DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

The document evaluates the WRAP program at Dow Chemical, which uses a contest format to encourage small-scale capital investments in energy savings, yield improvement, and waste reduction. It highlights the program's strengths, such as top management support and the lack of bureaucracy, while identifying weaknesses including a lack of strategic alignment and limited employee participation. The note also contrasts the Louisiana Division's WRAP approach with the Bayside Division's continuous improvement model.

• The WRAP program, initiated in 1981 for energy savings and expanded to include yield improvement in 1983 and waste reduction in 1987, has generated annual savings of approximately $10 million.
• The program's success is attributed to several strengths: clear goals, easy participation via streamlined proposal forms, the requirement for both physical and return on investment (ROI) data, and strong top management support, evidenced by funding for most winning proposals (often with ROI above 30%).
• WRAP serves as a professional development tool for junior engineers and operators, as winners are tasked with managing the people, resources, and schedules of their projects, which often correlates with subsequent promotions.
• Systematic weaknesses in the WRAP program include a lack of priority for source reduction over recycling or treatment, passive technology transfer via the 'Idea Book', and a lack of explicit links to corporate strategy or customer focus.
• Employee participation in the WRAP program is considered modest; in 1992, winning projects involved approximately 120 individuals and teams out of a workforce of roughly 2,300 in the Louisiana Division.
• The Louisiana Division's WRAP approach differs from the Bayside Division's continuous improvement program: WRAP is engineering-driven and focuses on beyond-compliance process changes, whereas Bayside's approach is operator-driven, focuses on smaller-scale projects, and is more compliance-oriented.
• The Bayside approach is noted for its weakness in management incentive and funding; unlike Louisiana, Bayside uses traditional budgeting where waste reduction must compete with other capital projects, leading some to consider the initiative 'all but dead' by late 1992.

APA

Baker, K. (1995). DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY. World Resources Institute. https://pdf.wri.org/bell/tn_1-56973-141-1_teaching_note_english.pdf

Chicago

Baker, Kenneth. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY. World Resources Institute, 1995. https://pdf.wri.org/bell/tn_1-56973-141-1_teaching_note_english.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Baker |first1=Kenneth |title=DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=1995 |url=https://pdf.wri.org/bell/tn_1-56973-141-1_teaching_note_english.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{baker1995dow, author = {Baker, Kenneth}, title = {{DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {1995}, url = {https://pdf.wri.org/bell/tn_1-56973-141-1_teaching_note_english.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }