Only eight 'green' companies in the country: Minister
Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The results of a 2002 environmental audit conducted on 85 select companies showed that none of them received a gold label for satisfactory performance, the government announced on Wednesday.
State Minister of the Environment Nabiel Makarim said only eight companies were given the green label, 51 the blue label, 22 the red label and four received the black label for not conducting any substantial effort in environmental management.
The 85 companies assessed are mostly located in western Indonesia and have a significant impact on the environment, a high potential for pollution, an export orientation and are listed on the bourse.
The Company Environmental Management Assessment Program (PROPER) was applied for the first time in 2002 since the government suspended it in 1997 citing economic and political constraints. The annual program was implemented in 1995.
PROPER applies five color labels in declining order to companies -- gold, green, blue, red and black -- with gold indicating exemplary environmental performance and black, substandard performance.
The assessment is based on 51 criteria, including control of liquid waste, air pollution and hazardous waste, implementation of environmental impact analysis, management of resources and environment, and public involvement.
The more criteria a company fulfills, the higher its rating.
Among those companies that received the green label are: consumer goods producer PT Unilever Indonesia in East Java, pulp and paper maker PT Tanjung Enim Lestari in South Sumatra, cement maker PT Indocement Tunggal Perkasa in West Java and mining firm PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara in West Nusa Tenggara.
Companies slapped with the black label are: state oil and gas firm PT Pertamina UP IV in Cilacap, Central Java; textile producers PT Kahatex II and PT Prodomo, both in West Java; and paper maker PT Papyrus Sakti Paper Mill in West Java.
Asserting that the audit was aimed at motivating the country's industries to improve their environmental management, Nabiel said action would not be taken against companies that recorded poor environmental performance.
Nabiel admitted the program had no legal power to bring errant companies to court. "But we can send written warnings to bad companies. This also opens up the possibility for revoking licenses. The red and black labels should send signals to law enforcers to prepare measures," he said.
"Law enforcement hasn't been very effective when dealing with environmental crimes. Hopefully this program can influence the judgment of the public and company stakeholders," Nabiel said.
He said the environmental ratings were aimed at helping the public, company stakeholders and even banks to assess and judge the companies.
"It can definitely affect their images, and can adversely influence their finances in terms of the provision of bank loans, for example," said Nabiel.
Asked why it took the government almost two years to complete the audit, Nabiel said the auditors had to start from scratch after a five-year lapse. The team had also involved representatives from non-governmental organizations as well as independent observers.
Controversy marked the reinstatement of the audit, as the government had excluded mining firms from its audit.
Isa Karnisa Ardiputra from the assessment team said the ministry distributed questionnaires and conducted spot checks at the companies.
"The companies had no excuse to refuse us admission to get an inside look, as it is regulated in Law No. 23/1997 on environmental management," he said.