[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another indicator?
HI Guys,
How about an indicator that reflects vision? "Have they got a green
market/green design paradigm that demonstrates a new vision for the
company?" This would be important to sustain good environmental
performance and support competitiveness.
Janet Clark
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
http://www.turi.org
At 11:19 AM 4/9/99 +0100, you wrote:
> Approved: p2net
> To: p2tech
>""<>
> 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
> developments
> -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
>"specific expression
> that provides information about the local, regional or global condition of
>"
> 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
> at.
> 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
> given.
>
> 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
>& ONE Solutions Ltd
> mgelber@ibm.net
> -----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
>
>"" of
> pollution prevention progress to the P2Tech listserver (re-pasted below).
>"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
>"" 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
>"5 basic
>" would come in here).
>& 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)
> Regards,
>
> Melissa Malkin
> Research Triangle Institute, Pollution Prevention Program
> POB 12194
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
> voice: (919) 541-6154 fax (919) 541 7155
> http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html
><http://www.rti.org/units/ese/p2/ppb.html>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Burton Hamner [ mailto:bhamner@mindspring.com
><mailto:bhamner@mindspring.com> ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 2:35 PM
><>...
> some thoughts on the progression topic. They are related
>>"five
>>" 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
>>"" 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
>>"" 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
>>"" 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
>> BEHAVIOR, not
>> counting cooties.
>>
>><>
>> *******************************************************
>> 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
>> VISIT the SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS WEBSPACE and my home pages at:
>> web: http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
><http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner>
>>
>>
>
Janet Clark <clarkjan@turi.org>
Technology Transfer Manager
MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
One University Ave.
Lowell, MA 01854-2866
Tel 978-934-3346, Fax 978-934-3050
**********************************
http://www.turi.org
http://www.turi.org/P2GEMS
http://cleaning.org
**********************************
And a new web site to check out for pvc- and mercury-free hospitals:
http://www.uml.edu/centers/LCSP/hospitals