74
to approach their natural carrying capacity, adverse impacts begin to occur. These
impacts are costs to society. Products and services should include all costs,
direct, environmental and social, in their cost structure. Therefore, the externalities should be internalized by setting limits via standards, or by charging
direct fees…
The third concept is a different management concept. It deals with the use and allocation of resources… Over and above the management implied in the first and
second concepts, society, acting through governmental institutions, should allocate private resources by managing the cost, availability, or terms of sale, for
products and services within the economy… Implicit in this concept is the view
that society can best handle the allocation process and make determinations on
what products should exist and what products should not exist.
The fourth concept deals with the long-term use and availability of resources, and
societal value systems relating to growth, consumption, and life-style. It can be
stated in the following manner: Over and above the management implied by the
first and second concepts, society, acting through governmental restitutions,
should control the overall use of resources, and search for a no-growth equilibrium economic system. In other words, put a cap on economic envelopment or
resource utilization. The objectives of this concept are to reduce consumption
and to take a longer term view of the world. Implicit in this concept is the belief
that society should be culturally intensive rather than use intensive, capital intensive at the consumer level rather than flow intensive, and labor intensive in many
sectors rather than energy intensive. (OTA 1976)
With these four concepts, he illustrates a range of considerations that influence
the ultimate path a society can choose to better manage resources and reduce the
negative environmental impacts of industrial activities. To Teasley’s credit, this initial framework describes a complex and conflicting set of goals that are not easily
resolved, which Teasley is not afraid to state publicly in those early days of the
modern environmental movement.
Practically speaking, however, Coca-Cola took on a challenge posed by the very
consumer market in which they were already a dominant player in order to address
negative environmental impacts of their products with a fact-based study. Teasley
summarizes the original reason for taking the analytical approach to address a perceived threat to that dominance:
What we saw happening to us is that, our world was changing and we were getting criticized at times for the direction that it was taking. We had to understand not only the economics that were bringing about that change, but also the environmental and market impacts
that were associated with that change. Our studies were simply to provide management
with an additional tool that they didn’t have before. With that tool we could make R&D
judgments about whether we ought to pursue a certain kind of development or not, and we
could make procurement decisions. (OTA 1976)
He goes on to note the attendant benefits inherent in such an approach from a purely
operational efficiency and business point of view:
4 Do Something: Mid-twentieth Century Developments
to approach their natural carrying capacity, adverse impacts begin to occur. These
impacts are costs to society. Products and services should include all costs,
direct, environmental and social, in their cost structure. Therefore, the externalities should be internalized by setting limits via standards, or by charging
direct fees…
The third concept is a different management concept. It deals with the use and allocation of resources… Over and above the management implied in the first and
second concepts, society, acting through governmental institutions, should allocate private resources by managing the cost, availability, or terms of sale, for
products and services within the economy… Implicit in this concept is the view
that society can best handle the allocation process and make determinations on
what products should exist and what products should not exist.
The fourth concept deals with the long-term use and availability of resources, and
societal value systems relating to growth, consumption, and life-style. It can be
stated in the following manner: Over and above the management implied by the
first and second concepts, society, acting through governmental restitutions,
should control the overall use of resources, and search for a no-growth equilibrium economic system. In other words, put a cap on economic envelopment or
resource utilization. The objectives of this concept are to reduce consumption
and to take a longer term view of the world. Implicit in this concept is the belief
that society should be culturally intensive rather than use intensive, capital intensive at the consumer level rather than flow intensive, and labor intensive in many
sectors rather than energy intensive. (OTA 1976)
With these four concepts, he illustrates a range of considerations that influence
the ultimate path a society can choose to better manage resources and reduce the
negative environmental impacts of industrial activities. To Teasley’s credit, this initial framework describes a complex and conflicting set of goals that are not easily
resolved, which Teasley is not afraid to state publicly in those early days of the
modern environmental movement.
Practically speaking, however, Coca-Cola took on a challenge posed by the very
consumer market in which they were already a dominant player in order to address
negative environmental impacts of their products with a fact-based study. Teasley
summarizes the original reason for taking the analytical approach to address a perceived threat to that dominance:
What we saw happening to us is that, our world was changing and we were getting criticized at times for the direction that it was taking. We had to understand not only the economics that were bringing about that change, but also the environmental and market impacts
that were associated with that change. Our studies were simply to provide management
with an additional tool that they didn’t have before. With that tool we could make R&D
judgments about whether we ought to pursue a certain kind of development or not, and we
could make procurement decisions. (OTA 1976)
He goes on to note the attendant benefits inherent in such an approach from a purely
operational efficiency and business point of view:
4 Do Something: Mid-twentieth Century Developments