It has become obvious over the last few decades that our earth and the quality of its "resources" are diminishing. Not only are non-renewable resources being depleted, but renewable resources are being consumed at a faster rate than they can be replenished (Korten 1995, 28). No longer can economists continue with the classical model in which natural resources are infinite and environmental issues are "externalities." 

Many areas of economics concentrate on production and consumption, treating it as a linear process, drawing in inputs and ending with human consumption. Environmental economists study the wider implications of this process increasingly recognizing the location of economic system within the wider ecosystem. The now classic analogy drawn by Kenneth Boulding in the 1960s was to the "spaceship earth." We have to live with our wastes (Hodge 1995, 5). 

Capitalistic growth and expansion, as we know it, cannot continue at this rate on to infinity. Our resource base, our earth, must be included in terms of both input and output in the model. This must be incorporated not only in theory, but also in practice. 

It is necessary at this juncture, when working within this capitalist system, to set controls. The system and its players are not prepared to respect the earth to the degree necessary for controls to be alleviated and full self-governance to predominate. The structural outcome and goal of capitalistic economics (as currently defined through our market economy) is to maximize profit and minimize cost, without factoring in people and earth into the equation. There are many examples of our failure to incorporate the human and nature factors into their economic profit equations. Consider the following:

Of the ninety-two corporations represented on the three trade advisory panels [on the GATT panel in 1989], twenty-seven companies or their affiliates had been assessed fines by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency totaling more than $12.1 million between 1980 and 1990 for failure to comply with existing environmental regulations. FiveDupont, Monsanto, 3M, General Motors, and Eastman Kodakmade the EPA's top ten list of hazardous waste dischargers. Twenty-nine of the member companies or their affiliates had collectively contributed more than $800,000 in a failed attempt to defeat California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act, a statewide initiative to require accurate labeling on potential cancer-causing products and to limit toxic discharges into drinking water. Twenty-nine had put up over $2.1 million in a successful bid to defeat another California initiative called Big Green, which, among other provisions, would have set tighter standards for the discharge of toxic chemicals (Korten 1995, 178).

This is but one brief illustration of the inability of our capitalistic culture. Until the corporate outlook of unrestricted growth and profit maximization is restructured entirely, government controls will have to be continually pushed onto business. 

Due to the sheer number of companies around the world, no national government could be expected to monitor the environmental impacts of each company within their boarders (or whose origins exist within their boarders). As we are finding within the U.S., agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) are unable to attend to the number of environmental concerns that our nation faces. There is simply not enough human power and far too much red tape. "In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled (in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution. Thus corporations were given the full rights enjoyed by individual citizens while being exempted from many responsibilities and liabilities of citizenship" (Bruyn 1998a, 5). 

Now it is time for these companies to take responsibility for themselves. With this increase in rights should be an established increase in responsibility (that will eventually become an implicit responsibility). The two concepts go hand-in-hand. The government can no longer afford to (nor can they effectively) monitor corporate America and its environmental effects. Companies need to find a common, "standard" ground on which to compete that takes our finite resource base and its inhabitants into account. 

The goal of ISO 14000, in part, is to set international standards that include social factors such as environmental values within the capitalist model (profit maximization equation). Although the standard has many limitations it is a step in the right direction. Global environmental awareness, bottom lines, and a new environmental economic outlook are a more complete solution that companies should strive for in any country. As we move into the 21^st century, the restructuring of economic thought will also need to be addressed in order for continued improvement of the relationship between global business and environmental values: between rights and responsibilities. 

My intention is to examine ISO 14000 in relation to pollution and waste, and determine if it is indeed a viable alternative and global solution for our ever-increasing economic environmental dilemma. I have gathered my conclusions on the circumstances that I believe must be present (and continue to be present) in order for the ISO 14000 model to go mainstream. In effect, without becoming mainstream, it has not effectively fit the definition of "standard" and will fail. (Within the definition of a standard, if it is not widely accepted, it is not a standard.) As stated previously, ISO 14000 is not a solution to our environmental problems. However, it does have the power to move our global economy in the right direction if accompanied by ideological shifts that recognize the finite supply of environmental resources. It is time to level the scales of responsibility and freedom. 

Standards play a critical role in our exchange economy. Most of what we buy as Americans has been through some process of standardization. As consumers we are often unaware of the standards placed on many of the products that we purchase. For example, the cars that we drive are required to have a driver's seat on the left side. They must have handles to open doors. They now require seat belts and even air bags. These are all standards. There are standards on the foods we eat, the clothes we buy, and most all of the other products on the market. Standards are all around us. If each producer were to simply create their products with no standard, although they may model efficiency, selling the products would become cumbersome. Consumers would have no platform from which to distinguish one product over another. Additionally, the lack of standards can create a risk to consumers in many cases. Standardization does not decrease competition; in fact some argue that it most often increases it. A pertinent analogy here is the use of a standard in baseball. The bats that players use are restricted in weight and substance. This does not decrease competition between players, nor would any fan of baseball be against it. Competition is not as fierce when one player has an unfair advantage. Since all the players must use bats within this standard, competition increases. It creates a level playing field for all producers so that their products may be considered on an equal basis to others. 

Creating standards for our environment should be seen in the same light as the above mentioned standards. However, for some it is not. "Ten years ago, the standard opinion among blue-chip companies was that the environment represented an unwelcome constraint on business, a threat to competitiveness and profitability. You will still hear some business leaders arguing the same" (Times, 24 February 1998). It has appeared as a restriction on competition, an added cost. 

In an economy free of environmental standards, communities win if they exploit their forests, mines, and fisheries for short-term profits rather than long-term sustainability. "Competitiveness," as the term is widely used today is achieved by communities that allow pollution to continue unabated, since the costs of cleanup need not be incorporated into the products. The "winners" are cities like Santiago, Sao Paulo, Manila, and Mexico City, where the air is practically unbreathable (Shuman 1998, 44).

Environmental standards should be viewed as ways to level the playing field not only for the producers involved but also for the communities that resource depletion or pollution may effect. It is a way to not only create a more competitive basis for exchange, but to create it with a bigger picture in mind, a picture of the future of our species and all the earth's species. It is not necessary to be an environmental activist to see this. Environmental standards benefit everyone: the businessman, the consumer, and the planet.

As our market becomes more and more global the standards on all products, not just the environment, needs to increase. 

Standards and conformity assessment practices-testing and certification-are crucial links to maintaining market presence overseas. When trading partners agree on standards and conformity assessment-called harmonizing then trade can flow freely. When there is disagreement, or governments and trading partners impose their own standards and conformity assessments, goods and services can actually be shut out of foreign markets (Zuckerman 1997, 4). 

It is not that business should seek a universal standard, but instead there is a need to agree to the spectrum of acceptable standards into which all products need to fit. As the number of players in the game increases, so must the insurance that all products, both domestic and foreign, are standardized. American consumers must be assured that domestic products and international products are meeting the same standards. This would be true for the reverse also. International consumers should be assured that their domestic and foreign products are meeting the same standards. Therefore, international standards are now in order for our global marketplace.

How these standards arrive at the marketplace is an important discussion. There are a plethora of ways that a standard can be implemented. It may be seen as a spectrum, at one end lies a command control system, and at the other lies a system of self-governance. The basic difference between these two dialectics is where the standard (or rule) originates. 

In the command control system, the rules and standards are created, implemented, and enforced by the government or outside. An example of this is the rules for pollution that the EPA has set within the United States. There are certain rules that companies must be in compliance with or they risk heavy fines from the EPA. "Command-and-control regulations have brought about a significant reduction in pollution, but the resulting bureaucracy has often taken on a life of its own and can stifle innovation" (Sasseville, Wilson, and Lawson 1997, 1). 

Within a system of self-governance, companies come together and form an association of sorts to decide what standards or rules they will all follow. They agree as members that they will all follow these rules and then begin competing with these standards in place. 

If we were to carry this forward into a self-governance of standards and rules for the environment, companies in specific industries would need to band together with outside interested parties and other stakeholders to come up with certain standards of business that would decrease (or eliminate) pollution and consumption patterns. 

Business competitors use the government to set the rules for them; they rely on government agencies to be their umpires. We are saying that this law-making and constant monitoring by outside agencies costs the taxpayer too much. Competitors should take more responsibility themselves. They should internalize their social costs as competitors-not sending the responsibility and cost to government (Bruyn 1998b, 2).

In other words, it is time for businesses to stop putting the responsibility of environmental standards onto local government. Companies and associations can create, implement, and audit their own rules, and thereby take responsibility for their own actions.

There are several inherent problems with self-governance as it is viewed today. More accurately there are several problems with our American system today that make it non-receptive to self-governance. The first is our government. The United States government does not look favorably upon companies in the same industry colluding. It must be established that there are times when this sort of cooperation in the public interest is beneficial to the marketplace, such as for the establishment of standards. 

Secondly, the association of companies within one industry does not guarantee viable solutions (especially in the face of environmental standards) without including outside perspectives. In other words, a gathering of chemical industry experts to establish standards will not necessarily guarantee that the standards they set will benefit the community (or also the earth in this instance). There must be outside representation in this association to keep these members, all with similar interests, in check. Any and all stakeholders must be included at the association level to create rules that are mutually beneficial. Finally, the problem of the prisoner's dilemma will always be a factor in the acceptance of this type of governance within the United States capitalistic structure. In other words, there will always be the risk that although company A and company B agreed not to do practice X, that company A will in fact continue practice X and create an unfair advantage over B. This, however, is the easiest of the ailments of self-governance to correct. It would simply require a level of auditing, transparency, and punitive controls within an association. 

Standards, as we can see, can be set in a number of ways. Due to the fact that command control standards (as discussed in the Introduction) increase the bureaucratic structure and in fact leave many problems unseen and not addressed, an increase in self-governance standards at the association level is necessary. This requires a level of responsibility that has not been expected of corporations in the past. "The knowledge-based organization therefore requires that everyone take responsibility for that organization's objectives, contribution, and indeed, for its behavior as well" (Drucker1993, 108). For this to effectively happen, however, several of our current capitalistic "mindsets" would need to be altered. Drucker examines this issue even further by arguing,

there is a great deal of talk today about "entitlement" and "empowerment." These terms express the demise of the command and control based organization. But they are just as much terms of power and rank as the old terms were. We should instead be talking about responsibility and contribution. For power without responsibility is not power at all; it is irresponsibility (Drucker 1993, 109).

ISO, The International Standardization Organization, was established in 1947 (Block 1997, 3). It was developed to introduce international standards for the various industries that had been trading cross-nationally. It was introduced for many of the reasons discussed above in Standardization. "To expand trade, improve quality, increase productivity, and reduce costs of goods and services through worldwide agreement of international standards" (Block 1997, 3). It has been quite successful in its past ventures, and has established in excess of 3000 technical and non-technical standards (Block 1997, 3). One of the most prominent standards that ISO has set is the ISO 9000 series. These standards were set for business quality management. In 1991, as a result of the BCSD (Business Charter for Sustainable Development) and the United Nations Conference on the environment, a group called SAGE (Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment) formed. This group made several recommendations to ISO on the development of environmental standards. This was the inception of ISO 14000. This standard, unlike the other standards that ISO has developed, is entirely a management strategy standard. Representatives from over 50 countries are developing the standard and its framework. 

ISO 14000 is made up of six basic units. 

· Environmental Management Systems (14001)

· Environmental Auditing

· Environmental Labeling

· Environmental Performance

· Life Cycle analysis

· Product standards

At the top of the ISO 14000 hierarchy is the Technical Committee 207 (TC207). This TC207 is in charge of creating all standards. In order to address the issues above, ISO has assigned an interested country to each one of these aspects of the standard. These groups are called SC's or Subcommittees. The SC's are responsible for defining the standards within their section. In other words, SC4 (Environmental Performance Evaluation) is assigned to the United States. Thus, the United States is responsible for creating the standards in this category. These standards will then need to be approved by the TC207.  ISO attempts to create support from countries and corporations (NGO's and non-profits as well). In this respect, they have structured an association of sorts to set up self-governance standards as discussed previously. They have attempted to adequately call for representatives of diversified interests so that one party's interest is not exploited thus rendering the standard ineffective. There has been some question as to how involved a diverse number of parties have been in creating the standards thus far. As stated previously, this can be an important point of contention. If a TC is made up of mostly corporate executives with profits as their main goal, the standard will definitely reflect one set of interests. It has been argued that the involvement of NGO's, environmental groups, and other interested parties has been minimal up to this point. However, it should be noted that within the United States a group called TAG (Technical Advisory Group) has been established to advise the TC207 SC. "TAG membership is open to companies, organizations, government agencies, and individuals. Of the approximately 575 TAG members, there are 100 FORTUNE 500 companies, 15 industry associations, 7 government agencies including the EPA and 13 special interest organizations" (Block 1997, 7). Although the overwhelming majority of representatives are from big business, there is some representation from other organizations and interested parties.

The basic framework of ISO 14000 is policy. A company must not only have an effective environmental policy, but it must be communicated throughout the company and become part of its mission, per se. There must be adequate training on the policy and its ramifications throughout the organization. In addition, the company must be committed to auditing this management structure and its effectiveness. The auditing procedure also must be documented but need not take place by an outside agency. In addition, the company must evaluate its "life-cycle" impact on the environment. Meaning that the company must document how its products' inputs and outputs effect the environment in the short and long term. Additionally, the company must make every effort to effectively label its products to the degree of their environmental "friendliness." This measure was meant to decrease any false advertising that might occur. Finally, the company must continually evaluate its performance and set targets for improvement where applicable. This is so that the policy does not become dormant or inapplicable over time. 

ISO 14001 allows organizations the flexibility to implement the EMS (Environmental Management System) as broadly or narrowly as management deems appropriate. It can be applied across an entire corporation, to selected business units or divisions, or even to specific facilities within a business unit. ISO 14001 also can be implemented for a single production process regardless of the number of facilities involved or a business function that cuts across several divisions (Block 1997, 103). Once a company has demonstrated and documented the following ISO 14000 compliance, they may register with an outside agency. This outside agency can inspect the documented policies and procedures that the company has set forth and pass it for registration as an ISO 14000 member. For some companies this will be the only external auditing done. Companies may decide whether further audits will be done internally or by a third-party auditor. 

It may become immediately apparent that there is actually no standard, aside from the large amount of paperwork and documentation that must take place. In other words, there is no performance standard for a company to follow other than following what the local laws and regulations require. You have not missed anything. It is not there. The company at the most basic level must merely demonstrate that they are able to create and implement policies and targets to increase environmental awareness. The degree of the impact and the measure of the impact is not actually considered in its measurable form. It is a conceptual and abstract standard, a management policy standard for commitment to address a situation. This is the true framework for ISO 14000. 

There are many arguments for and against the implementation of ISO 14000. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of the standard have been implied throughout this essay. Following is a partial list of these strengths and weaknesses. Some of these are in fact, rectifiable or changeable; however, some are inherent in the format that the standard has taken.

One of the major weaknesses of ISO 14000 is its lack of immediate and diverse representation (as discussed, in part, above). "Broad social participation in ecologically sensitive corporate decisions allows more socially acceptable decisions. This participation must be genuine. It must incorporate those groups that will bear the risks of technological decisions" (Shrivastava 1996, 65). Although the measure boasts that all were encouraged and invited to participate in its creation, that was not entirely the case. Member status belongs only to those that fit certain criteria. Others are encouraged to participate but do not, in fact, have voting rights.

Liaison organizations receive all working documents, may attend meetings, and may submit written comments on draft standards. Although a liaison organization may vote in working groups, it does not have a vote at the subcommittee or technical committee level. Liaison status has allowed environmental groups to take stands that are at odds with the consensus positions (Sasseville, Wilson, and Lawson 1997, 16). Since it is only members that are able to vote on measures and participate on TC's, this has excluded the voting rights of many important parties. Since not all parties are represented properly, this is a severe weakness of any standard, for the result will be skewed in favor of the represented parties. 

Another major weakness of ISO 14000 is its lack of public awareness and thereby lack of mass support. Although the measure was obviously introduced for corporate entities and applies to corporate entities, the creators have grossly underestimated the strength of public opinion in pushing for continued environmental improvement. In other words, had the measure sought out general public support, there would be more pressure for companies to participate because consumers would demand it.

One of the more basic weaknesses in the ISO 14000 standard is its lack of "tattle" procedures. Although the measure appears to have procedures for emergencies and accidents, it does not appear to allow for companies to "tell" on each other or, more importantly, for communities to "tell" on companies. The standard, it appears, has asked for every piece of a company's action to be documented and evaluated in terms of the environmental impact. What, however, is to happen if Company A finds that Company B (both member parties) is not doing what is in their policy, and is simply hiding behind the policy and committing heinous environmental acts? There is no documented procedure for repercussions or punitive actions for defunct members. This is presumably due (in part) to the fact that all evaluation and auditing can be done internally. Since it is unlikely that a company will tattle on itself, this system did not need to be set up. This implies another weakness of the standard. "Regulators and the regulated need to be separate, independent, and equally competent" (Bruyn 1998a, 18). Auditing and monitoring should be done by disinterested, but equally knowledgeable, third parties. 

An absolutely astonishing weakness of the standard is that it in no way is a guarantee of improving environmental conditions. "It is important to understand that ISO conformity does not guarantee better environmental performance" (Block1997, 40). Although participating members are supposed to be committed to improvement and create targets for improvement, this in no way ensures that gross environmental atrocities will not continue to occur only at ever decreasing levels. 

What it fails to do, however, is let performance be compared on more than a superficial (i.e., certified or not-certified) basis from a public-policy perspective it is important to be able to benchmark companies against each other as well as against their own past performance. Simply certifying that a management system meets a certain standard does not allow this to be done (Frankel 1998, 165). In other words, if chemical company A says it will continue to try to improve and decrease the amount of waste that it creates, this could then translate into the idea that instead of 1,000 tons of waste this year, company A only created 999.9 tons of waste and thereby improved waste. In fact, the companies do not even have to state this kind of target to be a registered member. They simply have to agree to evaluate and audit what they are doing. It does not even have to ensure a change or an improvement of any kind. It also does not address what can and cannot be done on a specific level aside from local regulation. So if company A continues to experiment with chemicals that it does not know the effects of and disposes of them in a way that the EPA states is "safe," it will, in effect, be off the hook, still be polluting, and in no way be proactive toward the environment. In addition, because the company need only comply with local regulation they can move their company to a country with little to no regulations and continue polluting production practices. 

Firms will simply relocate to less developed countries where the regulations may be less restrictive. This is sometimes referred to as the "pollution haven hypothesis." In a world where industrial production is dominated by large multinational corporations, international relocation of production is relatively easyÖWhen Denmark introduced animal welfare regulations on egg production from battery hens, much of the production moved over the border, and domestic supply was made up from imported supplies (Hodge 1995, 107).

With ISO 14000 this occurrence may become even more prevalent. If a company can be labeled as ISO 14000 compliant while still producing massive amounts of pollution in a developing country that has no regulation, we have not created a viable environmental standard.

The last and most important weakness of the ISO 14000 standard is that it requires no transparency aside from the policy statement (EMS or Environmental Management System). In other words, this standard does not require that a company make public any of its processes (transparency defined) in terms of the environment. 

ISO 14001 differs markedly from other EMS standards in the area of external communication. Unlike the European EMAS, which requires an annual environmental performance statement, and the BS 7750, which requires that the environmental policy indicate how environmental objectives will be made publicly available, ISO 14001 does not require public disclosure of any environmental information other than the environmental policy (Block 1997, 64). Most of the other weaknesses of the standard could be rectified if transparency were mandatory. ISO 14000 does not require that targets, audits, or evaluations are public. Thus, losing all sight of any inherent benefit. If consumers were allowed to know how much X Company A was creating in waste they could make more informed decisions about purchases and economic practices. This follows along the lines of Adam Smith's model of economics. He believed that consumers would make rational decisions based on perfect information. We have found in our capitalist society that due to the privacy involved in competition (or that we have artificially imbedded in competition) that transparency has been obliterated and falls now under corporate proprietary information. Therefore, the consumer is not basing decisions on perfect information as Smith had proposed. 

This has the potential to be reflected in our environmental practices also. Companies could feasibly, within this system, not let consumers know what they are doing within their production cycle to create or alleviate waste. Even though these companies do not tell consumers what they are doing, they could still be allowed to label themselves as "environmentally conscious." Thus without any rational, knowledge based consumer decision, consumers could unknowingly support environmentally dangerous products and companies. This creates an unbalanced scale of rights and responsibilities. All stakeholders should be informed of the effects that a company is creating. "External stakeholders need to know about corporate environmental efforts, and companies need to know about environmental demands by its external stakeholders, who include communities near company facilities, environmental public-interest groups, government agencies, customers, shareholders, employees, the public and the media" (Shrivastava 1996, 212). There should be an implicit responsibility to the consumer and to the earth. This responsibility would take form of public awareness of business practices through transparency. A transparency that ISO 14000 does not require. 

There are also various strengths associated with the ISO 14000 standard. One such strength is that it does help to standardize our international market in regards to environmental "friendliness." Due to the ever-increasing global nature of our economy, a measure such as this has been long since overdue. However, as seen in the previous section, its specific standards are definitely lacking. There is in fact, very little that is standard besides a policy statement and commitment to address environmental issues.

Another strength of ISO 14000 is that as an international measure, this standard can increase (as is the case with most standards) consumer assurance. Consumers with an international standard such as this can be more certain that both foreign and domestic products are meeting the same standards. While consumers believe that the standard is universal, it varies nationally. In other words, the standards truly differ from nation to nation. The nation that has the lowest standards attracts the most business because this nation's standards are used as the bottom floor. Unfortunately, the dilemma here is that the lowest standard is desirable. It is especially important to guard against this with regard to environmental standards. The country with the least developed set of standards will continually be exploited for its resources and polluted due to its lack of regulation. So, although its broad applicability is a strength, in practice it plays out as a weakness as lower standard countries will continue to be exploited.

A major strength of ISO 14000 is that it is an open standard, meaning it is viable through time. As technology, knowledge, and awareness increases the standard as set can still be applicable. It does not lend itself, as a standard, to continual reevaluation. It is the member that needs to continually reevaluate their impact on the environment. In this way, it has decreased the amount of bureaucratization involved in the standardization and placed some of that responsibility on the company. 

ISO 14000 also allows experts to be experts. In other words, instead of a determined government official or outside party who may have limited knowledge of the technology or chemical (or whatever it might be), the company is in charge of setting the standard. This could allow for more accurate, more meaningful standards. The experts on how to control, how to alleviate, or what ways to best dispose of a said chemical or waste would in fact be those that have created it and have the specialized knowledge of its effects. This, however, would only be truly effective if it was done at the industry or association level. For an engineer at Company A, although the most knowledgeable about the waste and production of a good, is also trapped in the cage of working for a company that is trying to maximize its profits. Therefore, even if the company engineer has the best of intentions, he is trapped in a bureaucratic cycle that is not effective for backward flow of communication. The President or CEO will make a final decision about the waste based on the engineer's finding but with corporate profits also in the equation. This does not ensure that the experts can produce the most efficient and environmentally safe outcomes. This issue was also addressed, in part, in terms of the audit and evaluation cycle within ISO 14000. It is true here also that although the insider may have the best knowledge, his/her interests may be conflicting. Therefore, all auditors and standard setters should involve outside parties.

This plays directly into another strength of ISO 14000 in that it relies on self- governance. The principle of self-governance is seen throughout this standard in its partial (relative) expression. This is seen as a strength because as the number of businesses in the global market increases exponentially, social self-governance will become the only effective method of accountability. The national governments of these corporations cannot be expected to see each and every process of a company's production. So, although governments remain an actor in this unfolding drama, the company must be responsible and held accountable for their actions. As stated implicitly earlier, however, it would be a much more effective method if it were gathered at the industry level instead of the individual corporation level. 

How does ISO 14000 fit into our self-governance framework? Although well intentioned, ISO 14000 misses the mark of our self-governance framework. In order for self-governance to work adequately, especially within our industrial society, it needs to improve in four basic areas: transparency, association level governance and punitive action, and performance standardization. Within our capitalistic culture the conflict between profit maximization and environmental values cannot be minimized or quelled with a standard set and evaluated by companies alone. There must be additional ramifications. For, at this juncture in our societal development, environmental values are not factored into the economic equation and are seen only as externalities. Therefore, they do not fit into the equation of profit maximization and will continue to be sacrificed on the company level for that very reason. 

Transparency, as discussed previously, can help to find the place where corporations and environmental values can coexist. If a company discloses its practices to the public, and environmental activist continue to inform the public of the effects of pollution and resource depletion, companies will be smart to improve their entire process in regard to the environment. Some feel that transparency infringes on the rights of proprietary knowledge of companies. This would apply especially in a biotech or chemical industry where what is created is "cutting edge." However, it is time to sacrifice our continued growth for a more sensible development. "The technical and economic problems involved in achieving sustainability are not that difficult. The hard problem is overcoming our addiction to growth as the favored way to assert our creative power, and the idolatrous beliefÖthat our derived creative power is autonomous and unlimited" (Daly 1996, 224). By only requiring that a company's environmental policy to be public, ISO 14000 has done an injustice to both the non-informed consumer and the environment, as it is not guaranteed that the company is practicing its policy. 

In addition to increased transparency, ISO 14000 has missed its mark in targeting companies individually. Instead the measure would be more effective if after establishing the generic standard for all industries it established actual marks and rules at the industry level. Creating an association level standard can be compared to an association such as the National Football League. Member teams of the NFL are required to follow very specific rules. A team could try to exist without being a member, but its failure would be inevitable. It becomes necessary for competition's sake to participate in the association. The association, in turn, is able to create very specific rules for the industry. In addition, it should allow for a diverse representation on the association level. Not only interested industry parties can be represented. All stakeholders, including NGO's, non-profits, and other organizations and interested parties must have voting representation at the association level.

This ties directly into the third improvement of ISO 14000. It becomes slightly disturbing and shocking once you finish examining the standard to find that you feel something is missing. You are not crazy, there is something missing, a performance standard. There is in fact, no standard. The only requirement on performance within ISO 14000 is that it complies with local or regional regulations. This does not help in international standardization. In addition, there needs to be an outside system for upgrading these standards when new technology is introduced. In other words, it would do a disservice to the standard to wait for a nation or government to introduce new limits when a new technology is introduced. It would be more appropriate for this to be done at an association level. There is no improvement on the already existing problem. The only performance requirement is that of the local regulation. Nations and local areas need to be in negotiation with businesses for a level standard at which all parties can perform and benefit. This means that we have, in fact, created a standard that allows for "unstandard." In order for a standard to in fact be a standard it would actually have to standardize something aside from paperwork. 

In order for a self-governance standard like ISO 14000 to work, aside from the improvements listed previously, it would need to be coupled with an alteration in our current environmental economic thought. First, environment and effects on human and other species can no longer be considered an economic externality. This is not a new idea, but it has yet to be accepted as economic mainstream. "Environmental externalities are costs created by production that traditionally have been passed on by producers to the general public. Internalizing these costs involves creating a mechanism that forces pollution producers themselves to pay some of these expenses. The mechanism that accomplishes this end is regulation" (Silverstein 1993, 24). We need, as a society, to first accept that we are not factoring these into our economic equations effectively and then move to change the mindset of business as it is today. 

This is not enough, however. In addition, we must examine the economic structure of capitalism. Much like Marx predicted, capitalistic contradictions would cause its inevitable implosion. Many have refuted this theory, as it has not yet played out. I would postulate that perhaps it is still a distinct possibility. However, Marx may have picked the wrong contradiction, one with workers and owners. In fact, the contradiction that may lead to the downfall of capitalism is the contradiction between profit maximization and recognition of values that lie in the earth's own productive resources. "Marx notes that the capitalist mode of production is likely to degrade the soil. For example, in Volume I of Das Kapital, he boldly states that progress in capitalist agriculture not only robs the labourer of surplus value, but robs the fertility of the soil as well by reckless exploitation" (Kula 1998, 55). Whether it is pollution, destruction of natural resources, or extinction of species (including our own), we cannot continue at our pace of growth without an implosion. We must rethink economic growth and its inherent contradiction with social responsibility (and the social factor). We cannot grow forever, in terms of economic expansion, at this rate. We must slow the rate of growth down and think in terms of development, instead of growth, in order to help this conflict. Development does not inherently mean expansion in the way that growth does. A healthy rate of development can include the social factor (introducing quality into the equation instead of "expanding," quantity definitions). 

It is interesting that such a huge issue should be at stake in a simple picture. Once you draw the boundary of the environment around the economy, you have said that the economy cannot expand forever. You have said that John Stuart Mill was right, that populations of human bodies and accumulations of capital goods cannot grow forever, that at some point quantitative growth must give way to qualitative development as the path of progress (Daly 1996, 7).

It was Weber who theorized that industrial society was ever increasing its attention to science and allowing its attention to values to atrophy. This appears to play out with particular resonance in regard to the economy and the environment. 

Deep ecologists believe that the community of all living species is the greater reality and the greater value. Industrial and commercial development of the last couple of centuries aimed to create an economic and technological 'underworld' for consumers, but instead it created a "waste world", leading to the physical and spiritual deprivation of mankind as well as the world as a whole. Industrial control of the media not only created an illusion of affluence and economic growth, but now is threatening the viability of humans. The time is long overdue for us to ask searching questions about the values of our society and the direction in which we are heading (Kula 1998, 185).

It appears that as Weber had projected, the all-knowing science would find a way to "fix" our problems. Americans do believe that whatever ecological crisis we create with our disregard, that science can fix it. This thinking must change for our environmental crisis to be alleviated. We must begin to increase the discussion of values, the social organization of markets, and again bring the future of our species and our earth into the realm of importance.

An environmental crisis is virtually eminent. Industry is creating and growing at an exponentially faster rate than can be sustained. 

Environmentally, although there have been important gains in selected localities in reducing air pollution and cleaning up polluted rivers, the deeper reality is one of growing ecological crisis. The ever-present threat of nuclear holocaust has been replaced by the threat of increasing exposure to potentially deadly ultraviolet rays as the protective cover of the ozone layer thins. The younger generation lives with the question of whether they may be turned into environmental refugees by climate changes that threaten to melt the polar ice caps, flood vast coastal areas and turn fertile agricultural areas into deserts (Korten 1995, 21). 

The situation can no longer go unnoticed. We must find a new direction away from growth and expansion and toward a better quality life instead of an increased quantity lifestyle. 

ISO 14000 is a step in the right direction. The direction is social self-governance. We must decrease the level of government control over industry. "Governments cannot do the whole job by themselves, but they can play a powerful role, especially in mandating public disclosure, and encouraging business associations to assist in the process" (Bruyn 1998b, 21). Governments are no longer knowledgeable or equipped enough to handle this. Industry must band together with community and interest groups and begin to regulate itself. Industry must no longer see environmental reform as cost prohibitive. Standards are a necessary element along with other forms of social organization so that markets can compete strongly for the common good. The real impact of ISO 14000 is yet to be determined, and in part lies in companies' willingness to take it seriously, despite its lack of performance standards.

The effectiveness of ISO 140001 will vary depending on the will and intentions of each company. As applied by some companies, it will be next to meaningless. For other companies, it will be a steppingstone to substantial progress. Would a prescriptive standard be more effective at bringing about improvements in corporate environmental performance? Yes - but in the current business environment a worldwide standard of that sort is not going to be designed, much less accepted (Frankel 1998, 55). ISO 14000 alone cannot stop the impending crisis. The current presumptions of environmental economic thought must be challenged and replaced. Michael Silverstein captured this concept eloquently in his book, Environmental Economic Revolution. Silverstein professes that in the past our economic outlook was what's good for the economy is good for the environment (1993). We need to change this mode of thinking to, "what's good for the environment is good for the economy." It is not industry alone that needs to take responsibility. As consumers, we must attempt to alter our consumption patterns, understand our finite resource base, and respect our earth and the life of our future generations.

Block, Marilyn R. (1997). Implementing ISO 14001. Quality Press: Milwaukee. 

Bruyn, Severyn T. (1998a). Chapter 1. A Civil Economy: A Vision for the 21^st Century. Manuscript.

Bruyn, Severyn T. (1998b). Chapter 6. A Civil Economy: A Vision for the 21^st Century. Manuscript.

Daly, Herman. (1996). Beyond Growth. Beacon Press: Boston.

Drucker, Peter. (1993). Post Capitalist Society. Harper Business: New York.

Frankel, Carl. (1998). In Earth's Company. New Society Publishers: Canada.

Hodge, Ian. (1995). Environmental Economics. St. Martin's Press: New York.

Korten, David C. (1995). When Corporations Rule the World. Kumarian Press: West Hartfor.

Kula, E. (1998). History of Environmental Economic Thought. Routledge: New York.

Merchant, Carolyn. (1992). Radical Ecology. Routledge: New York.

Sasseville, Dennis, Gary Wilson, and Robert Lawson. (1997). ISO 14000 Answer Book. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New York.

Shrivastava, Paul. (1996). Greening Business. Thomson Executive Press: Cincinnati.

Shuman, Michael. (1998). Going Local. The Free Press: New York.

Silverstein, Michael. (1993). The Environmental Economic Revolution. St. Martin's Press: New York.

Steininger, Karl. (1995). Trade and Environment. Physica-Verlag: Germany.

Welch, Thomas. (1998). Moving Beyond Environmental Compliance. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton.

Zuckerman, Amy. (1997). International Standards: Desk Reference. Amacom: New York.