[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject

Approved: p2net
To: p2tech
From: "Matthias Gelber" <mgelber@ibm.net>
Subject: RE: Indicators of EMS performance

Dear Melissa
Thanks for your input - useful stuff. Without having had a look at your WEB
site, I have some initial comments which will hopefully be of use:
-Your approach seems to be very much US concept biased - is there no way to
make this a bit more generic in order for it to be clearer for an SME in a
developing country, which is not involved in the P2 debate, but has an
interest in an EMS which might be triggered of by ISO 14001 or other
-The work of ISO TC 207, SC 4 has attempted since some time to come up with
a guide for Environmental Performance Evaluation, which is scheduled for
publication in the 3rd quarter of 99.
The following type of indicators have been defined by ISO 14031:
1)Management Performance Indicators (MPIs) describes the management efforts
undertaken in the context of improving the Environmental Performance, such
as man hour of environmental training per employee
2)Operational Performance Indicator (OPI) looks at the environmental
performance of an organisation's operations, such as energy consumption per
unit of production
3)Environmental Condition Indicator (ECI) is defined as "specific expression
that provides information about the local, regional or global condition of
the environment"
MPIs express the managerial effort of the company with the goal to improve
OPIs and ECIs. The problem is that the relationship between managerial
effort and improvement of OPIs and ECIs is not linear, which means for
example that not always does more training result in improved environmental
performance. OPIs are the area where usually P2, Cleaner Production people
and process engineers have focused on; the actual inputs, outputs, which as
well give the company a better idea on where financial benefit can be
combined with improved environmental performance. Improved ECIs is what is
the ultimate goal of the efforts and what the stakeholders will be looking
ISO 14031 is not going to prescribe indicators, but leave it up to the
organisation which one's to choose, but there are some relevant examples

I wonder whether this concept might be worthwhile to be linked to your ideas
in order to clarify the relationship for companies, between the results of
their management effort in relation to measurable environmental improvement
outputs of their EMS.
Matthias Gelber
14000 & ONE Solutions Ltd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-iso14000@quality.org [mailto:owner-iso14000@quality.org]On
Behalf Of Malkin, Melissa
Sent: 09 April 1999 13:58
To: p2tech@great-lakes.net; iso14000@quality.org
Cc: 'Terri HOAGLAND'
Subject: Indicators of EMS performance

Burt Hammer recently posted a nice set of "five basic indicators" of
pollution prevention progress to the P2Tech listserver (re-pasted below).
I'd like to expand that discussion to the include "indicators of EMS
EPA asked Research Triangle Institute to develop a web-based tool for
evaluating environmental progress resulting from an EMS. We considered
trying to come up with a very quantitative tool, but instead chose something
very much like the "basic indicators" approach. We assumed that the
following qualities of an EMS are most likely to result in environmental
protection improvements:
-- EMS thoroughly identifies all potential environmental aspects (e.g., VOC
emissions from manufacturing process)
-- EMS thoroughly identifies all impacts related to the aspects (ground
level ozone, worker health, air toxics, etc)

-- EMS contains aggressive targets to reduce a large percent of the impact,
and reduce it fast.

-- EMS meets the targets using tools that are high up on the P2 hierarchy,
and use tools that address aspects and impacts that are beyond the facility
gates (e.g., product stewardship, environmentally preferable purchasing).
-- EMS implements practices that are associated with good environmental
management (environmental accounting, design for the environment, TQEM, etc
etc... pretty much any practice that helps a company get at Burt's "5 basic
indicators" would come in here).
I'd welcome feedback & discussion on this tool: you can review it at
http://ems.rti.org <http://ems.rti.org> (its a public tool, so there's no
charge, and its also confidential)

Melissa Malkin
Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
POB 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burton Hamner [
mailto:bhamner@mindspring.com> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 2:35 PM
some thoughts on the progression topic. They are related
> to the "five
> basic indicators" of sustainable business discussion that I
> initiated on
> P2TECH a while ago. At the end of it all (about 10 people
> got involved) I
> concluded that nobody disagreed with these five basic indicators:
> Cost: Company knows true cost of its waste and pollution.
> Toxics: Company has done some toxics use reduction.
> TQM: Company workers use basic TQM-type process analysis
> tools to analyze
> what they are doing.
> EMS: Company has an organized management system to identify
> and respond to
> environmental concerns
> Networking: Company participates in pollution prevention
> knowledge networks.
> The idea being that if a company is doing all these things,
> their BEHAVIOR
> is as much as anyone could expect to be sustainable. Maybe
> they actually
> pollute more next year because they increased production
> dramatically, but
> their behavior demonstrates both capacity and intent to do
> something about it.
> Now if you took these and ranked them as natural steps towards
> sustainability, I think they would go in order of progression:
> 1 Networking
> 2 TQEM
> 3 Cost
> 4 Toxics
> 5 EMS
> 1. Networking creates motivation, which is needed to start the whole
> progression. By networking I mean the act of raising your
> head above the
> company chaos and looking around the horizon for help. Once
> in the network
> companies can keep receiving info about P2 and new money savers. Any
> business that is bad at networking in the 21 Century is dead
> meat in any case.
> 2. TQEM at the process level is usually the first thing that happens
> following motivation. Someone picks a problem, they analyze
> it, apply P2
> philosophy, and get some results. This stimulates other
> projects, and so
> on. TQEM activities simply enable the workers to analyze
> their processes
> and identify where and why waste and pollution are being
> created. There
> are really only 3 or 4 basic diagrams needed to do this.
> TQEM provides the
> baseline process information from which all subsequent
> decisions must be
> made. Needless to say most people don't call their process
> improvement
> projects "TQEM" but that is sort of what they are doing.
> 3. Cost comes once you have the right process data from TQEM
> analyses.
> Once a manager knows the potential range of savings available
> from reducing
> waste they can see why they are in it for the money.
> 4. When managers decide they are ready to start really
> making decisions
> (as opposed to the staff fooling around with small TQEM
> projects), they
> need to start on toxics reduction first. That shows they get
> the point
> about P2.
> 5. EMS or something similar happens after managers have had a few
> successes and they decide they want to keep trying. Then
> they start really
> "managing" ie delegation, evaluating, controlling, etc. But
> it doesn't
> have to be ISO 14001, it can be five minutes of discussion at
> every monday
> mgmt meeting. The point is that most employees could tell
> you directly and
> specifically how they go about trying to be sustainable. If
> they all tell
> the same story then they have an EMS!
> Here is the test to see whether you agree. Could any of these five be
> eliminated in a sustainable business? If not then the list
> is a minimal
> list. And if a company is doing all of these, do you think
> it is got the
> basic ingredients needed for sustainability? If not then
> what would you
> add? If so then this list is sufficient. So I believe these five
> indicators are both necessary and sufficient to evaluate a
> firm's progress.
> The order of evolution is not a given of course but it is a
> logical way to
> build sustainable capacity for P2 in an organization. A firm
> might start
> do a little toxics reduction as its first project (like
> switching to safer
> solvents or cleaners, etc). But systematic attention to P2
> only happens
> after top mgmt has looked at the costs and issues and make it
> a policy.
> If I was designing a P2 outreach or techn assistance program,
> I would think
> about using these five steps as the basic development steps.
> Get firms
> into the P2 network so you can show them success stories and hit that
> motivation button. Then teach them basic process analysis
> tools and help
> their employee teams practice them on something relatively simple (and
> network them with other techn assistance programs that are about basic
> productivity). Then help staff figure out what the real
> savings are and
> what the "savings envelope" could be (more motivation). Then help
> management get serious about toxics reduction, especially
> through supplier
> partnerships (more networking) so they have something that
> they have to
> actually manage (not delegate to some flunky). Then show managers how
> various EMS models can help them develop and maintain their
> own systematic
> approach to P2. Each of these five stages requires a different set of
> outreach and assistance activities. Might take five years to
> get most of
> the target firms through the five stages, but it's like bricklaying...
> Note that compliance is NOT on my own list of indicators of
> sustainability.
> That's because it is a given. Anyone not in compliance is
> not sustainable
> by definition. I mean really out of compliance (no pollution
> controls, no
> clue etc), not breaking EPA paperwork rules. I REALLY object to some
> business award programs that include compliance as something
> to reward.
> That implies that some legal requirements aren't as expected
> as others.
> That's my editorial. Now about leadership projects, you
> might consider
> some roundtables with business leaders to ask THEM to
> consider and rank or
> reorder these indicators. Even if they disagree with them,
> they are a good
> straw man to whack at. Maybe they will all agree that the
> indicators should
> be changed, or maybe they will all like them. Anyway it is a
> good way to
> keep the goal of measuring progress focused on sustainable
> counting cooties.
> <snip>
> *******************************************************
> Burton Hamner
> - Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management, Manila,
> Philippines
> - President, Hamner Associates, LLC
> 4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington, 98107
> tel/fax: 206-789-5499
> email: bhamner@mindspring.com
> web: