Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, April 20, 1990                   TAG: 9004200144
SECTION: BUSINESS                    PAGE: A7   EDITION: STATE 
SOURCE: PAT WECHSLER NEWSDAY
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SOME EARTH-SAVERS MOVED BY A KICK IN THE PROFITS

After New York State accused Kodak of illegal dumping and failing to report a chemical spill, it agreed to pay a record $2.15 million fine and began a $100 million program to replace old, potentially leaky chemical storage tanks.

Does this make Kodak a polluter or a good environmental citizen?

"We like to think of ourselves as a responsible company," said James Blamphin, Kodak's spokesman on environmental issues.

But environmentalists say that with friends of the Earth like Kodak, who needs enemies?

Many U.S. corporations may be embracing the environmental issue more warmly than 10 years ago, when some executives referred to environmentalists as communists and kooks. But unless they are hauled in by government enforcers, most are clearly trying to confront environmental issues at their own pace, on their own terms.

"Right now, many are coming to the issue with the fervor of religious converts who want to make sure they will be in good standing at church on Earth Day Sunday," said Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

To gain absolution, companies - such as Walt Disney Co., which hired a zoologist to be its top environmental officer - have been jumping on the environmental bandwagon with research projects, new appointments, new products and potentially toxic levels of high-pitched promotion.

But there are still some companies on the environmentalists' enemies list. Besides Kodak, other notables are Exxon for its actions during the Valdez spill and cleanup; Occidental Chemicals for excessive emissions of toxic materials in the air and water, and, ironically, two waste management firms - Browning-Ferris and Waste Management - for poor management of landfills.

But those that choose to ignore the "environmental momentum," as Kodak's Blamphin put it, put their most precious company product - profits - at risk, not to mention their stock prices when shareholders find out.

"These companies continue not to get it," said Patrick McVeigh, an analyst with Boston-based Franklin Research and Development, a social concerns investment adviser. "But gradually they will, as shareholders begin to realize the negative impact on earnings these bad environmental practices have."

This year, the number of shareholder resolutions concerning the environment has skyrocketed. Exxon alone faces nine, including one that calls on the chairman to resign for his handling of the spill.

State governments and public pension funds also are putting pressure on corporations to do more for a cleaner planet. And marketing studies show over and over again that customers are basing their purchases more frequently on whether the product is environmentally sound and the company is environmentally responsible.