|
BENCHMARKING
PERCEPTIONS OF ISO 14001.
Published in Moving ahead with ISO 14001 Eds. Philip A Marcus and John T Willig. 1997, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp 85-94
By David Burdick
P.E.
In November of 1995, Global Environmental Management
System conducted an open ended survey with top environmental executives of
11 of the leading US corporations, including IBM, Hewlett Packard, Proctor
and Gamble, 3M, Johnson and Johnson, Motorola, General Electric, Herman
Miller, 4 of the largest international consultant firms including ABB
Environmental Services and Woodward-Clyde and the 3 top registrars BVQI,
Lloyds and SGS International Certification. The purpose of which was to
benchmark the present perceptions of the ISO 14001 amongst key US
manufacturing, consultants and registrars. The following open-ended
questions were asked.
·
What do you perceive are the strengths and
weaknesses of implementing the ISO 14001 EMS within your or your
client’s organization?
·
What do you perceive could be done to
improve the acceptance of the ISO 14001 EMS by industry?
·
Do you plan on implementing the ISO 14001
and when?
Below is a synopsis of their responses. The answers fell
into 9 categories:
1. ·
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
2. ·
TRADE
3. PUBLIC
AWARENESS
4. ·
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
5. ·
REGULATORY
6. ·
SAVINGS AND COSTS
7. ·
LIABILITIES, PREMIUMS AND INTEREST RATES
8. ·
MOTIVATION
9. ·
CERTIFICATION
STUDY RESULTS
The study result averages the responses together in order
to draw out the perception verses intent of the ISO 14001. Actual comments
are given in order to maintain objectiveness in interpreting the results. 
Figure 1 Comparison of the average perception amongst mfg.,
consulting firms and registrars as to the strengths, weaknesses and
suggested improvements to the acceptance of ISO 14001 EMS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
Although the intent of the ISO 14001 draft standard does
not itself state specific environmental performance criteria beyond
commitment to [an organization’s] policy, it requires procedures to
be establish to monitor and measure the key
characteristics of its operations that can have a significant impact on the
environment.
Only 7% of comments perceived this area to be a strength of the ISO 14001. 22% of comments perceived
this area to be a weakness of the ISO 14001, as there is “No
guarantee of an actual and continuous improvement in reducing environmental
impact.” Yet only 3% of comments perceived a need to emphasize
continuous improvement in the standard as a means to improve the acceptance
of ISO 14001.
TRADE
One of the main intents of the ISO 14001 draft standard is
to prevent the creation of non-tariff trade barriers and to increase or
change an organization’s legal obligations. Yet there is language to
encourage contractors and suppliers to establish an EMS.
A large percentage, 31% of comments perceived the
competitive advantage of being able to market to customers who require ISO
14001 and for leadership recognition as strengths of the ISO 14001. No one
perceived trade issues to be a weakness of the ISO 14001. 18% of comments
perceived trade issues as a means to improve the acceptance of ISO 14001,
with comments such as “Need for clear marketing trends” and
“Need for environmental groups and customer-supplier relationships to
embrace and push for EMS and Eco-labeling
in products”
PUBLIC AWARENESS
The ISO 14001 draft standard requires that the
company’s environmental policy be available to the public, as well as
to communicate relevant matters to external interested parties.
None of comments perceived public awareness to be a strength of the ISO 14001. In fact, 19% of comments
perceived this area to be a weakness of the ISO 14001, with comments such
as “lack of public knowledge”, and “lack of experience to
get measurable results”. 12% of comments perceived improved public
awareness as a means to improve the acceptance of ISO 14001; sighting
comments such as ”Need for customer, public’s and
organization’s awareness” and “Need shifts in
attitudes”
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
One of the intents of the ISO 14001 draft standard is to
offer an effective and structured management system which, when
implemented, maintain and improve environmental policy and objectives. It
shares the common management system principles with the ISO 9000 quality
system standards, with the additional point that it must “address the
needs of a broad range of interested parties and the evolving needs of
society for environmental protection.”
A good quarter of comments perceived this area to be a
strength of the ISO 14001, with such comments as “Harmonize
throughout a large multinational corporation”, “Systematically
manage & improve ones environmental management system”, “gives
one universally accepted standard”, “is consistent
environmental framework”, “Gain operational efficiency”,
“Benchmark improvements”, and “develop Pro-active
management”. 10% of comments perceived this area to be a weakness of
the ISO 14001, with comments such as “potentially becomes a paperwork
exercise”. None of the comments had perceived this area in need of
improvement in order to increase the acceptance of ISO 14001.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
An objective of the ISO 14001 draft standard is to establish
a system that requires that regulations be heeded.
Only 10% of comments perceived this area to be a strength
of the ISO 14001, with perceptions such as “Reduction in regulatory
inspection”, reduced ”compliance
exposure and costs” and “Improvements from systematic
compliance”. 9% of comments perceived this area to be a weakness of
the ISO 14001, sighting “Potential for loss of confidentiality”
and “Meeting voluntary standards will then become de facto
regulations”. However, a substantial 58% of comments perceived this
area in need of improvement in order to increase the acceptance of ISO
14001. Suggested improvements include: “Need the US EPA to make more
tangible incentives to industry”, “Reduction of inspection,
monitoring and reporting”, “Reduction of time required for
attaining permits”, “Decrease in fines”,
”Protection of audit results” and “Federal requirements
for ISO 14001 registration for government projects”
SAVINGS & COSTS
The intent of the ISO 14001 draft standard does not specifically
set out to reduce cost or improve material or energy savings, but it could
be a significant byproduct of implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental
Management System. The review and policy statement suggests addressing
these impacts for organizations that have significant use of energy and
material use.
11% of comments perceived this area as a strength of the
ISO 14001, with perceptions such as “Reduction of material and energy
usage”, and “Improved efficiency”. A rather substantial
28% of comments perceived this area to be a weakness of the ISO 14001; with
perceptions reflected in the comment ”Manpower costs will not be
worth the savings”. None of the comments perceived this area to be in
need of improvement in order to increase the acceptance of ISO 14001
LIABILITY PREMIUMS AND INTEREST RATES
The intent of the ISO 14001 draft standard does not
specifically set an objective to reduce liability premiums of insurance
interest rates.
14% of comments perceived this area to be a strength of the ISO 14001, with perceptions such as
“Reduction of liability”, and “Reduction in insurance
premiums”. None of the comments perceived this area to be a weakness
of the ISO 14001. 9% of comments perceived this area in need of improvement
in order to increase the acceptance of ISO 14001, with the suggestion of
“A need for premium and liability reduction to drive
acceptance”.
MOTIVATION
The standard does not specifically set an objective to
motivate acceptance. However, top management must define and commit to the
environmental policy and be involved in its review and improvement. It is
also a requirement of the standard to promote environmental awareness of
the company’s activities and its reduction its impact.
Only 2% of comments perceived this area to be a strength of the ISO 14001, with perceptions such as
“Improvement in company pride” and “Motivation”.
13% of comments perceived this area to be a weakness of the ISO 14001, with
comments such as “Concern that there are no short term benefits
perceived to motivate industry”. None of the comments perceived
improved motivation in order to increase the acceptance of ISO 14001.
CERTIFICATION
The August draft of the ISO/DIS 14001 standard allows for
self-certification by organizations.
85% of the companies that are making gap analysis to the
standard but are not willing to publicly state when, if ever, they will
gain registration. Registrars, on the other hand, are finding a large
increase in request for certification.
CONCLUSION
The top three perceived strengths of implementing the ISO
14001 EMS within an organization were: Trade (31%), Quality Management
(25%) And Liability Premiums and Interest Rate Reduction (14%).
Figure 2 Perceived strengths of ISO 14001 EMS
The top three perceived weaknesses of the ISO 14001 EMS
within an organization were: Costs (28 %), Lack of Environmental
Performance (22 %) and Lack of Public Awareness (19 %).
Figure 3 Perceived weaknesses in ISO 14001 EMS
The top three areas for areas to improve the acceptance of
the ISO 14001 EMS by industry were: Regulatory Incentives (58 %), Trade
(18%) and Public Awareness (12%).
Figure 4 Perceived suggestions to improve ISO 14001 acceptance
The goals of the ISO Strategy Advisory Group (SAG) is to
develop a standard which promotes a common approach to EMS (Quality
Management), enhance an organization’s ability to attain and measure
improvements in environmental performance (Environmental Performance) and
facilitate trade and eliminate non-tariff trade barriers (Trade)
Manufacturing, consulting firms and registrars likewise
perceived the strengths encapsulated in Quality Management: i.e.,
harmonizing of one EMS standard and Trade
i.e. eliminate non-tariff barriers between nations, as strengths of the ISO
14001 standard.
However, contrary to the third objective of the ISO 14001
standard, Environmental Performance was not perceived as a
strength of the ISO 14001. In addition, Regulatory incentives, in
the form of regulatory relief and government requirement in were suggested
as means to improve the acceptance of ISO 14001.
There was a strong difference concerning certification
between the perceptions of industry verses the registrar. Although 85% of
manufacturing was non-committal and uncertain when if ever they will get
third party certification, the finding from registrars is that there is a
large increase in companies requesting registration. This may be due to the
competitive nature involved in keeping secret plans to becoming the first
within an industrial sector to be registered to the ISO 14001 standard. As
one registrar said, when the window of opportunity becomes clear,
it’s too late, and one can only follow.
Bibliography:
David Burdick’s 15-year experience
reflects a blend of international acumen, academic knowledge and
manufacturing expertise. He has been involved in certification practices
for several years, including establishing an office in Japan, auditing Quality and Environmental
management systems in the US
and developing LCA criteria for determining more sustainable and
environmentally preferable products.
He is currently principal at Sustainable Steps, (www.sustainablesteps.com), an organization committed to
verifying steps towards sustainable business practices and includes
authentication to several certification schemes. Among them are
accreditation requirements ISO 62 and ISO 66, organizational requirements
ISO 9000 (Quality) and ISO 14001 (Environmental) Management Systems;
eco-labeling programs, the National Organic Program and Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) Chain-of-Custody for sustainably harvested timber.
He has degrees in Mechanical
and Industrial engineering, a Masters in Environmental Decision Making, a
Professional Engineering license and has lived and worked 8 years abroad; 5
in Denmark and 3 years in Japan.
David Burdick PE
Sustainable Steps
USA
Tel: (+1) 503 654-2070
Email: 
Website: http://www.sustainablesteps.com
|
