Ms. Fisher received a B.A. from Miami University, an M.B.A from George Washington University and a J.D. from Ohio State University. She started her career as a legislative assistant to Congressman Clarence Brown in 1974 and continued her government work as the Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxins as well as the Chief of Staff to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator in the EPA where she stayed for twelve years. Ms. Fisher then turned to the private sector, working as a legal consultant on environmental issues for the Latham and Watkins firm. She later became the Vice President for Safety, Health and Environment in addition to the Chief Sustainability Officer for Dupont. Ms. Fisher has served on the boards of SC Johnson, Resources for the Future, and the Environmental Law Institute.
What drew you to the field of law?
After graduating from Miami University in Ohio, I moved to Washington, D.C. to work as a legislative assistant on Capitol Hill. A few years later, I realized that if I wanted to stay in public policy, a degree in law was important to have. Furthermore, I thought it was impactful to have a law degree as a woman, because at that time there were significantly less women in the workplace, particularly in senior positions. And lastly, looking to the future it seemed that a law degree would expand my career opportunities to occupations that would also allow me time to have a family.
How have you used your law degree within your different careers?
While I was never a trial or litigation attorney, I did work as a legal consultant on environmental regulations for a few years. I really saw the benefits of my law degree when I was writing laws while working in Congress and the EPA. I was involved in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1987, a reauthorization of the Clean Air Act, and later I worked on regulatory pesticide laws while in the private sector. When you are working on legislation, it’s more than just writing the words; it’s truly thinking about every aspect of the policy and whether or not it will be effective. In dealing with extremely complicated legal language and topics that are associated with drafting laws, it was very useful to have a law degree because it allowed me to truly understand each complexity.
How did you end up in environmental law specifically?
Actually, that was total happenstance. It was basically through a guy I was dating! I would like to tell you I grew up as a passionate environmentalist but that’s not quite true. It was just an interesting area, and environmental law at that time was pretty new. I was told about an open position at the EPA for someone with Congressional experience and a law degree. I got the job, and environmental work became my passion. Now, two or three decades later, it has exploded into a major area of law that is dominating the economy and public policy.
Over the 30 years that you have been involved with environmental law, have you seen a shift in regards to which environmental issues are getting the most attention? Has climate change taken center stage?
Yes and no. Clean air, clean water, hazardous waste regulation, pesticides - what I call “bread and butter” pollution control issues - are still integral in today’s legislation, specifically regarding company compliance with these complex regulations. That being said, climate change has definitely been one of the main issues dominating the political conversation. The way that our country will combat climate change is still up for grabs as to whether it will be the private sector or the government that truly leads the way in addressing this problem. Ultimately, I believe greenhouse gasses will be best controlled with market mechanisms in the form of a carbon tax or greater incentives to switch to efficient energy sources. Therefore, there may not be the long-term regulations around climate change that we have seen around pollution in the past.
What do you believe is the most significant role of government regulation relating to environmental protection?
The bottom line is that it’s cheaper for companies to pollute. It’s easier to dump your waste out the window than to use devices that clean and control its disposal. In rare cases it can be more profitable to avoid polluting but at the end of the day if you want to protect the environment from a polluting industry, it is necessary to create a framework of governmental regulations that everyone must comply with so that no company reaps the economic benefits of polluting. You can see how an uneven playing field in regards to environmental regulations plays out in third world countries. It is much cheaper to produce in places that don’t have strict laws surrounding the environment, and this is something that has hurt American industry in the past. The consumers have some responsibility here as well because it’s not only the government’s job to hold companies accountable. We have to ask those hard questions about where our products come from - where they are assembled, who is making them, where the raw materials come from - so that we can ensure that industries are not polluting and abusing the environment while producing goods. This is referred to as supply-chain management, and it is the idea that the company we are buying products from is ensuring that its suppliers are conducting their business in an ethical way. It’s a way that consumers and producers in an economy can regulate each other along with government regulation.
Do you believe that we can find a balance, here in the United States, between quality environmental regulation of companies and ensuring that they stay profitable so that jobs and companies can continue produce domestically?
I think that every company in America that is making any money has figured out how to do just that, so yes I think it is absolutely possible. This starts with putting a burden on the EPA, and all regulatory agencies, to ensure their policies are cost-effective for companies. Again, it’s all about leveling the playing field, domestically and internationally, so that American companies don’t feel the need to move their business abroad. And while it may be more expensive to produce in the United States, there are other benefits that these companies receive by keeping their production here and in compliance with environmental regulations. They have better standing in their communities, they get good publicity, and they have an edge in terms of recruitment because in today’s day and age many of the graduates coming out of college express huge interest in the sustainability programs of the companies they are applying to.
Where do you think the brightest future is for sustainability? In the government or in the private sector?
I believe that innovative, ethical businesses are going to drive the sustainability agenda. This is because, as we have seen in the past with technology and in other industries, there is a huge capacity for innovation within private companies. The United States in particular has been a leader in this field, pushing for better and cleaner electric vehicles, batteries, appliances etc and this focus on green innovation can and has created new industries and jobs. Of course, whenever new industries emerge there are some winners and some losers. For example, the coal industry is going to suffer in a world with strict climate regulations but other industries, like the natural gas and solar industries, are going to thrive. Therefore, there will definitely be jobs created in different sectors and potentially in different parts of the country, and that’s obviously a difficult political issue. Companies with a focus on innovation and development are going to thrive with more regulations because they will be the ones creating cleaner and greener products that can comply with policies in a profitable way.
During your ten years at the EPA, did the way that you approached environmental policy change under each presidential administration or did it remain relatively constant?
There’s not as much change within regulatory agencies between administrations as the press may have you think. With Dupont, for example, the regulations that affected us as a company stayed the same for the most part and the changes that were implemented didn’t really affect our push for sustainability because that motivation never really came from the government. The desire to be more environmentally-friendly came from the marketplace and that has remained very constant. Trump, however, is a “different bird” and is actually trying to roll back some of what the EPA has done. Obviously, I have some concerns as someone who helped put many of those laws in place! Despite this, I believe that big-name companies will continue to follow environmental regulations because it’s good for their public image and many of them have already come out with statements about their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, although we as Americans often forget this, all global companies (like Dupont) have to comply with European and Asian environmental regulations as well so changes in policy put forward by the U.S. EPA may not have as large of an impact as one may think.
What have been the greatest lessons that you have taken away from working in both the government and the private sector?
When you work in government you learn how to see things from all sides because the government is meant to represent all people. I learned that when crafting policy you must listen to the environmentalists, the community activists, the business people etc. and you must strive to understand and respect each different view. However, when you get into the private sector, working at a company or corporation, your goals become more one-sided and it’s much harder to see things from an outside perspective. I’ve learned therefore that in private businesses, lawyers can be a huge asset to their clients just by pointing out how other groups or individuals are looking at an issue. When I transitioned from a career in government to a career at a private company, I was able to retain my ability to look at an issue from all angles, and this skill is invaluable. Finally, despite what is expressed in the media, I have learned that there are so many advantages to bringing individuals who have worked for business into government because they can bring unique knowledge and experience. When people with different backgrounds and expertise come into government and contribute to policy, it can only lead to better and more well-rounded legislation.
Why did you decide to get a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and how have you used it, in conjunction with your law degree, throughout your career?
I originally decided to get my MBA while working on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant. I worked with so many bright, incredible people, but most of them knew next to nothing about business while we were trying to draft policy that would have a potentially huge impact on the economy. I noticed there were a lot of lawyers but very few people who truly understood the marketplace, and I found that having an official, academic training in business helped me create better public policy because I understood a little bit more about business than those around me.
Where was your favorite place to work, in government or for a private company?
Although I loved my career in the private sector, the most exciting jobs I had were in the EPA. I personally think every person should take jobs in government because the work done there is incredibly important. When the government doesn’t do its job well, that’s when the people, the environment and the country get hurt. While the media may not always represent this, our regulatory agencies are filled with extremely smart and hard-working individuals. I would take my team of EPA co-workers in any policy debate and stand them up against any person in corporate America - and I did just that on some occasions! It always hurts to hear people criticize the government when they may not truly understand what it does, so I would encourage everybody to take a serious look at government jobs. Whether it’s on the state or federal level, I think you see the world differently when you have worked at an agency that demands the public’s trust and is so integral to the functioning of our country.
Finally, what advice would you give to students who are thinking of pursuing a career in law or government?
Always think ahead. Wherever you chose to work, think about what you can learn there that will open other doors and that can hopefully lead to your dream job.