|
Burt and participants in P2Tech,
The short answer is "no". At least, the
exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule. The problem is that most
"green" plating (and I include here water conservation, energy conservation,
improved use of compressed air, optimized waste treatment, and improved
management systems and process controls, along with the obvious "eliminate
cyanide" type options) is in the process, with the benefits accruing to reduced
costs directly or indirectly, or improved risk management. The product
itself is rarely more "green" (substitutes for cadmium and lead being notable,
and mature, counter-examples). So saying that because you are a "green"
plater a customer should use you is almost, but not quite, now at the level of
saying, "Hey, look, we don't cheat on our taxes!" It is smart business,
but poor PR.
We are working on two projects to build green
plating facilities, one in China and one in Mexico, that will be as "green" as
possible (while still using cyanide-based solutions for some steps) and that
will be competitive in terms of costs with "non-green" facilities within the
"mother" firms. And it is not because of cheaper labor, special tax
breaks, etc. New plating operations now incorporate many great ideas we
have known about for years that, unfortunately, only clear investment hurdles as
greenfield choices. Retro-fits need not apply. And calling it
"green" is now just one more punch on the supplier's ticket required by more and
more customers. For the same money.
Terry Foecke
|