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

Fwd: FW: Evaluation tool for EMS



RTI should check out the web site for the MSWG.  They admit in papers
written by one of the project's sponsors that they cannot find a link to
environmental improvement and that it will take at least three more years
before they can have enough data to see one.  They are working with the
"creme de la creme" of the ISO 14001 cases here.  Scott is right on with
his question!  Many companies only do ISO 14001 because someone is making
them do it.  They only do what is required of them to do - nothing more.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  ISO 14001 is NOT
performance-based.  People need to buy a copy of ISO 14001 and read the
requirements.  They should not be confused with what different people write
about ISO 14001.  It has much discretion and everyone implements it
differently.  However, if the best cases cannot see clear environmental
benefits after two years of study, I think there might be a problem here.
The Mexican government (PROFEPA) has ignored ISO 14001 in their Voluntary
Environmental Audit Program because it does NOT guarentee compliance.  I
have attended talks in Canada where practitioners have admitted that ISO
14001 has failed to meet its promise.  First it has been the environmental
folks doing ISO 14001 for the rest of the organization.  Its implementation
misses the following key items:  concern and awareness; management
commitment; robust planning; integration of external stakeholders; and
focus on performance improvement.  ISO 14001 would fail its own test.  It
has NOT continously improved itself since it has been published.  Even ISO
9000 has been rewritten to make continuous improvement mandatory for
certification - it is called ISO 9000-2000.

I hope RTI has not biased their system in this regard.  It will be
interesting to hear what they come up with.  By the way, the Green Zia
program in New Mexico is a performance based program for setting up an EMS.
 It overcomes all the issues raised in Canada and Mexico.  ISO 14001 is a
good first step towards getting a good Green Zia score, but is nowhere near
sufficient to get you a top award in their program.  Pat Gallagher has some
GREAT information on the program on their web site at
<http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/>  Scroll down to Special Events and
Programs.  Maybe we should be spending our time looking at this program if
we are interested in a PREVENTION_BASED APPROACH.  Remember how ISO 14001
defines "The Prevention of Pollution" to include end-of-pipe wonderment.
Green Zia does not.  Maybe we will have some people argue for EMAS with its
bit of performance based application.  This could be fun.

BOB Pojasek

>X-Authentication-Warning: superior.great-lakes.net: majordom set sender to
owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net using -f
>From: "Malkin Weber, Melissa" <mjmalkin@rti.org>
>To: p2tech@great-lakes.net
>Subject: FW: Evaluation tool for EMS
>Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:39:38 -0400
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>Sender: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net
>Reply-To: "Malkin Weber, Melissa" <mjmalkin@rti.org>
>List-Name: p2tech
>X-Loop: p2tech
>
>Scott Butner asked an excellent quesiton about EMS Plus. With his
>permission, I'm posting it to the list, with my response below. 

>-Melissa Malkin Weber
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Butner, Robert S [mailto:butner@BATTELLE.ORG]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:27 PM
>To: 'Malkin Weber, Melissa'
>Subject: RE: Evaluation tool for EMS
>
>
>Thanks, Melissa -- I'll look forward to reviewing this.
>
>I have to ask, though -- on what basis do you make the assessment of which
>"components are known to promote environmental improvement?"  Everything
>I've ever 
>found in the research indicates that creation of an EMS has no demonstrable
>cause-effect 
>relationship to a firm's environmental performance; hence it would seem that
>identifying 
>individual components of an EMS as having these attributes would be
>problematic.
>
>Perhaps better wording is "components which place an emphasis on
>environmental improvement?"
>
>Or am I missing something new in terms of studies of the impact of
>implementing an EMS?
>
>Hope all is well down there in either event!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------
>NOTE:  My Address/Phone/Fax has CHANGED!  (effective 7/10/00)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------
>Scott Butner (butner@battelle.org) 
>Senior Research Scientist, Environmental Technology Division
>Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
>MS K8-03
>PO Box 999, Richland, WA  99352
>(509)-372-4946 voice/(509)-372-4995 fax
>http://www.chemalliance.org/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Malkin Weber, Melissa 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 7:29 AM
>To: 'Butner, Robert S'
>Subject: RE: Evaluation tool for EMS
>
>
>Robert, you're right that the studies haven't been done that show direct
>envr. results from EMS, although I think the multistate working group on EMS
>study has enough detailed data that when they get it analyzed, you might be
>able to see changes in environmental performance if there are any at the
>facilities they are studying. Whether you can attribute those changes to the
>EMS... well, that's another story. EMS-Plus doesn't try to measure
>environmental results, but it rates a users' EMS more favorably if the EMS
>includes best practices like DfE, environmental accounting, or any of those
>other good environmental management tools that you know and love. In doing
>this, we're using the presence of best practices as an indicator that the
>EMS is more likely to lead to environmental improvements, as compared to,
>e.g., an EMS in which the primary focus is staying in regulatory compliance
>through the use of control devices. 

>
>thanks for the good question. if you don't mind, I'd like to post your
>question & my reply to the whole list. Let me know if that's OK. 
>
>Regards from NC
>Melissa
>
>Research Triangle Institute
>Pollution Prevention Program
>POB 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
>ph: (919) 541 6154 fx: (919) 541 7155
>http://www.rti.org/units/ese/pp.cfm
> 
Bob

Dr. Robert B. Pojasek 
Pojasek & Associates 
P.O. Box 1333 
E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071
(781) 641-2422 
(617) 788-0288 (FAX)


http://www.Pojasek-Associates.com
rpojasek@sprynet.com