The hard sell C hemical health and safety managers usually have a hard time selling compliance on campus. Often, they administer the environmental management obligations of campus operations with ingenuity. Frequently, they have aptitude in laboratory and chemical safety. Rarely does a campus ®nd itself with academics whose direct interest lies in the ®eld of campus laboratory safety or management of campus environmental impact. Generally, campus constituents think that someone'' manages these issues. Compliance is mandatory, so someone must be taking care of it, right? However, since compliance requires a fundamental shift in behavior from all affected, many campus chemical health and safety managers cannot be that someone.'' Herzberg calls safety and security a ``hygiene factor'' in personal motivation. If a workplace lacks that factor, people's motivation to achieve wanes. Mazlow recognizes safety and security in his hierarchy of needs. People who do not feel safe and secure cannot belong, af®liate or selfactualize. Stuart recognizes this kind of order in his scale: Safe, Healthy, Comfortable, Productive. People who are not safe and healthy cannot be truly productive. 1 These basic climate philosophies drive compliance requirements in chemical health and safety. In this context, compliance programs make sense.
But, on campus, compliance lacks allure. Sustainability mavens talk about the sym-bolicÐmeaningful, but no impact on campus ecological footprintÐand the signi®cantÐ meaningful and a reduction in footprint. Compliance, usually, is neither. Ful®lling a requirement is not a symbolic gesture, and compliance issues rarely reduce the campus ecological footprint. Even in the context of climate, compliance doesn't necessarily mean providing a safe and healthy environment.
Certainly, a campus can make consequential improvements to its operations in areas of compliance focus. However, many academics would rather focus on a global environmental problem, such as sustainable agriculture or