Internet commentary

Citation

Ellis, B. (2002), "Internet commentary", Circuit World, Vol. 28 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/cw.2002.21728cag.001

Internet commentary

Keywords: Environment, Internet, Health and safety

• •

  Who knows but the world may end tonight? Robert Browning The Last Ride Together (1855)

On several occasions, I have mentioned the problems caused by viruses and their relatives. At the time of writing this (early January 2002), I've been really bugged by pseudo–messages bearing worms in attachments, averaging more than one per day. These have been of two varieties, W32badtrans, of two flavours, and W32Sircam.worm. Some of these have come from persons Itfsnap @|Snap Grids for Frame know, whereas others are from those I have never heard of (and don't wish to hear from again!). These worms are propagated only by Outlook and Outlook Express. Happily, my Norton Anti–Virus has always allowed me to eliminate them even before I can open them. I'm always astonished by the fact that the propagators use a vulnerable e– mail client, do not protect themselves with a good anti–virus utility and then dare open attachments without a care in the world. I wouldn't bother as much if it were just their own computers that they infect – they deserve all they get – but they are also trying to defile other computers belonging to all the correspondents in their address list. Some of these reckless souls who take this risk of alienating others are readers of this journal – shame on them!

Regular readers of this column will know that I'm hot on protection of the environment. This does not mean that I promote the fantasies of the extremists, nor that I approve indiscriminate legislation, which often causes more long–term harm to the environment. I agree with President George W. Bush that the Kyoto Protocol is very flawed. Where I disagree with him, in the strongest terms, is that, because it is not perfect, it should be dropped out of hand. It is a step in the right direction and, as such, it is better than nothing. Even though we do not have irrefutable scientific proof that we are causing climate changes, there is sufficient evidence to cause concern. I've just undergone one example: the worst storm I have ever had the misfortune to be in, in all the 70 years of my existence – winds which have blown down established and healthy trees in my garden and considerable other damage and an average December's rainfall (the rainiest month of the year) in one day! Incidentally, for those of you who are still not convinced that climate change is related to man–made pollution, look at http:\\www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/syr/figspm–2.htm. This shows the effect of the combination of natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing and the correlation with observations.

What has this got to do with the Internet? Directly, nothing, even though I always feel better promoting environmental protection. Indirectly, it gives me an introduction to something that does have a lot to do with both the Internet and the environment. The IPC, as everyone knows, has a number of net lists concerning our industry. The most popular is TechNet, which really serves a useful purpose as a forum where technical problems can be aired, discussed and often resolved. Others include the Lead–Free, Compliance, Designers' lists, and many others, to boot. In recent months, some of these have had a number of threads discussing environmental subjects which some subscribers have complained about as being irrelevant to the forum. As a result, the IPC is starting an environmental discussion group, called EnviroNet. Although this will be essentially on matters which concern our industry, directly or indirectly, there will be no restriction or exclusivity, because we simply do not know how the ramifications of a given environmental problem may affect our industry in the long term. Rather like the anecdote of the butterfly fluttering in Africa and which causes a typhoon in China! However, this forum can be subscribed to by anyone (it is not necessary to be an IPC member); just go to http://jefry.ipc.org/archives/environet.html and browse through to find out how to put yourself on the list. I can promise you that it should create some interesting discussions. I might even be persuaded to place some controversial messages there, as well!

People often forget the close correlation between the environment and health and safety in the workplace. For example, the organic solvent which we allow to evaporate is both a pollutant and a toxic hazard for those using it. Hopefully, measures are taken in the workplace to prevent the operators from being exposed to undue levels. Is there a site on the Internet where you can obtain reliable information as to operator exposure limits for all solvents or other chemicals? Unfortunately, the answer is no. There are some sites which give values, but these are often very distorted. The applied toxicology and epidemiology of industrial substances is more often founded on opinion, rather than science. To take just one example, trichloroethylene, the most severe operator exposure level that I'm aware of is in the Democratic Republic of North Korea, with a value of 5 ppm and the laxest one is the United States of America at 100 ppm. Most other countries put it at 50 ppm. There are many other examples of wide disparities, like this. Why? Well, going back to our example, the USA did try to adjust the PEL down to 50 ppm, which is considered as consensually safe. However, because of a legal loophole, the judiciary would not allow it, so the 100 ppm level remains. It doesn't matter whether it is or is not a safe level, the appeal courts have the last say. And why did N. Korea decide it is so much more toxic than anyone else? Because the authorities took the advice of an individual, employed by an official international organisation (UNIDO, not to name it), but who has no knowledge whatsoever of workplace toxicology but is fanatically against chlorinated solvents in his ignorance of the subject. The answer to the question as to where to find the information must be in the local regulations. Many countries do run web sites giving these data but it may be easier to phone the local regulatory authority if you cannot find it quickly on the 'Net. The same also applies to permissible pollutant levels in waste water. To take tin, for example, there are countries which restrict the level of tin cations at a very stringent 0.1 ppm and others with no restriction whatsoever (most others put it at between 1 and 5 ppm).

This takes me directly to the single site I am going to review here:

http://www.lucent.com/environment/ 00/index.html.

This site describes how the multinational, Lucent, is tackling both the environmental and health and safety issues. The reference takes you into the Home Page (see Fig. 1) of a sub–site giving the 2000 Annual Report on these subjects. I'll guide you through all the pages of what is quite a complex site, which is well worth the half–hour of reading. The Home Page offers an introductory “Welcome” by two senior officers with the key phrase, “Through all our change and rebuilding, we have not wavered from the belief that our corporate investment in environment, health and safety is both socially responsible and business critical.”. At the same time, a “scorecard” of achievements in 2000, in the fields of the Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S) has been catalogued (see box).

The next page, headlined “Policy”, sets out, as its name suggests, the company's policy in these matters, but it also describes “Our Mission” and “Our Values”, obviously all three titles being closely intertwined. Notwithstanding, the two latter are relevant to matters far beyond the scope of EH&S. The policy statement itself is more than impressive and is worthy of adaptation by every single company in our business, with little modification.

Figure 1 Home Page of the Lucent sub–site on Environmental and Health &Safety Issues.

I don't like the title “Game Plan” for the next page. This is a subject that is much more serious than a simple game. It is really an extension of the policy statement, describing the action plan over the five years following the date of publication, last year. Furthermore, it describes the objectives that this action plan is aiming at. Amongst these, we can find a projected financial benefit of $3.4 million for the year 2001. Another benefit is the reduction of the lost workday accident rate by more than 20 per cent over five years. These are very ambitious plans.

The following page is a very long one, having two titles, “Engaging Stakeholders” and “Engaging Our Customers (And Our Customers' Customers)”. The short paragraph on the first subject describes the interdependency between customers, communities, suppliers, industries and employees. The first two sentences in the second section set the tone, “In 1995, Lucent received just one customer request for information on the environmental impact of our products. Today, such calls come regularly.”. There is little doubt that the public are taking more interest in the environmental side of the products they consume. However, it is a big step for a supplier to actually engage their customers into taking an active role to improve their environment. This includes conducting life cycle assessments on the company's products. This is getting very close to the “cradle–to–grave” assessment, which I have been advocating for some time.

Obviously, the communities in which Lucent employees work and live are important to large, caring employers. Some examples of the way in which the company relates with the localities are given. One of these is described in detail and is quite interesting: the landscaping surrounding company premises has had the lawns dug up and replaced by 55 native plant species from the prairie region in which they are situated. The benefits of this are being felt well beyond the immediate neighbourhood. It is also providing scientists with further knowledge of the prairie ecosystems and how the environmental factors influence the biodiversity.

A sub–page of the last one, entitled “Global Days of Caring – 2000”, demonstrates the active encouragement that employees have for activities around the world. Last year, more than 17,000 Lucent volunteers in 26 countries participated, giving up their own time to strengthen the communities where they work and live. This charitable work goes beyond environmental clean– ups. Three illustrated examples are given in Taiwan, South Africa and the USA.

2000 SCORECARD • Reduced or avoided more than $3.5 million in EH&S costs through the deployment and use of effective EH&S management systems. • Improved safety and reduced lost workday case rate by nearly 6 percent. • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of more than 20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide through targeted energy projects, helping to stem global warming. • Minimized the EH & S impacts of Lucent products by: • Establishing a Lucent Standard Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology • Making it easier for designers to assess the EH&S impacts of new products (tool developed) • Launching life cycle pilots with wireless (Nuurnberg, Germany), optical (Le Plessis, France) and switching (Whippany, N.J., Oklahoma City) products

Those of us who work for small or medium enterprises know the difficulty of persuading suppliers to modify a product, for any reason. Obviously, a company the size of Lucent has got sufficient clout to force the issue. This is apparent in the page entitled “Engaging Suppliers”. Of immediate interest to readers of this journal, an example is given of how the company forced their printed circuits suppliers to toe the line, across the world. Personally, I'm not sure to what extent help was actually given to the suppliers or to what extent “steamroller” techniques were used to force them to comply.

“Engaging Industry” describes the problems of doing business in many countries and regions. It is stated that more than 25 separate national and regulatory bodies in Europe, Japan and North America have enacted regulations in the environmental and recycling domains. This obviously does not make it easy for a multinational company to have a common standard throughout all their factories. Lucent state that the European Union is the main driver in initial product design, the use of lead and the logistics at the end of a product's useful life. The company is taking a proactive role in these fields.

In a rather self–congratulatory mood, the page entitled “Recognitions” lists a number of awards that the company has received for their EH&S achievements. These are mostly of North American origin, although one important award came from Thailand.

When I saw the title “EH&S Heroes”, I thought that it may be an extension of the subject of the last paragraph with internal awards to individuals within the company. I am pleased to say that this is not the case. It gives concrete examples of achievements done in a number of the Lucent facilities, around the world. Due credit is given to the teams involved, rather than the individuals, and the page does show some of the things that can be done and copied – not all of them requiring large resources.

The last page on the sub–site bears the name “Summary”. My dictionary defines this word as a brief account, an abridgement. This summary can certainly be described as brief and I do not believe that it enhances the site.

In conclusion, I am very much impressed by the contents of this sub–site. I believe that everybody in our industry can profit by reading through these pages and I can promise you that your time will not be badly spent, even if your company is already well committed to an environmental and health and safety programme. If that is not the case, then this may give you a few pointers as to how to go about starting your company on the right path. There are two things which must be realised and which have been brought out on this site. The first is that it is profitable, both economically and for the image of the enterprise, to be proactive in the environmental field. The second is that the current regulatory climate is such that you will be forced to do so, in any case, within a few years, when it may not be quite so profitable.

Brian EllisCyprus(b_ellis@protonique.com)