ABSTRACT

We now turn to issues of substance and process in other Project XL negotiations that were more successful than the 3M Company case. Why were Intel Corporation, Merck & Company, and Weyerhaeuser Company able to initiate negotiations and reach agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whereas 3M was not? While a Project XL proposal was being designed in Minnesota, these three projects, bearing a number of important similarities to the 3M pilot, reached successful conclusions-if by success we mean reaching an agreement with EPA and being implemented. To better understand the pitfalls that beset the collaborative effort in Minnesota, we turn to an examination of the substantive and process issues in these other cases. We start by discussing their similarities to the 3M project, then argue that their less experimental nature was one of the main reasons it was easier for them to succeed.