A friend of mine just started a new job as the head of operations. With my congratulations, I asked whether the company was considering a management system as a means to drive improvement. The response that I received was, "I don't have time for that right now. I feel like I am drinking out of a fire hose!"

This made me realize that operations professionals have either little appreciation of the role of management systems as a foundation for process improvement, or they have not personally had a positive experience with them. Most of you are all too familiar with the phrase, "put a certificate on the wall" when hearing about experiences with management systems. When a key customer demands a certificate, the supplier pays the cost for these systems. However they rarely see this as being valuable for their operations.

The definition of an environmental management system in ISO 14001 claims that it should be a part of the way the business is operated. Commitments to continual improvement and pollution prevention are key parts of an environmental management system. This is a far cry from the certificate on the wall phenomenon. So why do people have such a negative view of this management standard?

Some of the shortcomings may be perpetrated by the ISO registration companies. This business is very competitive.

Some of these firms actually tell potential customers that if they let them train the employees (registration companies cannot do any consulting for the companies they register, but they can train them), "we will guarantee that you get a registration certificate!"

Other registration auditors are a bit more ethical and use "readiness audits" to help get the program in a position that it can be audited efficiently — the amount of time that is allowed for each registration audit is carefully controlled by International standards.

While these practices do not encourage companies to invest their "sweat equity" (making the plans part of the business instead of cookie-cutter plans) in planning and implementing the management systems, the greatest issue is the general lack of understanding of how to best use an environmental management standard. Management system specifications are copyrighted documents. Those that generally write about management systems are the system registrars or environmental regulators and their consultants. We need more information about the practical nature of these management systems for interested companies to read.

Many sustainability professionals are beginning to see that an environmental management standard that is properly implemented and used can become a great foundation for the sustainability program. As you know, many corporate sustainability programs are "bolt-on" efforts that focus on issues management and are operated completely separately from environmental, health and safety. Even with the advent of ISO 26000 (a draft social responsibility standard) and the use of SA 8000 and BS 8900 (sustainable development), there is still not widespread use of management systems in the sustainability field.

Cookie-cutter plans ought to be avoided

To answer my friend, one should make the operations improvements by planning and implementing an integrated management system (using quality, environment and health and safety) that creates a demand for the continual improvement needed by the organization. Building this integrated management system should be the first order of business. There is no need to seek registration of the management system unless a customer requires it. Every activity for each product and service will be examined and a footprint of the operation will be prepared. The management team will use operational risk management (AS 4360 risk management standard) to prioritize the risks and select opportunities for improvement. A program will be put in place to deliver the improvements by using employee involvement and firm action plans. The improvement program will be well thought out and will be carefully managed.

Each operational element of the management system can be scored using an evaluation framework that looks at the approach, the deployment, the results and the improvements. The approach looks at the extent to which planning, procedures and infrastructure are in place to meet each specific system element. Deployment is the extent to which the system element is being implemented. Results are the extent to which the performance of the system element is measured and trended. Improvement is the extent to which the results in the system element are being used to benchmark and improve the process. This is referred to as the ADRI evaluation method.

An environmental management system should be started sooner rather than later when looking for ways to squeeze dollars out of the operating budget. In most cases, the implementation of the program will be paid for using the money saved in the program mentioned above. As for sustainability, the environmental management system will be the foundation and the means for making sustainability part of the way the business is run — from top management to the people on the plant floor. Sooner or later, facilities that really want process improvement will learn about the benefits of management systems. Stay tuned for more information.

Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D., is the Practice Leader for Business Sustainability at First Environment Inc. and an internationally recognized authority on the topic of business sustainability and process improvement.