My first exposure to ISO 14001 was characterized by the words of a cynic and skeptic of the value of the global standard for environmental management.
"What does it mean to be certified?" he said, repeating my question rhetorically. "It means you can pollute to the ends of the earth, as long as it is well documented."
Needless to say, the statement was a sarcastic hyperbole, since any polluter is at least held to account on legal and regulatory thresholds that affect the jurisdiction they operate within. But his remark highlighted a widespread perception of ISO 14001: Although it is capable of giving businesses a clear sense of where they're at in terms of environmental performance, no intrinsic "moral compass" of environmental responsibility is built into the standard.
Launched 15 years ago as a guideline for measuring and monitoring organizational activities that impact the environment, the ISO 14001 standard is today a widespread benchmark for thousands of organizations around the world that want to communicate to the public and stakeholders that they are environmentally responsible.
While a paltry 14,000 certifications were registered in 1999, the year the standard was launched, more than a quarter-million organizations are certified today.
In fact, the popularity of ISO 14001 has been so prolific the standard has achieved nearly the same notoriety and respect as its parent, ISO 9001, the go-to standard for organizations that want to communicate their commitment to quality management.
The latter standard essentially shaped the former (both were developed by the International Organization of Standardization) and the form and structural core of the two standards is fundamentally the same: Where an ISO 9001-conformant organization will retain the documentation supporting procedures and processes that impact product quality, ISO 14001-conformant organizations will retain documentation on procedures and processes that involve any sort of impact on the environment.
Think air, water use, wastewater output, energy use: essentially any aspect of business that can generate impacts upon the environment around us.
The widespread adoption rates and respect ISO 9001 achieved in the late '90s in many ways spelled the inevitable success of ISO 14001 as a widely sought-after standard. And while many prized the standard for the simple fact it mirrored the structure and form of ISO 9001, others criticized it on that very basis.
And therein lies the rub.
For just as ISO 9001-conformant procedures and processes do not guarantee high-quality products and performance, by virtue of its very implementation an ISO 14001 environmental management system in no way guarantees an organization is committed to improving environmental performance, nor does it provably suggest an organization is proactive and responsible in any of its environmental endeavors.
Hi Paul, Thanks for your
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your general article on ISO 14000.
Between 1998 and 2000, I studied the effects between European and American accreditation bodies and their influence on the environmental performance of the companies under their 14001 certifications. I concur with both the benefits and issues you raise.
However, unlike the Environmental Management and Audit System (EMAS- popular in Europe), which has taken steps to require a certain level of environmental performance of certified companies within a given industry, the ISO 14001 standard has not yet adopted prescriptive environmental performance criteria.
This is primarily a result of the stakeholders involvement process ISO has stipulated, which gives corporate industrial interest a majority rule in creating the ISO 14001 criteria. Corporate interest have historically balked at creating performance criteria which would exclude some of their member or cause them to increase attention and investment to address pollution and significant environmental impacts. World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, which rules that environmental criteria creates unfair free trade, also enter into this equation.
Creating a balanced stakeholder ISO process, with equal influence from consumer, NGO and academic interests, may eventually allow prescriptive aspects to be added to the framework of continual improvement offered in ISO 14001 and address the valid concerns raised. Pacific Institute ( www.pacinst.org ) is one organization that is working on this issue.
Full summary of the report that leads to this, and other conclusions, at http://www.sustainablesteps.com/registrar-influences.html
Cheers
David Burdick
Sustainable Steps
An interesting article, and
An interesting article, and valid in parts, but i echo some of the comments already here.
A standard only works as well as it is implemented. Too many times, ISO 14001 is criticised when the reality is, the organisation hasn't bought in to the ethos; they just want the 'badge'.
As a Certification Body, the biggest motivation for many is to obtain ISO 14001 to win new business. However, all clients have reduced usage, waste and consequent environmental impact. It just happens at varying levels depending on how much they really want to be environmentally friendly.
Overall, i think its sad to see so many critical articles on ISO 14001, where are the positive ones? Hundreds of thousands of organisations hold certification, taking the first steps towards being environmentally friendly. Is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we be celebrating it? Otherwise, what is the fantastic solution we're all missing?
I thought it was interesting that the The Sunday Times Green List, showing off the UK's most environmentally companies, showed that 87% had ISO 14001. Serious endorsement, i'd say.
Anyway, thanks Paul for opening it up debate!
Think of the the 14001
Think of the the 14001 standard as a manual for driving and repairing a car. The manual tells you how to operate and maintain the vehicle but does not tell you where to drive it! The 14001 standard is a management systems standard, and contains an integrated set of best practices for identifying and managing environmental impacts generated from company operations. It does not tell you what your impacts should be, but it does require that your methods of identifying and managing those impacts be improved continually. The 14001 standard's most effective application is as a tool in service of a strategy. Such a strategy can be defined in a strategic plan or a balanced scorecard. The bottom line: the 14001 standard is a set of best practices in service of a higher purpose, which is defined by management according to the values and beliefs of executive managers. Without a higher purpose linked to the greater social and ecological good, the standard's prescribed activities become meaningless exercises in documentation.
Conclusions from a recent
Conclusions from a recent Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center publication (see reference below) relate to the adoption of and certification to ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. This study shows that the benefits of management system standards extend far beyond the achievement of bottom line performance and customer satisfaction. Organizations were much more likely to achieve performance gains from ISO 14001 certification when they targeted a specific environmental aspect:
o 96.7% of respondents indicated a reduction in waste
o 93.3% indicated an increase in the use of recycled materials
o 90.0% indicated a reduction in environmental incidents
o 98.3%indicated an improvement in emergency preparedness
o 84.6 indicated a reduction in permit violations
o 91.9% indicated a reduction of utility consumption
o 96.5% indicated a contribution to improved environmental performance of their product
The Wharton publication also highlighted the range of costs and savings associated with the implementation of ISO 14001. 65% of facilities which estimated their first-year cost savings indicated savings of up to $25,000, with 27% reporting savings of up to $100,000. 57% estimated maximum continued savings of up to $25,000 annually, while 28% reported savings of up to $100,000 annually, and 15% reported savings of over $100,000 annually. 40% found a very high correlation between ISO 14001 certification and easier relationships with the government and a more positive perception by the public.
Achieving external benefits, such as fulfilling customer requirements, was by far the most important initial goal of certification; however, organizations found that the internal benefits achieved exceeded the external benefits. More than 60% of respondents indicated a very high correlation between the ISO 14001 management system practices and their day-to-day operations.
Schmeidler, Peter, King, Robert, and Scicchitano, Paul. “Study of the Value of ISO 14001 Certification”. Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, in cooperation with the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) and QSU Publishing Co., 2007
It is true that ISO 14001
It is true that ISO 14001 certification does not guarantee that the certified company has met some certain level of environmental responsibility, just as it is true that ISO 9001 certification does not assure a certain high level of product quality. But the same can be said about business financial accounting standards. A business can follow GAAP and FASB rules and still be a poorly-run company from a financial perspective. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have such measurements.
The point of such standards and protocols is to do the best job possible of driving transparency and consistency in reporting what is being done in the given area (quality, sustainability, etc.) so that observers can then make an informed judgement about the relative level of performance against the organization's stated goals. And I'm glad the author got to the concept of continuous improvement, because that is the driving principle of these ISO standards. If a company thinks it can gain the 'halo effect' of being certified without improving its performance from its current level, ideally objective and astute reviewers of their process and performance will see and point that out.
So yes, it can be said that the standards shouldn't be said to do more than they do, but they are valuable baselines and, implemented and reviewed correctly, can and in good hands actually do drive improved performance.
Myths and Misunderstanding
Myths and Misunderstanding around ISO 14001 - it's NOT about Certification
It is a common misunderstanding to judge the success or failure of a management system standard's global adoption based on the number of certificates reported. One certificate does NOT represent one company necessarily; some companies have as many as 400; others one. Against the total number of employer-based companies in the world, conservatively estimated by IFC a few years ago at 143 million rather makes the total number of certificates pale against the potential; be it 9001, 14001, etc.
The purpose of an EMS based on ISO 14001 is not to be certified. In fact there is NO requirement for certification in an ISO management system standard. ISO is NEUTRAL on the conformity assessment option, and in the case of ISO 14001, there are four recognized options. ISO does not issue certificates. ISO does not control the services around conformity assessment, it does influence it.
Being certified does not make you credible; having a robust and credible management system does. Success is in design of your system. There are many qualified, competent certification companies that can add help a company understand and realize the value of their EMS; there are also places you can buy a certificate off the net that are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Users and services surrounding 14001 and the EMS standard have historically focused on the environmental aspects that an organization has that results in impacts on the environment. However, there is a growing understanding that Mother Nature is kicking back, and this is something that leading edge thinkers are starting to address in terms of corporate ecosystem valuation (CEV). ISO 14001 can be very useful as a base for addressing this issue. ISO 14001 is not a dead end document. It does not stop a user from doing more. It is a business tool to help companies formalize management's control over an issue that is rapidly demonstrating just how devastating its absence can be to a business, its supply chain, and the community in which it operates. This equally applies to governments and not for profits; everyone has things they have or do that result in impacts on the environment. Left unmanaged, these legacy issues will result in a debt that has tremendous environmental, economic and social consequences.
ISO 14001 is under the gun by some countries and service groups to be revised, driven in part by the interests of some to force a high level structure across all management system standards. Many are also against this as there is no perceived value in making the changes as proposed. Is this really good use of our time and money? Or should we be focusing on moving the bar from less than a 1% adoption to 13%, or 50%? The clock is ticking.