[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

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
> 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
>"" 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 
>> -----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 
>>" 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 

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
And a new web site to check out for pvc- and mercury-free hospitals: