 3. conve&or+making changes in the firm’s operations, budgets, and performance controls to attain corporate objectives. IMintzberg contends that corporate strategic programming should combine formal and informal methods of analysis, thereby drawing heavily on the judgments and experience of operating managers as well as on formal planning tools. The process often evolves through a continuing dialogue in which options are identified, assessed, tested, and reformulated over time. Rather than attempting to produce a one-shot plan, strategic programming continuously builds on the knowledge and experience of managers to develop
[1]
C. Prahalad,et al.
Competing for the Future
,
1994
.
[2]
J. Hotchkiss.
Packaging for the Environment
,
1992
.
[3]
Martin B. Meznar,et al.
Buffer or Bridge? Environmental and Organizational Determinants of Public Affairs Activities in American Firms
,
1995
.
[4]
Henry Mintzberg,et al.
The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning
,
1994
.
[5]
Henry Mintzberg,et al.
The Pitfalls of Strategic Planning
,
1993
.
[6]
Marc Salomon,et al.
Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Management
,
1995
.
[7]
Henry Mintzberg,et al.
Rethinking Strategic Planning Part II: New Roles for Planners
,
1994
.
[8]
Rao V. Kolluru.
Environmental strategies handbook
,
1994
.