Paul Suff reports from Manchester on the annual IEMA event on environment management systems
The revised environment management system standard, ISO 14001, could prove a “trojan horse” to allow more organisations to pursue far-reaching change, according to Martin Baxter, chief policy advisor at IEMA.
He told the Institute’s annual forum on environment management systems (EMS) in December that the standard could present the profession with a huge opportunity to improve supply chain environmental compliance.
“There are around 325,000 organisations worldwide with 14001 certifications,” he said. “If each one transitions to the new standard and they all demand that suppliers follow suit it could really make a difference.”
Baxter, who led the UK’s input on the working group that revised the EMS standard, made the comments in his keynote presentation. He also talked about the links between the new and revised clauses, describing 14001: 2015 as a “spider’s web”, linking strategy, risk, resilience and improvement. He used the analogy of the UK cider industry, which might have to adjust to a changing climate by producing more of the drink but also growing different types of apple better adapted to warmer weather.
But it was the changes to the standard that were the focus of the event as delegates discussed how the new version could help improve business performance.
Improving performance
Nigel Leehane, environment director at environment and sustainability consultancy GHD, which sponsored the conference, said the revised clauses had several objectives. These were that an environment management system:
- adopts a lifecycle perspective;
- considers the broader principles of sustainability;
- involves wider business functions;
- takes a strategic approach, and addresses operational issues;
- helps drive genuine improvements in performance; and
- adds value to the business.
Leehane, who chaired a BSI committee that worked on the 14001 revision, said use of the terms risks and opportunities in an EMS would be new to many environment managers. “Using risk to denote both potentially negative consequences and to convey the concept of uncertainty of the outcome, together with opportunities, which is about potential beneficial effects, is a big change from the previous standard,” he said. “Environmental practitioners traditionally would use the terms ‘threat’ or ‘hazard’ to denote the negative. The emphasis now on opportunities should encourage users to consider the value that can be added through addressing environmental aspects.”
Leehane reminded delegates that the clause on risks and opportunities is closely linked to another of the new requirements in 14001: 2015; understanding the organisation and its context. He said context combines environmental conditions with external cultural and socio-economic conditions, for example, as well as the internal characteristics of the organisation. This would require organisations to have a high level, strategic understanding of such issues in order to be able to develop an effective EMS, which can then take account of risks and opportunities throughout its operations and lifecycle.
“Risk to the environment might be pollution or habitat loss, while risk to the organisation would include the effects on it from environmental conditions,” said Leehane. “There are also risks associated with an ineffective EMS, such as a failure to innovate or improve performance,” he said. The annex to 14001 illustrated how a poorly performing EMS might hamper efforts to improve overall organisational performance, Leehane added. Issues include environmental spillage due to literacy or language barriers among workers; increased flooding due to climate change that could affect premises; and a lack of available resources to maintain an effective EMS due to economic constraints.
He advised environment managers to develop a process for identifying, evaluating and prioritising risks and opportunities by answering three questions:
- What functions need to contribute?
- At what organisational level(s) should risks and opportunities be considered and plans made?
- How should the output be integrated or disseminated into business planning to ensure it is prioritised?
Auditing 14001: 2015
In a workshop, Doug Milne and Steve Williams from certification bodies DNV GL and LRQA respectively, offered tips on what external auditors would be looking for.
In terms of complying with the clause on risks and opportunities, they said organisations would be expected to expand their “aspects or risk register” and auditors would examine its credibility, such as whether the register was driving objectives and targets. To gauge conformance with the leadership requirements in the standard, auditors would definitely be looking to speak with senior managers, said Milne, operations manager at DNV GL. Williams, governance manager at LRQA, said auditors would test the veracity of any claims in other parts of the organisation. Internal auditors too would need to be in a position to question the senior team.
Milne reported that UKAS, the accreditation service, expected “transition” audits to last longer than assessments under the previous version of 14001, but the duration of subsequent audits would probably be no longer. The certification bodies that are part of the Independent International Organisation for Certification (iioc), including DNV GL and LRQA, are re-examining the rules on audit duration, Milne said.
Both speakers agreed that assessors would rely on section 3 of 14001: 2015, which includes definitions of an organisation, top management and interested parties, as well as annex A, which provides guidance on how to implement the standard, to guide them. Williams advised environment managers to look at these as well as make full use of the revised version of 14004 (EMS – general guidelines on implementation), which is due to be published in March.
Milne said practitioners ought to engage senior management now with the revised standard and informed delegates that some iioc members had posted helpful resources on the organisation’s website.
Both speakers agreed that clause 4 (context of the organisation) would be one of the most challenging. “If you get clause 4 right the rest of the standard will flow reasonably easily,” said Williams.
