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

FW: EMS Evaluation

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Minicucci, Bob  
> Sent:	Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:17 PM
> To:	'mjmalkin@rti.org'
> 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
> that.
> 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
> 603-271-2941