GeoInsighter Winter/Spring 2002 Newsletter

Say What You Do, Do What You Say
(The first in a series of articles on environmental management systems)

Return to the Newsletter Index

It is an old saw among those tasked with the care and feeding of quality systems that, stripped of jargon and boiled down to a bitter essence, formal structures such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) Quality Management System (or the ISO 9000 series) only stipulate that an organization say what it intends to do and then actually do it in the hope that the result will be a measurable improvement in quality.  This principle also applies to environmental management systems (EMSs).  Say what you do, do what you say.

Ah, but what to say?  There is a diversity of thought about what exactly an organization should say and what exactly constitutes an EMS.  This diversity is no surprise, considering the varying needs and issues confronting organizations.  Amidst the chaos, however, order arises.  Several models of environmental management have been developed that either define a structure or delineate the principles on which a system must be based.  The most well-known is the ISO Environmental Management System Standard 14000 series.  There are also a number of industry-specific models, such as the Chemical Manufacturer’s Association’s Responsible Care program.

These models are based upon common themes that are exemplified in the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) guidance document “Improving Environmental Performance and Compliance,” which was developed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico.  The document identifies 10 basic elements of an effective EMS, which include:

• an environmental policy that clearly communicates the organization's commitment to compliance, prevention, and continuous improvement;
  
• delineation of regulatory and management requirements to which the organization is subject;
  
• performance objectives specific to the elements of the general policy;
  
• definition of the organization and identification of specific responsibilities to ensure that targets and objectives are met and that adequate resources are provided;
  
• identifying, planning, and managing operations that affect achievement of the EMS objectives;
  
• maintaining documented procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, reporting, and correcting conditions that may affect meeting EMS objectives;
  
• implementing training of personnel with responsibilities that affect the ability to meet EMS objectives;
  
• integrating the EMS into the organization's general management processes, including decisions on capital improvement, product and process design, training, and maintenance;
  
• maintaining records relevant to the EMS in an orderly structure; and
  
• periodic documented, objective reviews of the organization's performance in achieving its EMS objectives, including an assessment of how well it supports efficient management of the organization.

An EMS with these elements can be relatively simple or, depending on the nature of the organization’s needs, quite complex.  In any case, the basics must be there: identify where the organization is going (call it, say, a policy), define how it will get there, go there, and document what happened along the way, i.e., “plan, do, act, and check.”

Having touched upon the what, perhaps we should ask why?  Philosophically, it can be argued that all organizations have an environmental stewardship responsibility to their communities (see, e.g., the International Chamber of Commerce Charter on Sustainable Development).  Market forces provide additional motivation.  For example, Ford, General Motors, and Daimler/Chrysler have informed their supply networks that an EMS is a basic requirement for doing business and have stipulated that the EMSs of their suppliers must conform to the ISO 14001 standard.  There are rumors that other bell-weather industrial sectors will follow suit, including consumer electronics and aerospace.  Certain geographic markets also effectively mandate an EMS as a prerequisite for entry, particularly the European Union and, to a lesser degree, the Japanese and southeast Asian markets. 

For those who will not answer to the market rudder, there is the regulatory rock.  USEPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center has identified inadequate EMSs as a root cause in many enforcement actions.  Consequently, the USEPA typically incorporates development of an EMS into its compliance enforcement settlements and has issued guidance to this effect.

Need it be market pressure or enforcement that drives an organization towards formalizing an EMS?  Clearly not, considering the significant library of case-studies in which companies have realized large cost-savings and major process improvements through an EMS.  While there is no magic, measurable improvement in environmental performance and competitive advantages can accrue from saying what you do and doing what you say.

Please look for a discussion of the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Standard in our next newsletter.

Christopher M. Rawnsley
cmrawnsley@geoinc.com

Return to the Newsletter Index