Author's personal copy

Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79

Environmental protection, the economy, and jobs: National and

regional analyses$

Roger H. Bezdeka,, Robert M. Wendlinga, Paula DiPernab

a

Management Information Services, Inc., 2716 Colt Run Road, Oakton, VA 22124, Washington, DC, USA b

Jobs and the Environment Initiative, New York, USA

Received 1 March 2005; received in revised form 19 November 2006; accepted 23 November 2006

Available online 17 January 2007

Abstract

The relationship between environmental protection (EP), the economy, and jobs has been an issue of harsh contention for decades.

Does EP harm the economy and destroy jobs or facilitate economic growth and create jobs? We address this issue by summarizing the

results of the Jobs and the Environment Initiative, research funded by nonprofit foundations to quantify the relationship between EP, the

economy, and jobs. We estimate the size of the US environmental industry and the numbers of environment-related jobs at the national

level and in the states of Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin. This is the first time that such

comprehensive, detailed estimates have been developed.

Our major finding is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, EP, economic growth, and jobs creation are complementary and

compatible: Investments in EP create jobs and displace jobs, but the net effect on employment is positive.

Second, environment protection has grown rapidly to become a major sales-generating, job-creating industry—$300 billion/year and 5

million jobs in 2003.

Third, most of the 5 million jobs created are standard jobs for accountants, engineers, computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, etc.,

and the classic environmental job (environmental engineer, ecologist, etc.) constitutes only a small portion of the jobs created. Most of

the persons employed in the jobs created may not even realize that they owe their livelihood to protecting the environment.

Fourth, at the state level, the relationship between environmental policies and economic/job growth is positive, not negative. States can

have strong economies and simultaneously protect the environment.

Finally, environmental jobs are concentrated in manufacturing and professional, information, scientific, and technical services, and are

thus disproportionately the types of jobs all states seek to attract.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Jobs; Environmental protection; Economy; Industry; Manufacturing; Skills; State; Occupations

1. Introduction: the issue

The relationship between environmental protection (EP),

the economy, and jobs has been an issue of harsh

contention for decades. Analysts and policymakers of all

points of view seem to agree that a strong relationship

exists between EP and jobs; the debate is over the sign of

the correlation coefficient. Does EP tend to harm the

economy and destroy jobs or to facilitate economic growth

and create jobs? If the latter is the case, can the positive

affects be quantified and estimated at a meaningful level of

detail?

Here, we address this issue by summarizing the initial

results of the Jobs and the Environment Initiative, a

research effort funded by nonprofit foundations designed

to quantify the relationship between EP, the economy, and

jobs.1 We estimate the size of the US environmental

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

0301-4797/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.028

$This paper finds that, contrary to the conventional wisdom,

environmental protection has evolved into a major US industry, that

most of the 5 million jobs created are for occupations not related to the

environment, and that detailed economic and employment impacts can be

estimated for individual states. Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 7036 204120; fax: +1 7035 699733.

E-mail address: rbezdek@misi-net.com (R.H. Bezdek).

1

The research summarized here was supported by the Rockefeller

Foundation, the Merck Fund, and the Beldon Fund.
Author's personal copy

industry in 2003 and the numbers of environment-related

jobs created at the national level and in the states of

Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and

Wisconsin.

2. Previous studies

Numerous studies have been undertaken over the past

two decades to estimate the economic and employment

effects of EP. These can be grouped into three types: (i)

theoretical analyses and cases studies, (ii) econometric

simulations of policy alternatives, and (iii) empirical

estimates derived using historical data. Below we review

some of the major studies in each category.

2.1. Theoretical analyses and cases studies

In 1992, Meyer analyzed the impact of environmental

legislation on differential interstate rates of economic

performance and tested the hypothesis that pursuit of

environmental quality hinders economic growth and job

creation (Meyer, 1992). He ranked the 50 states on the

basis of the stringency of their environmental laws and then

compared the environmental rankings with measures of

economic growth and job creation between 1973 and 1989.

He found no evidence to support a negative relationship

between environmental regulation and economic performance, and his results showed the opposite. Meyer found

that the states with the most ambitious environmental

programs had the highest levels of economic growth and

job creation over the period.

In 1993 and 1995, Bezdek examined the available

empirical evidence and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, strict environmental regulations do not

damage US industry, reduce international competitiveness,

or cost thousands of jobs, and he found that strict

environmental standards may even foster economic development (Bezdek, 1993). He concluded that recent major

empirical studies reject the hypothesis that there is a

negative relationship between EP and economic and job

growth.

During the 1990s, Goodstein conducted several studies

examining the relationship between EP and employment

(Goodstein, 1994). He examined the impact of existing

regulations on overall employment rates, shutdowns and

layoffs, regulation-induced capital flight, estimates of the

costs of environmental regulation, and specific industries

and case studies. He found that little empirical evidence

exists that environmental regulation destroys jobs and that

ex ante estimates of the costs of compliance have been

much higher than actual costs. He also showed the

conditions under which EP might lead to increased

employment.

In 1995, Templet hypothesized that the economy is

dependent on the environment to provide resources and

accept wastes, and that a healthy environment should make

for a better economy (Templet, 1995). He cited empirical

evidence from a number of studies substantiating that

finding and showing that states with lower pollution levels

and better environmental policies generally have more jobs,

better socioeconomic conditions, and are more attractive to

new business. He conducted a case study of Louisiana case

that found that jobs increased while pollution declines. He

concluded that there is little evidence that progressive

environmental policies are detrimental to a state’s economy

and that there is substantial evidence that the converse is

true.

In 1995, Repetto reported that EP requirements have not

contributed to job loss or reduced international competitiveness for US companies. He also found that firms with

superior environmental performance are no less profitable

than others in the same industry (Repetto, 1995). He

concluded that appropriate US environmental policies

could protect the environment with far greater economic

efficiency.

In 1997, Berman analyzed the regulation of air pollution

in manufacturing plants in Los Angeles. He examined

employment growth in the Los Angeles region in plants

subject to these regulations, and compared growth at these

plants to employment growth at similar plants in Texas and

Louisiana. He found that, while the Los Angeles regulations imposed costs on regulated plants, they had little

effect on employment and that there were no large job

losses due to these regulations. His major finding was that

the most severe episode of increased air quality regulation

of manufacturing industries did not have a large effect on

manufacturing employment.

In 1998, Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih examined the

possibility that workers could be adversely affected in

heavily regulated industries, which has led to claims of a

‘‘jobs vs. environment’’ tradeoff (Morgenstern et al., 1998).

They explored how increased environmental stringency

can influence the industry-level demand for labor and

developed estimates for four heavily polluting industries (pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum refining, and

iron and steel). Their results indicated that increases in

environmental spending do not cause job loss. Their model

showed that the overall demand effect is mitigated by

employment increases associated with new environmental

spending.

In 1999, Arnold, Forrest, and Dujack examined claims

about the costs of environment regulations by reviewing

the available research (Arnold et al., 1999). They found

that, while the claims about damage to the economy can

mostly be attributed to misinformed advocates or exaggeration, the majority of the fault lies in a lack of

accurate communication of economists’ findings about the

effect of environmental regulation to the general public.

Worst-case economic impact scenarios for a regulation—

such as potential increases in unemployment and plant

closures—are reported not as low probabilities, but as

serious threats. They concluded that the view that

environmental regulation seriously harms the US economy

is not supported by the data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

64 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

In 1999, Bliese reviewed dozens of well-designed studies

that tested the assertion that EP harms the economy

(Bliese, 1999). The results of these studies indicate that EP

normally has no negative impact on the economy overall,

and often has a positive effect. He noted that the studies

only searched for economic impacts of environmental

policies—and found none; they did not estimate environmental or public health benefits. He concluded that the

‘‘environment vs. the economy trade-off’’ is a myth, even in

narrowly economic terms.

In 1999, Yapijakis found that widespread fears of job

losses from EP are unfounded and that, when job creation

aspects of pollution control policies are factored in, EP has

increased net employment in the US (Yapijakis, 1999)

Further, actual layoffs due to regulation have been

extremely small. EP raises employment levels and provides

some recession-proof stimulus to aggregate demand.

Government data reveal that few manufacturing plants

are shut down as a result of environmental or safety

regulations.

In 2000, Renner found that creating an environmentally

sustainable economy has already generated an estimated 14

million jobs worldwide (Renner, 2000). He reported that

many new opportunities for job creation are emerging,

ranging from recycling and remanufacturing of goods, to

greater energy and materials efficiency and the development of renewable energy. Jobs are more likely to be at risk

where environmental standards are low. He concluded that

investing in the environment, in renewable energy, and

energy efficiency will generate more jobs than investing in

extractive industries and fossil fuels.

2.2. Econometric simulations of policy alternatives

In 1989, Arvind Teotia and his associates estimated

the macroeconomic impacts of the use of clean diesel

engine technology in light trucks to comply with corporate average fuel economy (CAFE ́ ) standards. They

assumed that the new engines would capture 15 percent of

the light truck market and estimated that by 2022, between

70,000 and 110,000 jobs would be created (Teotia et al.,

1999).

In 1989, Bezdek and Wendling simulated the impact of

the two major acid rain control bills that were then being

considered in the US Congress (Bezdek and Wendling,

1989). They found that between 100,000 and 195,000 net

jobs would be created, depending on which bill was

enacted. Economic and job impacts were estimated for

each state and employment requirements by occupation at

the national level were also estimated.

In 1990, Jorgensen and Wilcoxen estimated the impact of

environmental regulations on the US economy by simulating the growth of the economy between 1974 and 1985 with

and without these regulations (Jorgenson and Wilcoxen,

1990). They concluded that the effect of these regulations

was that the economy grew 0.2%/year more slowly than it

would have otherwise, and that by the early 1990s GNP

was about 2.5% less. In 1993, they extended the analysis to

assess the impacts of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 and concluded that the net impact of the Amendments would further reduce the rate of growth of GNP

(Jorgenson et al., 1993). They did assess the benefits of EP

or estimate employment impacts.

In 1990, a Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association

study of the potential impact of increased CAFE standards

predicted that tighter CAFE standards would result in the

loss of between 159,000 and 315,000 jobs in the motor

vehicle industry (Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association,

1990). Secondary effects from consumer fuel savings were

not estimated and the report did not consider that fuel

savings by consumers would result in additional spending

on other products and higher employment in the affected

industries.

In 1992, GelIer, DeCicco, and Laitner estimated the

impact of a ‘‘high efficiency’’ scenario for the energy-using

sectors of the economy and found that a national strategy

of investment in environmentally benign energy sources

and energy efficiency would create one million net new jobs

in the United States within 10 years (Geller et al., 1992).

They also found that by increasing the fuel efficiency of

passenger cars from 28 mpg in 1990 to 40 mpg in 2000 and

50 mpg in 2010, 244,000 additional jobs would be created

by 2010.

1993, MISI simulated the impact that the environmental

provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement

would have on US exports and jobs (Management

Information Services, Inc., 1993). The study estimated that

by 2000, NAFTA would generate $3.8 billion in US

environmental export sales to Mexico and create nearly

70,000 jobs in the US Jobs estimates were disaggregated by

state.

During the 1990s. Laitner, DeCicco, Elliott, Geller,

Goldberg, Morris, and Nadel examined energy consumption patterns in the four-state Midwest region of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and the states of New York,

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and projected energy

consumption through 2010 assuming business-as-usual

policies and trends (Laitner et al., 1994). They then

developed an energy efficiency scenario assuming more

aggressive implementation of energy efficiency measures

and analyzed the potential economic benefits of the

scenario. They found that by 2010, the energy efficiency

scenario would create 132,000 net new jobs in Midwest

region and 164,000 net new jobs in New York, New Jersey,

and Pennsylvania.

In 1999, Bernow, Cory, Dougherty, Duckworth, Kartha,

and Ruth examined the impact of implementing a set of

integrated policies designed to bring the US in compliance

with the Kyoto Protocol (Bernow et al., 1999). They found

that the US could reduce its carbon emissions to its Kyoto

target and that the prescribed policies would produce net

economic savings. Specifically, they estimated that by 2010

almost 900,000 net new jobs would be created, relative to

the baseline.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 65
Author's personal copy

A 2001, a Friedman study for the Union of Concerned

Scientists analyzed the effects of increasing CAFE standards to 40 mpg by 2012 and to 55 mpg by 2020 (Friedman

et al., 2001). UCS estimated that employment, wages, and

income would increase over the 10–20-year horizon of the

study. By 2010, the analysis projected a net increase of over

40,000 jobs; by 2020, the study projected an increase of

104,000 jobs. In a 2002 update of this study, UCS

highlighted the potential job gains by industry and state

resulting from increased CAFE standards, and estimated

that 183,000 new jobs would be generated (Union of

Concerned Scientists, 2002).

In 2002, research staff at the University of Illinois

analyzed the Midwest’s Clean Energy Development Plan,

which advocated energy efficient technologies and development of renewable energy resources, especially wind

power and biomass energy (Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, 2002). They estimated that implementing

the plan would create more than 200,000 new jobs across

the 10-state Midwest region by 2020.

In 2002 and 2004, Barret and Heorner assessed the

impact of a set of policies designed to provide steady

increases in energy efficiency and reductions in carbon

emissions, while improving overall economic efficiency

(Barrett and Hoerner, 2002). They analyzed the macroeconomic impact of these policies and estimated that an

additional 660,000 net jobs would be created in 2010 and

1.4 million in 2020. This would increase employment in the

service sector and reduce the rate of decline in employment

in manufacturing.

In 2004, the New Apollo Initiative proposed an

economic development plan for the US based on diversifying energy sources, making the US less dependent on

foreign oil, investing in industries of the future, promoting

construction of energy efficient buildings, and investing in

cities and communities (New Energy for America, 2004). It

estimated that a $30 billion investment per year for 10

years would add more than 3.3 million jobs to the economy

and stimulate $1.4 trillion in new GDP.

In 2004, UCS analyzed the effects of implementing a

national renewable electricity standard (RES) that would

require electric utilities to supply a set percentage of their

electricity from renewable sources (Union of Concerned

Scientists, 2004). It found that a under a national RES of

20% by 2020, the US would increase its total renewable

power capacity by nearly 11 times over present levels and

would create more than 355,000 new jobs.

In 2004, Levinson and Taylor examined the effect of

environmental regulations on trade flows by developing an

economic model to demonstrate how unobserved heterogeneity, endogeneity, and aggregation issues bias measurements of the relationship between regulatory costs and

trade (Leninson and Taylor, 2004). They applied an

estimating equation derived from the model to data on

US regulations and net trade flows among the US, Canada,

and Mexico for 130 manufacturing industries from 1977 to

1986. Their results indicated that industries whose abatement costs increased most experienced the largest increases

in net imports. For the 20 industries hardest hit by

regulation, the change in net imports they ascribed to the

increase in regulatory costs amounted to more than half of

the total increase in trade volume over the period.

In 2005, Bezdek and Wendling estimated the economic

impacts on the US of enhanced CAFE standards and

found that such changes would have positive economic

effects and create 300,000 jobs, although the costs in terms

of vehicle characteristics and prices and limited consumer

choice could be significant (Bezdek and Wendling, 2005).

There would be widespread job displacement and job

impacts were disaggregated by industry, state, and

occupation.

2.3. Empirical estimates of actual environmental

employment

For two decades, Environmental Business International

has been publishing estimates of the size of the US

environmental industry with times series data beginning

in 1970. The data are disaggregated by Services (analytical

services, wastewater treatment, solid waste, hazardous

waste, remediation, and consulting and engineering),

Equipment (water and chemicals, instruments and information, air pollution control, waste management, and

process and prevention), and Resources (water utilities,

resource recovery, and clean energy systems and power).

EBI estimates that the size of the US environmental

industry has increased from $18 billion in 1970 to $227

billion in 2003. Corresponding employment or jobs

numbers are not published.2

MISI has been estimating the economic and jobs impact

of the environmental industry for two decades.3 Using an

econometric input–output (I–O) model to estimate the

direct and indirect impact of the industry, MISI estimates

that EP has increased from $39 billion in sales (2003

dollars) and 700,000 jobs in 1970 to $300 billion (2003

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2

Environmental Business International, Inc., San Diego, California,

www.ebiusa.com 3

Roger H. Bezdek. ‘‘The Environmental Protection Industry and

Environmental Jobs in the U.S.A.’’ In Leal Filho and Kate Crowley,

eds., Environmental Careers, Environmental Employment, and Environmental Training: International Approaches and Contexts. Frankfurt am

Main: Peter Lang Publishers, 2001, pp. 161–179; ‘‘State of the Industry:

Jobs and Sales Created by Environmental Protection.’’ New England’s

Environment. Vol. 1, No. 8 (August 1999), pp. 12–16; ‘‘The Net Impact of

Environmental Protection on Jobs and the Economy.’’ Chapter 7 in

Bunyan Bryant, editor., Environmental Justice: Issues, Polices, and

Solutions, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995, pp. 86–105; ‘‘The

Economy, Jobs, and the Environment.’’ Proceedings of GEMI ’95:

Environment and Sustainable Development. Arlington, Virginia, March

1995, pp. 65–79; ‘‘Environment and Economy: What’s the Bottom Line?’’

Environment, vol. 35(7) (September 1993), pp. 7–32. Roger H. Bezdek and

Robert M. Wendling, ‘‘Environmental Market Opportunities." Chapter 9

in T.F.P. Sullivan, editor, The Greening of American Business. Rockville,

Maryland: GII Press, 1992, pp. 196–224; Management Information

Services, Inc., Jobs and Economic Opportunities in the U.S. Created by

Environmental Protection. Periodic reports, 1986–2004.

66 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

dollars) and 5 million jobs in 2003—see the discussion in

Section 5.

In 2001, MISI analyzed the environmental industry and

jobs in six Midwestern states: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,

Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.4 It found that in 1998,

environment-related employment in these states totaled

893,000 widely distributed among sectors, industries, jobs,

and skills. Jobs estimates were disaggregated among each

of the six states.

In 1999, the US International Trade Administration

(ITA) estimated the world market for environmental

products and services and the size of the US market,

including estimates at the state and metropolitan statistical

area (MSA) levels.5 ITA estimated that the 1999 US

environmental market totaled $189 billion, almost 38% of

the global $499 billion market. In meeting the demands of

those markets, the US environmental industry was

estimated to have generated $196 billion of revenues and

over 1.4 million jobs. The ITA US employment estimates

were disaggregated by state and by selected MSAs.

The Census MA200 survey has been one of the more

respected sources for information on the US environmental

industry.6 This report was not available for a number of

years after 1994, but was revived for 1999. The MA200

results are not consistent with previous reports, but they

presented a snapshot of major portions of the environmental industry by detailed North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) industry and by state.

However, the survey’s biggest weakness is that it only

covers the mining (NAICS 21), manufacturing (NAICS 31-

33), and electric power generation industries (NAICS

22111). Thus, while the survey estimates are of sufficient

quality, they lack comprehensiveness and describe only a

fraction of the environment-related business activities in

the US Pollution abatement costs were disaggregated by

capital expenditures and operating costs, but employment

estimates were not included.

3. Methodology

The economic and employment effects of EP expenditures were estimated using the Management Information

Services, Inc. model, database, and information system. A

simplified version of the MISI model as applied in this

study is shown in Fig. 1.

The first step involves translation of environmental

expenditures into per unit output requirements from every

industry in the economy. Second, the direct output

requirements of every industry affected by the expenditures

are estimated, and they reflect the production and

technology requirements implied by the environmental

spending. These direct requirements show, proportionately, how much an industry must purchase from every

other industry to produce one unit of output. Direct

requirements, however, give rise to subsequent rounds of

indirect requirements. The sum of the direct plus the

indirect requirements represents the total output requirements from an industry necessary to produce one unit of

output.

Economic I–O techniques allow the computation of the

direct and the indirect production requirements. Direct

industry output requirements are converted into total

output requirements from every industry by means of the

I–O inverse equations. These equations show not only the

direct requirements, but also the second, third, fourth, nth

round indirect industry and service sector requirements

resulting from environmental expenditures. Next, the total

output requirements from each industry are used to

compute sales volumes, profits, and value added for each

industry. Then, using data on manhours, labor requirements, and productivity, and employment requirements,

the number of jobs created within each industry are

estimated.

The next step requires the conversion of total employment requirements by industry into job requirements for

specific occupations and skills. To accomplish this, MISI

utilizes data on the occupational composition of the labor

force within each industry and estimates job requirements

for 700 occupations encompassing the entire US labor

force. This permits estimation of the impact of environmental expenditures on jobs for specific occupations.

Utilizing the modeling approach outlined above, the

MISI model allows estimation of the effects on employment, personal income, corporate sales and profits, and

government tax revenues in the US Estimates can then be

developed for detailed industries and occupations.

The final step in the analysis required assessing the

economic impacts on individual states, which were

estimated using the MISI regional model, which allows

the flexibility of specifying multi-state, state, or county

levels of detail. Because of the comprehensive nature of the

modeling system, these regional impacts are consistent with

impacts at the national level.

4. What constitutes an environmental job?

4.1. Ambiguities and questions

As discussed below, we estimate that EP created nearly 5

million jobs in the US in 2003, and these were distributed

widely throughout all states and regions within the US But

how many of these are ‘‘environmental jobs’’ or ‘‘green

jobs?’’ More specifically, what constitutes an ‘‘environmental job?’’ While a definitive analysis of this important

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4

Management Information Services, Inc. Survey of Jobs and the

Environment Issues in Six Midwestern States: Identifying Policy Challenges

and Opportunities. Report prepared for the Joyce Foundation, Chicago,

IL, July 2001. 5

US Department of Commerce, ITA, Office of Environmental

Technologies Industries. Environmental Industry of the United States, a

USDOC/ITA web-accessible briefing generated by Environmental Business International, Inc. for 1999. 6

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pollution

Abatement Cost and Expenditures: 1999. MA200(99), November 2002.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 67
Author's personal copy

topic is outside the scope of this report, our review of the

literature indicates that there is no rigorous, well-accepted

definition of an environmental job. Rather, the definitions

used are often loose and contradictory.

Clearly, an ecologist or an environmental engineer would

constitute an environmental job, as would an employee of

the federal or a state EP agency. However, there are

ambiguities. For example, most people would agree that

the positions in a firm that assembles and installs solar

thermal collectors would be considered environmental

jobs. But what about the jobs involved in producing those

solar panels, especially if the factory involved used coalbased energy, one of the most controversial fossil fuels in

terms of emissions? Here, these manufacturing jobs are

included as jobs created indirectly by environmental

expenditures.

Most analysts would consider jobs in a recycling plant to

be environmental jobs. But what if the recycling plant itself

produces air pollution? What about a firm in North

Carolina that produces emissions control equipment for

power plants in Alabama? It seems clear that the jobs in the

North Carolina company should be considered green or

environmental jobs, even though the user of the equipment

in Alabama may cause pollution in North Carolina. What

about environmental engineers and environmental controls

specialists working in a coal-fired power plant? What about

the workers who produce environmental control equipment for the plant?

There are many firms in the US that produce products

for the automotive industry. Should those that produce

components for fuel-efficient vehicles be considered part of

the environmental industry, but not those that produce

components for gas guzzlers? If so, is there any way to

accurately distinguish between these? Should all factories

producing catalytic converters be considered environmental jobs, even when some of these converters are used on

low miles-per-gallon vehicles?

These relevant questions have, in fact, been generated by

shifts in environmental policy itself. The early stages of the

environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s focused

primarily on ‘‘end-of-the pipe’’ solutions: The remedies

focused on cleaning or minimizing air, water, or solid waste

pollutants after they had been produced. However, EP has

evolved to include entire processes, so, rather than cleaning

up at the end of the pipe, the entire manufacturing and

servicing processes are being designed to minimize the

production of pollutants. Therefore, it is possible that

efficient processes designed to produce relatively little

waste output could actually result in a decrease in the

number of ‘‘environmental’’ jobs if these are defined strictly

as ‘‘end of the pipe’’ jobs. Energy efficiency could

ultimately result in less need for electric power and could

result in the shutting down of a coal-fired electric power

plant. While some may view such a shutdown as an

environmental plus, many environmental jobs in that

power plant involving pollution abatement would be in

this case lost.

While solid waste abatement is a major area of

environmental concern, does this imply that all persons

engaged in trash collection are performing environmental

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Use of the MISI model to estimate the economic, employment, and occupational impacts of environmental protection. Source: Management

Information Services, Inc., 2006.

68 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

jobs? What part of the tourism industry constitutes

‘‘ecotourism,’’ and are all jobs associated with ecotourism

green jobs? Are forms of alternative energy green

industries, with all jobs counting as environmental jobs?

There is also the issue of how to account for indirect job

creation and how broadly or narrowly to define an indirect

environmental job. For example, what of ancillary jobs

created across the street from a factory producing solar

collectors, such as those in a fast food restaurant, dry

cleaner, etc. whose customers are primarily the workers at

the renewable energy factory. Are these latter jobs also

considered to be ‘‘indirect’’ green jobs or environmental

jobs? We include such indirect jobs here.

4.2. Definitions and concepts used here

Here, we consider that jobs can be considered to be

‘‘green’’ relative to the way the job was performed

previously, i.e., in a production process, a change in

technology that reduces waste emissions or energy consumption makes the jobs in that process ‘‘greener’’ than

before. Based on extensive research and literature review,

we determine that environmental jobs are best understood

when viewed in a continuum, with jobs that generate

environmental degradation or extraction at one end; a

range of greener jobs involving clean production measures

and technologies to reduce environmental impacts in the

center, and the other end of the spectrum where jobs have a

positive environmental impact (see Fig. 1). Using this

concept, we define environmental industries and green jobs

as those which, as a result of environmental pressures and

concerns, have produced the development of products,

processes, and services, which specifically target the

reduction of environmental impact. Environment-related

jobs include those created both directly and indirectly by

EP expenditures (Fig. 2).

There exists relatively little rigorous research addressing

the practical relationship between EP and job creation.

Even some research in this area sponsored by environmental organizations is off the mark, in that it has tended

to emphasize jobs creation in classically green activities,

such as environmental lawyers or workers in recycling

plants. However, while these jobs count as jobs related to

the environment, we found that classic environmental jobs

constitute only a small portion of the jobs created by EP.

The vast majority of the jobs created by EP are standard

jobs for accountants, engineers, computer analysts, clerks,

factory workers, truck drivers, mechanics, etc. In fact, most

of the persons employed in these jobs may not even realize

that they owe their livelihood to protecting the environment. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 3, in the US in

2003, we estimate that EP created: More jobs for

secretaries (97,900) than for environmental scientists

(50,700); more jobs for management analysts (82,600) than

for environmental engineers (45,200); more jobs for bookkeepers (71,600) than for hazardous materials workers

(33,300); more jobs for janitors (56,400) than for environmental science technicians (25,000); more jobs for computer systems analysts (30,000) than for chemical engineers

(8200); and more jobs for truck drivers (25,200) than for

biological technicians (12,100).

More generally, arguments stressing the economic

benefits and job creation resulting from EP and clean

energy initiatives are not currently being made in a

rigorous manner, which disaggregates these benefits to a

level of detail that is meaningful to policymakers. The level

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. The environmental job spectrum. Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 69
Author's personal copy

of detail required is at the sector, industry, state, city, and

county level, and the jobs created have to be identified by

industry, category, skill, and specific occupation at the

state and local level. The findings summarized here provide

data at such levels of detail.

4.3. Jobs distribution in typical environmental companies

There are thousands of environmental companies

located throughout the US and they generate jobs for

nearly 5 million workers in virtually every community.

These firms range from the very small one or two person

‘‘mom and pop’’ shops to very large firms employment

thousands of workers; they employ workers at all levels

of skills, from the most basic and rudimentary to the

very high skilled technical and professional; include

environmental service firms and manufacturing firms;

include those whose market is local, those whose market

is state and regional, those who market is national,

and those whose market is international, and they face

the same problems, challenges, and opportunities as other

companies

Given the wide diversity in the size, function, and

technologies of environmental companies, it is impossible

to estimate the job profile of the ‘‘average’’ environmental

firm. However, it is possible to identify the jobs and

earnings profiles of typical types of firms involved in

environment-related areas of work. Table 1 shows the 2003

occupational job distribution and employee earnings of a

typical environmental remediation services company;

Table 2 shows the same data for a typical wind turbine

manufacturing company. These tables illustrate the points

made above.

First, firms working in the environmental and related areas employ a wide range of workers at all

educational and skills levels and at widely differing

earnings levels.

Second, even in environmental companies, most of the

employees are not classified as ‘‘environmental specialists.’’

For example, in the environmental remediation services

firm profiled in Table 1, most of the workers are in

occupations such as laborers, clerks, bookkeepers, accountants, maintenance workers, cost estimators, etc. All of

these employees owe their jobs and livelihoods to EP, but,

in general, they perform the same types of activities at work

as employees in firms that have little or nothing to do with

the environment.

This is illustrated even more forcefully in Table 2. The

occupational job distribution of a typical wind turbine

manufacturing company differs relatively little from that of

a company that manufactures other products. Thus, the

production of wind turbines and components requires

engine assemblers, machinists, machine tool operators,

mechanical and industrial engineers, welders, tool and die

makers, mechanics, managers, purchasing agents, etc.

These are ‘‘environmental’’ workers only because the

company they work for is manufacturing a renewable

energy product. Importantly, with the current national

angst concerning the erosion of the US manufacturing

sector and the loss of US manufacturing jobs, it is relevant

to note that many environmental and renewable energy

technologies are growing rapidly.7

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Jobs

Fig. 3. Selected US jobs created in 2003 by environmental expenditures. Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

7

For example, windpower is the most rapidly growing source of

electrical power in the world.

70 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

5. Findings at the national level

We found that, contrary to general public perception

and public policy understanding, since the late 1960s,

protection of the environment has grown rapidly to

become a major sales-generating, profit-making, jobcreating industry. Expenditures in the US for EP have

grown (in constant 2003 dollars) from $39 billion per year

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Typical employee profile of a 100-person Environmental Remediation

Services Company, 2003

Occupation Employees Earnings

Hazardous materials removal workers 22 $36,204

Septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners 8 30,419

Construction laborers 7 32,382

First-line supervisors/managers of

construction/extraction

5 50,673

Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer 5 33,044

General and operations managers 3 86,258

Laborers and freight, stock, and material

movers

2 21,620

Truck drivers, light or delivery services 2 27,437

Office clerks 2 23,384

Refuse and recyclable material collectors 2 26,796

Insulation workers 2 32,256

Secretaries (except legal, medical, and

executive)

2 25,998

Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 2 31,217

Plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters 1 41,202

Executive secretaries and administrative

assistants

1 36,729

Maintenance and repair workers 1 30,849

Environmental engineering technicians 1 36,939

Operating engineers and other const. equip.

operators

1 40,520

First-line supervisors/managers of office/

administrative

1 47,576

Chief executives 1 116,435

Construction managers 1 73,994

Cleaners of vehicles and equipment 1 21,704

Cost estimators 1 56,753

Janitors and cleaners 1 25,746

Environmental engineers 1 69,930

Industrial truck and tractor operators 1 27,741

Carpenters 1 38,588

Construction and maintenance painters 1 33,296

Accountants and auditors 1 53,865

Dispatchers (except police, fire, and

ambulance)

1 29,537

Water and liquid waste treatment plant and

system operators

1 31,049

First-line supervisors/managers of

transportation operators

1 46,914

Sales representatives, wholesale and

manufacturing

1 42,683

Customer service representatives 1 30,366

First-line supervisors/managers of mechanics

and repairers

1 49,088

Environmental scientists and specialists 1 62,003

Receptionists and Information clerks 1 22,775

Environmental science and protection

technicians

1 44,867

Other employees 12 47,422

Employee total 100 $39,621

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

Table 2

Typical Employee Profile of a 250-person Wind Turbine Manufacturing

Company, 2003

Occupation Employees Earnings

Engine and other machine assemblers 31 $33,359

Machinists 27 37,191

Team assemblers 16 27,668

Computer-controlled machine tool operators 12 37,254

Mechanical engineers 10 65,772

First-line supervisors/managers of

production/operating

10 54,705

Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and

weighers

8 37,202

Lathe and turning machine tool setters/

operators/tenders

6 36,729

Drilling and boring machine tool setters/

operators/tenders

4 36,509

Welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers 4 36,530

Laborers and freight, stock, and material

movers

4 28,466

Maintenance and repair workers 4 41,318

Tool and die makers 4 40,047

Grinding/lapping/polishing/buffing machine

tool operators

4 31,899

Multiple machine tool setters/operators/

tenders

4 37,517

Industrial engineers 3 64,659

Industrial machinery mechanics 3 42,315

Engineering managers 3 99,404

Shipping, receiving, and traffic clerks 3 29,516

General and operations managers 3 110,702

Industrial production managers 3 85,512

Industrial truck and tractor operators 3 31,416

Purchasing agents 3 51,702

Cutting/punching/press machine setters/

operators/tenders

3 28,907

Production, planning, and expediting clerks 3 41,601

Milling and planing machine setters/

operators/tenders

3 37,380

Mechanical drafters 2 44,090

Customer service representatives 2 36,036

Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks 2 32,760

Office clerks, general 2 27,227

Sales representatives, wholesale and

manufacturing

2 50,757

Janitors and cleaners 2 28,476

Sales engineers 2 66,591

Accountants and auditors 2 54,873

Tool grinders, filers, and sharpeners 2 40,520

Executive secretaries and administrative

assistants

2 39,638

Mechanical engineering technicians 2 46,767

Electricians 2 45,570

Other employees 48 45,969

Employee total 250 $42,726

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 71
Author's personal copy

in 1970 to $301 billion per year by 2003—increasing more

rapidly than GDP over the same period—see Table 3. If

‘‘EP’’ were a corporation, it would rank higher than the top

of the Fortune 500, for our estimate of 2003 EP

expenditures ($301 billion) ranks it higher than the sales

of $259 billion for Wal-Mart, the largest corporation in the

US In 2003, EP generated five million jobs distributed

widely throughout the nation.

Many companies, whether they realize it or not, owe

their profits—and in some cases their existence—to EP

expenditures.8 Many workers, whether they realize it or

not, would be unemployed were it not for these expenditures: In 2003, EP created nearly five million jobs

distributed widely throughout the nation. To put this into

perspective, the size of environment-related employment is

over ten times larger than employment in the US

pharmaceuticals industry, nearly six times larger than the

apparel industry, almost three times larger than the

chemical industry, nearly half the employment in hospitals,

and almost one-third the size of the entire construction

industry.

We estimate that in 2003 protecting the environment

generated $301 billion in total industry sales, $20 billion in

corporate profits, 4.97 million jobs, and $45 billion in

Federal, state, and local government tax revenues.9 Clearly,

providing the goods and services required for EP has

become a major US industry with significant effects on the

national economy and labor market and on those of

individual states.10

6. Findings at the state level

As part of the research initiative we have thus far

estimated and assessed the environmental industry and

jobs in six states: Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North

Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin.11 Our findings are

summarized in Tables 4 and 5.

6.1. Aggregate and sectoral findings

Table 4 summarizes the parameters of the environmental

industries in each state. The size of the industry in each

state differs considerably, from $5.4 billion in Wisconsin to

$15.4 billion in Florida, generally corresponding to the

differences in state GDP. However, the industry share of

state GDP differs from a high of 3.9% in Michigan to a

low of 2.6% in Minnesota. Similarly, environment-related

employment ranges from 220,000 in Florida to 92,000 in

Minnesota—again reflecting mainly the differences in the

sizes of the state labor forces. Environmental employment

ranges from a high of 4.9% of total employment in Ohio to

2.9% in North Carolina.

The shares of each state of the total US environmental

industry and environment-related jobs also differ substantially, depending largely on the size of state GDP and labor

force. Nevertheless, there are some important differences

among the states. For example, while the number of

environment-related jobs is about the same in both

Michigan and Florida and each state has about 4.4% of

the national total, the population of Florida is nearly twice

that of Michigan—Florida represents about six percent of

the US population while Michigan comprises 3.4%. That

is, per capita, the size of the environmental industry in

Michigan is nearly twice that of the industry in Florida.

Table 5 shows the industry sector distribution of total

employment and of environmental employment in each of

the six states. It and Table 4 illustrate that environmentrelated jobs are distributed among all sectors, but are

heavily concentrated in several. Significant portions of the

environmental jobs in each state are in the public

administration sector which, given the public nature of

EP, is to be expected. However, most of the environmental

jobs in the states are in the private sector, and focusing on

these reveals that they are heavily concentrated in several

sectors.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Environmental protection expenditures and jobs in the us economy,

1970–2003

Expenditures (billions of

2003 dollars)

Jobs (thousands)

1970 $39 704

1975 77 1352

1980 121 2117

1985 158 2838

1990 204 3517

1995 235 4255

2003 $301 4974

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

8

In this paper,’’expenditures’’ refers to all public and private spending in

the environmental sector (EP spending) and is used interchangeably with

‘‘sales.’’ 9

The national estimates have been developed by MISI beginning in 1986

using the model and database summarized in Section 2, and have been

updated periodically over the past two decades. The six states discussed

here were selected for detailed analysis at the request of the funders of the

work. The overall project goal is to eventually conduct similar analyses for

as many states as possible and, at present, estimates are being developed

for three more states—Arizona, California, and Connecticut—to provide

better geographic coverage. In addition, analyses for states such as New

York, Oregon, and Washington that have traditionally been viewed as

environmentally aggressive can help determine if environmental job

growth has been more rapid in these states. Findings will be posted on the

MISI web site when available: www.misi-net.com

10As discussed, all estimates of the size of the environmental industry

rely critically on the exact definition of the industry. Since there is no

official definition, estimates of the size of the environmental industry differ

according to the source. In MISI’s case, the definition of the industry

includes human and environmental sustainability principles, and MISI’s

estimates thus include a broader range of environmental activities in the

economy than some other definitions that have been developed. 11The detailed findings for each state are available on the MISI web site:

www.misi-net.com

72 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

Of particular note is that the private sector environmental industry is more manufacturing intensive than

other average private sector activity in the states. As shown

in Fig. 4, in Florida, 7.4% of private sector jobs in the

environmental industry is in manufacturing, compared to

6.2% in manufacturing among all private sector jobs in the

state; in Michigan, 29% of private sector jobs in the

environmental industry is in manufacturing, compared to

17% in manufacturing among all private sector jobs; in

Minnesota, the comparable shares are 21% and 15%; in

North Carolina, the comparable shares are 24% and 19%;

in Ohio, the comparable shares are 29% and 18%; in

Wisconsin, the comparable shares are 31% and 21%.

The jobs concentration is even more pronounced with

respect to employment in the professional, scientific, and

technical services sector. As shown in Fig. 5, in Florida,

22% of private sector environmental jobs is in professional,

scientific, and technical services, compared to 6% of all

private sector jobs in the state; in Michigan, 29% of private

sector environmental jobs is in professional, scientific,

and technical services, compared to 8% of all private

sector jobs in the state; in Minnesota, the comparable

shares are 23% and 5%; in North Carolina, the comparable shares are 20% and 5%; in Ohio, the comparable

shares are 25% and 7%; in Wisconsin, the comparable

shares are 16% and 4%.

Conversely, there are relatively few private sector

environmental jobs in other parts of the states’ economies,

including retail trade, finance and insurance, health care

and social services, and transportation and warehousing.

The concentration of environmental jobs within certain

industrial sectors is instructive and interesting. While

accounting for only abut 3–5% of total employment in

each state, the industry sector composition of environmental employment is highly skewed in favor of certain

sectors—including manufacturing. This indicates that

investments in the environment will provide a greater than

proportionate assist to the states’ manufacturing sectors.

All of these states are seeking to modernize and expand

their high-tech industrial and manufacturing bases. Table 5

and Fig. 4 indicate that the environmental industry can aid

in this objective.

Similarly, environmental investments generate, proportionately, 3–4 times as many jobs in professional, scientific,

and technical services as the state averages. Jobs in this

sector include the high-skilled, high-wage, technical, and

professional jobs that all states seek to attract and retain.

Table 5 and Fig. 5 indicate that investments in EP can be of

considerable assistance here.

6.2. Environmental jobs by occupation

We disaggregated environmental employment in each

state by specific occupations and skills. The results for

Florida and Michigan are representative of those for the six

states, and this information for selected occupations is

given in Tables 6 and 7. These tables illustrate that

environmental jobs are widely distributed among all

occupations and skill levels and, while the number of jobs

created in different occupations differs substantially,

employment in virtually all occupations is generated by

environmental spending.

As noted in Section 4, the vast majority of the jobs

created by EP are standard jobs for accountants, engineers,

computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers,

mechanics, etc., and most of the persons employed in these

jobs may not even realize that they owe their livelihood to

protecting the environment. This is further illustrated in

Tables 6 and 7, which list the jobs created by EP in Florida

and Michigan in 2003 within selected occupations. For

example, Table 6 shows that EP generated in Florida:

More jobs for sheet metal workers (821) than for

geoscientists (241); more jobs for office clerks (4968) than

for environmental engineers (2545); more jobs for executive

secretaries (2432) than for landscape architects (313); more

jobs for janitors (1827) than for natural science managers

(207); more jobs for electricians (708) than for chemists

(242); more jobs for truck drivers (2870) than for septic

tank servicers (2181); more jobs for financial managers

(684) than for conservation scientists (371); more jobs for

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Summary of the environmental industries in six states in 2003

Environmental

industry

(billions) ($)

Environmental

jobs

Environmental industry as

a percent of

State environmental industry as a

percent of

Private sector environmental jobs

State GDP

(%)

State jobs

(%)

Total US

environmental

industry (%)

Total US

environmental

jobs (%)

Manufacturing

(%)

Professional,

scientific,

technical (%)

Florida 15.4 220,000 3.1 3.0 5.0 4.4 7 22

Michigan 12.9 217,000 3.9 4.9 4.3 4.4 29 29

Minnesota 5.1 92,000 2.6 3.5 1.7 1.8 21 23

North

Carolina

9.1 112,000 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 24 20

Ohio 12.2 176,000 3.2 3.3 4.1 3.5 29 25

Wisconsin 5.4 97,000 2.9 3.5 1.8 2.0 31 16

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 73
Author's personal copy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Environmental-related jobs in each state, by industry

Industry Florida

employment

Michigan

employment

Minnesota

employment

N. Carolina

employment

Ohio

employment

Wisconsin

employment

Total Environmental Total Environmental Total Environmental Total Environmental Total Environmental Total Environmental

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 2300 192 3515 216 800 86 3700 120 1564 129 2500 208

Mining 4900 459 5226 627 5200 515 4000 293 10,505 678 1300 145

Utilities 26,800 4973 24,136 6914 12,000 2902 14,000 2114 26,109 5949 11,600 2782

Construction 445,900 9966 173,244 8633 125,200 4497 211,800 4732 212,409 7061 123,500 4295

Manufacturing 388,800 9849 659,736 38,895 344,300 11,974 604,300 14,013 805,716 28,149 506,500 17,400

Wholesale trade 313,200 3692 178,545 4021 127,800 2151 163,600 1827 243,493 3634 113,000 1752

Retail trade 920,400 5833 503,576 351 301,700 1778 432,500 2582 591,557 322 319,000 1962

Transportation and warehousing 202,100 1300 90,412 544 80,100 507 110,700 632 130,002 516 94,600 555

Information 171,800 4278 86,397 170 62,600 1751 75,600 1797 103,334 148 49,700 1382

Finance and insurance 330,900 1962 168,065 202 138,100 1062 143,700 855 248,897 209 129,800 861

Real estate and rental and leasing 153,400 1680 61,676 278 37,900 527 47,800 577 66,212 248 27,900 416

Professional, scientific, and technical services 384,400 28,606 195,553 39,432 118,200 12,922 146,300 11,616 221,765 24,657 89,000 9341

Management of companies and enterprises 65,600 1032 152,641 2188 59,000 1385 61,200 971 134,502 1848 37,600 861

Administrative/support/waste management/

remediation services

807,500 41,971 294,857 25,287 117,300 7622 213,700 10,001 319,058 17,242 118,200 7586

Educational services 108,400 3198 70,286 2537 48,400 1676 61,600 1753 97,489 3186 46,100 1807

Health care and social assistance 777,200 4364 516,974 1269 318,300 2099 366,600 1848 678,618 1205 320,500 2330

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 157,200 1030 53,009 449 36,900 247 44,000 240 58,265 399 35,500 229

Accommodation and food services 651,300 5286 327,545 188 196,200 1525 291,000 1837 410,303 187 209,500 1641

Other services 317,800 3107 175,892 2676 118,900 1330 162,400 1335 229,701 2465 131,300 1310

Public administration 1,055,500 86,723 670,515 81,624 402,400 35,545 644,600 52,865 801,500 77,877 411,800 40,337

State total 7,285,400 219,500 4,411,800 216,500 2,651,300 92,100 3,803,100 112,007 5,390,999 176,109 2,778,900 97,200

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 74
Author's personal copy

management analysts (2049) than for environmental

engineering technicians (1289); and more jobs for computer

software engineers (1839) than for hazardous material

removal workers (1267).

Table 7 shows similar findings for Michigan. Thus, many

workers in Florida and Michigan are dependent on EP for

their employment, although they often would have no way

of recognizing that connection unless it is brought to their

attention.

The importance of environmental spending for jobs in

some occupations is much greater than in others. For some

occupations, such as environmental scientists and specialists,

environmental engineers, hazardous materials workers,

water and liquid waste treatment plant operators, environmental science protection technicians, refuse and recyclable

material collectors, and environmental engineering technicians, virtually all of the demand in both states is created by

EP activities. This is hardly surprising, for most of these jobs

are clearly identifiable as ‘‘environmental’’ jobs.

However, in many occupations not traditionally identified as environment-related, a greater than proportionate

share of the jobs is also generated by EP. On average,

environment-related employment in Florida comprises

only 3% of total employment and in Michigan comprises

4.9%, in 2003 EP expenditures generated jobs for a greater

than proportionate share—as much as 10% or more—of

many professional occupations in the two states, including

chemists, civil engineers, computer software engineers,

electronics engineers, geoscientists, landscape architects,

medical scientists, natural sciences managers, surveyors,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Florida Michigan Minnesota N. Carolina Ohio Wisconsin

Employment Distribution

Environmental Jobs Total Jobs

Fig. 4. Private sector manufacturing jobs. Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Florida Michigan Minnesota N. Carolina Ohio Wisconsin

Employment Distribution

Fig. 5. Private sector professional, scientific and technical jobs. Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 75
Author's personal copy

urban and regional planners, chemical engineers, and

engineering managers.

For many other occupations, also not traditionally

identified as environment-related, a greater than proportionate share of the jobs is also generated by EP. On average,

environment-related employment in Florida comprises only

3% of total employment and in Michigan 4.9%, in 2003 EP

generated jobs for as much as 10% or more of many highly

skilled, technical occupations in the two states, including

architectural and civil drafters, chemical technicians, civil

engineering technicians, electrical and electronics engineering

technicians, electrical and electronics equipment assemblers,

electrical and electronics drafters, fiberglass laminators and

fabricators, forest and conservation technicians, heating, air

conditioning, and refrigeration mechanics and installers,

industrial engineering technicians, surveying and mapping

technicians, chemical plant and system operators, electrical

and electronics repairers, engine and other machine assemblers, surveying and mapping technicians, and network

systems and data communications analysts.

The above findings are significant for they indicate

that EP creates jobs in greater than proportionate share

in two categories that Florida and Michigan—and other

states—are eager to attract: (i) college-educated professional workers, many with advanced degrees, and

(ii) highly skilled, technical workers, with advanced

training and technical expertise, many of them in the

manufacturing sector. EP thus generates jobs that are

disproportionately for highly skilled, well-paid, technical

and professional workers, who in turn underpin and

provide foundation for entrepreneurship and economic

growth.

Our work thus demonstrates that EP can form an

important part of a strategy for states based on attracting

and retaining professional, scientific, technical, highskilled, well paying jobs, including manufacturing jobs.

While a successful strategy must have other components as

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 6

Environmental jobs generated in florida in 2003, by selected occupations

Occupation Jobs

Accountants and auditors 1272

Bookkeeping and accounting clerks 2092

Cashiers 3591

Chemists 242

Computer software engineers 1873

Conservation scientists 371

Customer service representatives 2334

Electricians 708

Electronics engineers 781

Environmental engineers 2545

Environmental engineering technicians 1289

Environmental scientists and specialists 5659

Executive secretaries and administrative assistants 2432

Financial managers 684

Forest and conservation workers 199

Geoscientists 241

Graphic designers 296

Hazardous material removal workers 1267

Inspectors, testers, and sorters 323

Janitors and cleaners 1827

Landscape architects 313

Mechanical engineers 250

Management analysts 2049

Marketing managers 454

Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 255

Natural science managers 207

Office clerks 4949

Pest control workers 1161

Security guards 1614

Septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners 2141

Sheet metal workers 821

Stock clerks 2587

Training and development specialists 431

Truck drivers 2870

Water and liquid waste treatment plant operators 5484

Welders and Solderers 328

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

Table 7

Environmental jobs generated in Michigan in 2003, by selected occupations

Occupation Jobs

Accountants and auditors 1780

Chemical engineers 197

Computer and information systems managers 535

Construction laborers 880

Customer service representative 2425

Electricians 1079

Engine and other machine assemblers 186

Environmental engineers 1382

Environmental scientists and specialists 1523

Employment, recruitment, and placement specialists 525

Financial analysts 353

Forest and conservation technicians 190

Forging machine setters, operators, and tenders 204

Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers 272

Hazardous material removal workers 1210

Human resource managers 297

Industrial engineers 739

Industrial machinery mechanics 464

Inspectors, testers, and sorters 1161

Janitors and cleaners 3040

Landscaping and grounds workers 1101

Machinists 966

Management analysts 1134

Marketing managers 311

Mechanical engineering technicians 307

Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 225

Office clerks 4118

Packers and packagers 952

Receptionists and information clerks 1512

Refuse and recyclable material collectors 5454

Sales representatives, technical and scientific products 563

Secretaries 2522

Security guards 1115

Septic tank services and sewer pipe cleaners 702

Tool and die makers 524

Truck drivers, heavy and tractor trailer 2176

Water and liquid waste treatment plant operators 5130

Word processors and typists 523

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2006.

76 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

well, rarely has any state recognized the economic and jobs

benefits that could flow from specifically encouraging the

development of environmental and environment-related

industries as an economic development initiative. Indeed,

usually the opposite is the case: Most states usually tend to

view EP as economically negative.12

Another important finding derived here is the significance of the environmental industry compared to other

sectors of the state economies. For example, the tourism

industry generates about 540,000 jobs in the Florida, and

this state well recognizes the key role that tourism plays in

the state economy. Here, we estimate that environmentrelated jobs in Florida total 220,000—jobs that tend to be

more highly skilled and better paying than those in the

tourism sector. This fact is not widely known or

appreciated by state policy-makers.

7. Comparison to other estimates of environmental spending

Aside from the estimates presented here, the only other

comprehensive, consistent time series of estimates of US

environmental expenditures over the past four decades are

those developed by Environmental Business, International

(EBI).13 The MISI and EBI data series are not strictly

comparable. For example, MISI estimates environmentrelated spending using the expenditure concept and

disaggregates spending by media (air, water, land, etc.)

and other categories such as R&D, energy-related environmental programs, and so forth. EBI focuses on revenues to

business and classifies spending into services (analytical,

hazardous waste, consulting & engineering, etc.) equipment

(air pollution control, waste management, instruments &

information, etc.), and resources (water utilities, resource

recovery, and clean energy & power).

A comparison of the MISI and EBI estimates14 is given

in Table 8, which shows that:

During the 1970s, the EBI estimates of environmental

expenditures were significantly higher than the MISI

estimates.

From 1980 through 1995, the MISI and EBI estimates

were roughly comparable

By 2000, the MISI estimates were larger than the EBI

estimates.

The percentage growth rates in expenditures over the

past four decades were roughly comparable, and both

data sets show the rate of increase in environmental

spending decreasing after 1970.

The forecast rate of growth of environmental spending

through 2010 by both EBI and MISI are nearly

identical, although from different bases.

EBI shows the rate of growth of expenditures to be

between three and 5% from 1995 to 2003, whereas MISI

shows the rates of growth to be considerably higher,

although declining.

MISI forecasts that from 2010 to 2020, environmental

expenditures will increase by 23%, whereas EBI presents

no forecasts beyond 2010.

8. Conclusions and suggestions for further research

8.1. Findings at the national level

Our first major finding is that EP, economic growth, and

jobs creation can be complementary and compatible:

Investments in EP can create jobs, not destroy them.15

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 8

Comparison of estimates of the growth of environmental expenditures in

the US (expenditures in billions of 2003 dollars)

MISI EBIa

Expenditures

(millions/$)

Growth

(%)

Expenditures

(millions)

Growth

(%)

1970 39 73

1975 77 97 100 37

1980 121 57 125 25

1985 158 31 148 18

1990 204 29 201 36

1995 235 15 210 5

2000 273 16 221 5

2003 301 10 227 3

2010 357 19 268 18

2015 398 11 NAb

2020 439 10 NA

Source: Management Information Services, Inc. and Environmental

Business International, Inc., 2006. a

EBI expenditures in current dollars were converted by MISI to 2003

dollars. b

NA, not available. EBI did not forecast expenditures beyond 2010.

12These policies differ considerably among the states, and some states

have belatedly begun to recognize the economic benefits of environmental

protection. For example, Florida has initiated a major Everglades

restoration program and has prohibited offshore drilling, Michigan has

implemented a hydrogen program, Arizona has aggressively promoted

solar and wind, and Washington is initiating an ambitious biomass

program. 13The EBI data are available for purchase at www.ebiusa.com. In 1990,

EPA published estimates of environmental costs (US Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment. EPA-230-11-90-083,

November 1990) and Pace University published estimates of the

environmental costs of electricity (Richard Ottinger et al., Environmental

Costs of Electricity, New York: Oceana publications, 1990). However, no

time series data are available for these data and the estimates are not

comparable to the MISI estimates. 14EBI present its estimates in current dollars. For comparison here,

MISI converted the EBI current dollar estimates to constant 2003 dollar

estimates using the GDP deflator series.

15While environmental protection both creates and displaces jobs, we

have found the net jobs effect to be strongly positive, although jobs

impacts will vary from case to case. Further, even when the net jobs effect

is strongly positive, it must be recognized that significant job displacement

may be occurring. For example, in analyzing the likely economic and jobs

effects of enhanced CAFE standards, we estimated that by 2020 347,000

net jobs would be created. However, this estimate was the combination of

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 77
Author's personal copy

This finding is important because it differs from what many

legislators and policy-makers currently believe.

Second, contrary to general public perception and

public policy understanding, since the late 1960s protection

of the environment has grown rapidly to become a major

sales-generating, profit-making, job-creating industry—

$300 billion/year. and 5 million jobs in 2003. The size

and the job creating potential of the environmental

industry is something that few are aware of.

Third, the vast majority of the five million jobs created

by EP are standard jobs for accountants, engineers,

computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers,

etc., and the classic environmental job (environmental

engineer, ecologist, conservation technician, etc.) constitutes only a small portion of the jobs created. In fact, most of

the persons employed in the jobs created may not even

realize that they owe their livelihood to protecting the

environment.

This finding is important for, even recognizing that EP is

good for the economy and is creating 5 million jobs, the

first impression is likely that these are jobs for environment

specialists, ecologists, environmental regulators, etc. We

found that jobs for all occupations and skills are generated,

and this should be of interest to organized labor, trade and

professional associations, and policy-makers.

8.2. Findings at the state level

Our first major finding at the state level, derived from

detailed analyses of the environmental industry and jobs in

Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and

Wisconsin, is that the overall relationship between state

environmental policies and economic/job growth is positive, not negative. States can and do have strong economies

and simultaneously protect the environment, and states

with the strongest environmental records also have the best

job opportunities and climate for long-term economic

development.

This is a key finding. In our analysis of the six states we

found that all of them assume that there is a negative

relationship between protecting the environment and economic and job growth. Thus, the states’ policies relating to

EP and economic/job development focus on ‘‘reforming,’’

‘‘streamlining,’’ and ‘‘rationalizing’’ environmental rules and

regulations (a euphemism for weakening them), ‘‘simplifying’’ and ‘‘accelerating’’ environmental permitting, and

otherwise sacrificing the environment to economic growth

and job creation. Hopefully, the research reported here will

begin to change these state attitudes and polices.

Second, environmental jobs in each of the states are

concentrated within a number of sectors, including

manufacturing and professional, information, and scientific, and technical services, and this is significant because

the states are seeking to modernize and expand their

high-tech industrial and manufacturing bases. Thus,

not only is the relationship between EP and jobs positive,

but the types of jobs created are disproportionately

scientific, professional, technical, high-skilled, manufacturing, and high-wage jobs—the very types of jobs that

all states are attempting to retrain and attract. These

types of jobs are a prerequisite for a prosperous, middle

class society able to support state and local governments with tax revenues—which states already recognize.

Of particular note, in the six states studied thus far

data show that investments in the environment will provide

a greater than proportionate assist to the manufacturing

sector.

Finally, EP can form an important part of states’

economic development strategies, and there is no inherent

institutional impediment in any state to using existing

economic assistance policies and incentives to facilitate

development of environmental industries and jobs. This is

a key policy finding because, at present, none of the states

we examined appreciates this potential: (i) no state has

integrated environmental industry and job development

into its general strategic or economic development plan; (ii)

state environmental departments and agencies have little or

no focus on environmental employment or job development; (iii) state labor and workforce departments and

agencies have little or no focus on environmental industries

or jobs.

Each state is home to diverse environmental companies,

many global leaders in their field,16 but their strong role in

employment generation is largely overlooked in economic

development initiatives and policy. Altering states’ perceptions and policies here is essential.

8.3. Suggestions for further research

Our work has identified several areas requiring further

research. First, a more rigorous and generally accepted

definition of what constitutes an ‘‘environment-related

job’’ is required. Environmental advocates have tended to

identify the more glamorous types of jobs, such as

ecologist, wildlife biologist, conservation specialist, solar

energy researcher, etc., but we found that the overwhelming majority of environment-related jobs are for the

standard occupations, skills, and professions. Nevertheless,

the numbers and types of jobs—both in general and in

specific industries and firms—are in need of much

additional research.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(footnote continued)

total gross job creation of 433,000 jobs and the displacement of 86,000

jobs. That is, while nearly 350,000 net jobs would be created, nearly 90,000

jobs would still be lost. This has obvious policy implications. See Roger H.

Bezdek and Robert M. Wendling, ‘‘Fuel Efficiency and the Economy,’’

American Scientist, op. cit., and Roger H. Bezdek and Robert M.

Wendling, ‘‘Potential Long-term Impacts of Changes in US Vehicle Fuel

Efficiency Standards,’’ Energy Policy, op. cit.

16As part of this research project, we identified and assessed a

representative sample of environmental firms in each state selected for

heterogeneity with respect to size, geographic location, and services and

products provided. These findings are available on the MISI web site:

www.misi-net.com

78 R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79
Author's personal copy

Second, the empirical work reported here needs to be

expanded. While we have analyzed the environmental

industries in six states, it remains to be determined how

representative our findings are for the rest of the US At

least as important, our analyses of each state were not

comprehensive, and much more detailed assessment of

several individual states is required. Such an assessment

would look in detail below the state level to specific

geographic regions and industries and conduct in-depth

analyses of specific environmental firms.

Finally, it would be useful to have international

perspective. We found that in the US environment-related

activities account for 3–5% of national and state GDP and

jobs. Using generally consistent concepts and definitions, it

would be interesting to determine how these estimates

compare to estimates of environmental industries and jobs

in other developed nations. International comparative

analyses of detailed results at the sector, industrial, and

occupational level would be especially useful.

References

Arnold, F.S., Forest, A.S., Dujack, S.R., 1999. Environmental protection:

is it bad for the economy? Report prepared for the US Environmental

Protection Agency.

Barrett, J.P., Hoerner, J.A., 2002. Clean Energy and Jobs: A Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change and Energy Policy. Economic

Policy Institute, Washington, DC (Clean Energy and Jobs: A

Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change and Energy Policy,

Redefining Progress, Oakland, CA, 2004).

Bernow, S., Dougherty, W., Duckworth, M., Kartha, S., Lazams, M.,

Ruth, M., 1999. America’s Global Warming Solutions. Tellus Institute

and Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, MA.

Bezdek, R.H., 1993. Environment and Economy: What’s the Bottom

Line? Environment 35(7), 7–32 (The Economy, Jobs, and the

Environment. In: Proceedings of the GEMI ’95: Environment and

Sustainable Development. Arlington, VA, March 1995, pp. 65–79).

Bezdek, R.H., Wendling, R.M., 1989. Acid rain abatement: costs and

benefits. International Journal of Management Science 17 (3),

251–261.

Bezdek, R.H., Wendling, R.M., 2005. Potential long-term impacts of

changes in US vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Energy Policy 33(3),

407–419 (Fuel efficiency and the economy. American Scientist,

March).

Bliese, J.R., 1999. The Great ‘‘Environment Versus Economy’’ Myth.

Brownstone Policy Institute, New York.

Friedman, D., et al., 2001. Drilling in Detroit: Tapping Automaker

Ingenuity to Build Safe and Efficient Automobiles. Union of

Concerned Scientists, UCS Publications, Cambridge, MA.

Geller, H., DeCicco, J., Laitner, S., 1992. Energy Efficiency and job

creation: the employment and income benefits from investing in

energy conservation technologies. Report Number ED922, American

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC,

November.

Goodstein, E.B., 1994. Jobs and the Environment: The Myth of a

National Trade-Off. Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC (Jobs

or the Environment? No Trade-off,’’ Challenge (January–February

1995), pp. 41–45 (The Trade-Off Myth: Fact and Fiction About Jobs

and the Environment. Island Press, New York, 1999; Eban B.

Goodstein, Hart Hodges, Polluted Data: Overestimating the Costs of

Environmental Regulation. The American Prospect, November/

December 1997).

Jorgenson, D., Wilcoxen, P., 1990. Environmental regulation and US

economic growth. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (2), 153–167.

Jorgenson, D., Goettle, R., Gaynor, D., Wilcoxen, P., Slesnick, D., 1993.

The Clean Air Act and the US Economy: Final Report of Results and

Findings. Environmental Economics Report Inventory, August 27.

Laitner, S., DeCicco, J., Elliott, N., Geller, H., Goldberg, M., Morris, R.,

Nadel, S., 1994. Energy Efficiency as an Investment in Ohio’s

Economic Future, American Council for An Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, November (Energy Efficiency and Economic

Development in the Midwest. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, April 1995; Energy Efficiency and Economic

Development in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. American

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, February 1997).

Leninson, A., Taylor, M.S., 2004. Unmasking the pollution haven effect.

National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. W10629,

July.

Management Information Services, Inc., 1993. Potential economic and

employment Impact on the US economy of increased exports of

environmental and energy efficiency technologies under NAFTA.

Report prepared for the White House.

Meyer, S.S., 1992. Environmentalism and Economic Prosperity: Testing

the Environmental Impact Hypothesis. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Project on Environmental Policies and Policy, Cambridge,

MA.

Morgenstern, R.D., Pizer, W.A., Ahih, J.S., 1998. Jobs Versus Environment: Is there a Trade-off? Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Motor Vehicle Manufactures Association, 1990. US employment effect of

higher fuel economy standards. Unpublished Paper, January 30 (The

MVMA is now known as the American Automobile Manufacturers

Association).

New Energy for America, 2004. The Apollo Jobs Report, Apollo Alliance.

Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, 2002. Job Jolt: The

Economic Impacts of Repowering the Midwest. University of Illinois,

Chicago.

Renner, M., 2000. Working for the environment: a growing source of jobs.

Worldwatch Paper 152, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.

Repetto, R., 1995. Jobs, Competitiveness, and Environmental Regulations: What are the Real Issues? World Resources Institute.

Templet, P.H., 1995. The Positive Relationship Between Jobs, Environment, and Economy. Spectrum of the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers.

Teotia, A., et al., 1999. CAFE compliance by light trucks: economic

impacts of clean diesel engines. Energy Policy 27, 889–900.

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2002. Fuel Economy as an Engine for Job

Growth. Cambridge, MA.

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. A 20 Percent National Renewable

Electricity Standard Will Create Jobs and Save Consumers Money.

Cambridge, MA.

Yapijakis, C., 1999. The Myth of ‘Jobs Versus the Environment.

Environmental Research Laboratory, Cooper Union School of

Engineering, New York.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.H. Bezdek et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 63–79 79