[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: EMS Evaluation
- Subject: FW: EMS Evaluation
- From: "Malkin Weber, Melissa" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:39:52 -0400
- List-Name: p2tech
- Reply-To: "Malkin Weber, Melissa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Minicucci, Bob
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:17 PM
> To: 'email@example.com'
> Cc: Perelli, Vince
> Subject: EMS Evaluation
> a response for the P2Tech email group, responding to Bob Pojasek and to
> Scott Buttner.
> Background: Acting for NHDES, I am an active member of MSWG and am
> conducting part of their research into the effectiveness of EMSs. This is
> (arguably, I must admit in fairness) the leading research into the actual
> performance of EMSs. 60 some-odd organizations are being observed for a
> number of years.
> Response to Mr. Buttner: I and MSWG would be interested in what he''s
> "...found in the research (that) indicates that creation of an EMS has no
> demonstrable cause-effect relationship to a firm's environmental
> performance..." I submit that the question has not yet been answered
> either yes or no. Mr Buttner implies that the answer has been
> demonstrated to be no. I'd like more information on that.
> And for Bob Pojasek's comments: I believe that, again, that we 'cannot
> find a link' yet because we just haven't gotten to the point in the
> research where the question can be answered. We have not begun to assess
> changes in performance, we have assessed their "time=0" enviromental
> performance and we are assessing how they built their EMSs. Assessment of
> changes in performance will come over '01 and '02. It takes time to
> assess changes in performance.
> We are not in fact working with the creme de la creme. MSWG in general is
> working with whatever company will agree to provide the voluminous data
> we're asking for. And it is voluminuous. One of NH's participants has
> been in deep doodoo with our agency, and because of that we were even more
> excited that they signed up - they of all people need to get organized and
> under control.
> Because of this, I'm afraid the statement "...if the best cases cannot see
> clear environmental benefits after two years of study..." is
> misrepresenting our work.
> Some of the implementation issues Bob P. raises are valid. Some however
> vary from organization to organization. I would argue that in some, even
> many, cases management commitment and a focus on continuous improvement
> are present. The question then becomes who's got the good systems. I
> hope our research will begin to address that. And yes, ISO 14001 itself
> has not lived up to its own continuous improvement promise. In my
> opinion, the bodies charged with overseeing the standard have failed us in
> Regarding external stakeholders, now there's an issue that's generated a
> lot of heat. Let me say this: the business community, as opposed to the
> researcher/NGO/government community, does not perceive external
> stakeholder involvement as a value-added item. Possibly a pardigm issue
> that needs to be addressed, but sometimes I wonder if we don't assume as a
> matter of faith that external stakeholders always add value.
> Well, my $0.02 worth,
> Bob Minicucci
> NH DES