Archive for January, 2011
Lord Kelvin and Yogi Berra on managing ergonomics
Walt Rostykus
As a manager of environment, health and safety (EHS) programs, you’ve heard the adage, “What gets measured gets done,” a quote often attributed to Deming, Lord Kelvin and others. The adage and practice is true, but the right goals are not always set nor the right metrics measured. We’ve found this especially true with the management of occupational ergonomics.
Setting the right goal and metrics are essential for an effective, sustainable ergonomics process. The traditional goal is to “reduce ergonomic injuries” by measuring incidence rates of ergonomic/MSD (musculoskeletal disorder) injuries. I call this ‘traditional’ because it has been used by most safety managers and companies since the early 1980′s.
Unfortunately, both the goal and metric are lagging measures of consequences (injury). They do not allow organizations to take action to prevent the loss. Yogi Berra was right when he said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.”
In a recent benchmarking study of ergonomic program management we found that:
- 54% of participating companies still used injury incidence or lost workday case rate (of MSDs, sprains and strains) as their primary goal and measure for workplace ergonomics (a lagging measure of consequence).
- 15% had no specific measures for ergonomics. Instead they considered it part of the total injury/illness rate.
- 31% tracked the level of exposure to MSD risk factors (a leading measure of cause).
The benchmarking study also showed that organizations successful in managing occupational ergonomics set a common goal of reducing MSD risk factors to the lowest level possible. This aligns everyone toward “True North”, a common goal with a leading, proactive measure. The measure is dependent on being able to quantify the level of exposure to the risk factors that cause MSDs: awkward posture, high force and time (long duration or high frequency).
Quantitative tools for ergonomic risk factors provide measures at two levels: They identify the amount of exposure at an individual task or workstation, and they track the progress of improvement across an organization. Additionally, they eliminate the need for and use of subjective assessments, providing valid and objective determination of what is an ergonomic hazard, and what is not.
Use of these quantitative risk assessments provide a measure of MSD risk and allows these measures to be fed up through an organization. With this information you can track risk exposures at the workstation, department, value stream, plant and company-wide levels. This can be a lot of data and create an administrative nightmare just to collate and report the results.
Successful organizations use a common database to collect and report assessments, improvements, follow up assessments and report the measures plant wide and company-wide. On-line solutions provide a comprehensive database to manage the administrative task needed to document your ergonomics program.
So where does your organization stand with management of ergonomics? Are you focused on measuring cause or consequences? Do your goal and measures support a reactive or proactive approach? How confident are you in your current approach to achieve the results your executive leaders expect?
To discuss more ways to improve your ergonomic tracking, join NAEM for the 2011 EHS MIS conference, March 2-3 in San Antonio.
It’s never been easy being green
Stephen Evanoff
Conventional wisdom laments that today’s political atmosphere has become so polarized that the nation isn’t able to establish consensus-based national policy on contemporary environmental and conservation issues like we did in the good old days when both major political parties and the public saw eye-to-eye.
My recent reading of Timothy Egan’s, “The Big Burn – Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire That Saved America” reminded me that it has never been easy being green.
Egan, a Seattle-based, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, outdoorsman, and columnist for the New York Times, tells the story of the August 1910 wildfire that consumed an area the size of Connecticut. The fire swept through parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington and British Columbia in a matter of days, wiping out entire towns, and killing more than a hundred people.
Woven into the narrative of the events around the fire is the story of how President Theodore Roosevelt and Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot were able to establish vast national forests. As they put it, these forests should be for the use and enjoyment of all the people, rather than for exploitation by wealthy individuals and corporations, which had been the case until then. Most of us take the concept of the National Forests for granted. Yet Egan explains how radical the concept was at the time, and points out that there were many powerful forces aligned against Roosevelt and Pinchot.
It makes the reader wonder, how on earth Roosevelt and Pinchot did it. But, Egan shows us that Roosevelt and Pinchot had powerful forces of their own: their vision of what was best for the long-term, well-being of the nation, their energy and personal commitment, and their trust in the American people. The battle of conservation of our National Forests versus consumption by private industry continued throughout the twentieth century. As the twenty-first century emerged, conservation had ultimately prevailed due to reasons both economic and ideological.
I found the story inspiring and relevant to today’s environmental challenges, be they global, national, or organizational. When applied wisely, the combination of a clear and unselfish vision, hard work, and belief in the decency and wisdom of others can overcome significant resistance.
We’ve all fought uphill battles, albeit not on the epic scale of Roosevelt and Pinchot. I’d like to hear your inspiring stories. How have you overcome resistance within your organization to proposed EHS policies? How have you persuaded entrenched interests to support EHS initiatives with long-term benefit to your organization?
Greetings and Happy New Year!
Pat Perry
As the new president of NAEM, I look forward to 2011 with great enthusiasm and optimism. I’m truly honored to be entrusted by you to lead this organization for the next two years.
At the beginning of each new year, I like to try to predict events for the coming year by playing one of my favorite childhood games, Magic 8-Ball. Remember that game?
With the 8-Ball in hand, I asked my first question: Will the 112th Congress pass any major environmental legislation? Answer: “Ask again later.”
Hmm… Let’s try another: Will USEPA look to expand its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act? Answer: “Better not tell you now.”
Okay, let’s try a different track. How about: Will I meet my goals as president of NAEM? Answer: “Most definitely.” More like it!
I’ve set three goals to be achieved during my presidency. These include:
- Next generation leadership: As the largest professional community for corporate EHS and sustainability decision-makers, NAEM has over 1,500 members with about 75 corporate sponsors. The continued success of the association is dependent on strong leadership. We have an obligation as leaders within our companies and as members of the NAEM Board to identify high potential candidates and provide them with development opportunities to position them as future leaders. This goal will focus on development of a program to actively cultivate the next generation of professionals to be future leaders of NAEM and within our own companies.
- Enhancement of our innovative programming through tailored educational learning events: NAEM is fortunate to have a large and diverse membership base. But diversity brings a responsibility to provide relevant programming that speaks to the issues and provide solutions. It also brings the opportunity to create segmented programming based on industry sectors and interest level. This goal will explore the relevancy of tailored or segmented programming, programming readily packaged for chapter use and programming produced for podcast use.
- Building a strong community and membership engagement: One of the strengths of NAEM is its strong community of professionals that provides an unparalleled peer-to-peer network. As we continue to grow, we are remain focused on maintaining a strong sense of community even when we are not together. Our new website provides a social networking platform that is part of the solution. However, we need to look for ways to engage all members of our community to create an all inclusive and well-rounded sense of community. I’m referring to engagement that creates an inclusive and well-rounded sense of belonging.. This goal will focus on strengthening our virtual community and creating a sense of connectedness through active membership engagement.
Over the next few months I will be working to create a plan to deliver on these goals over the next two years. In the meantime, I welcome your comments and thoughts for initiatives to help make these goals a reality. I truly wish you the best in the new year.
Hear Pat discuss her agenda for the new term here:
Sowing the seeds of a new green professional
Luigi Pecoraro
Through my work with environmentally-focused graduate students at the The Stuart School of Business at IIT, I’ve noticed the emergence of a different kind of MBA candidate. Today’s students share a mindset that values creative thinking, purposeful living and championing causes using a professional approach.
Jane recently completed her law degree and passed the bar in July, but is more enamored with the degree she is pursuing in Environmental Management and Sustainability. She plans to start a consulting company that supports the greening of buildings or start a renewable energy company that converts waste to alternative heat sources.
Doug has been an equity trader for almost 20 years, and now he wants to use his agricultural agronomics background and his new studies of sustainable enterprise into shaping and forming environmental policy.
Are these students unique individuals or have the values of sustainability taken root beneath the cultural soil?
I’d love to hear from you. For those of you who are responsible for hiring new talent for your EHS and sustainability programs, what are some of the characteristics of today’s young professionals? Are values playing a bigger role in who enters the field today?
Guest blogger Luigi Pecoraro is the Director of the Career Management Center for IIT’s Stuart School of Business. As principal of Professional Development Programs, he consults on Human Resource and Business Development Issues and is leading the effort to translate the school’s mission into greater opportunities for its students.
How do you achieve what you can’t define?
Mark Posson
‘Sustainability’ means different things to different people. Our use of poorly defined jargon has led us to frequently discuss sustainability in a general sense and many times find we are talking about different things. (In fact, Advertising Age identified ‘sustainability’ as one of the top ten ‘jargoniest jargon’ words of 2010.)
I have been in discussions about sustainability where one person was speaking strictly in environmental terms and another person was speaking about socioeconomic conditions. Once they realized their definitions were different, they could carry on a productive conversation and make meaningful progress.
Clarity, in other words, is critical for success. If we want to make meaningful progress in changing people’s behavior to achieve a sustainable environment, a sustainable society, sustainable planet or sustainable corporation, we need to be clear about what we are talking about and what it is specifically we want to achieve.
It’s now time to lose the jargon and be precise. To help us do so, I think we should change our vernacular to use “sustainable” the way Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it:
“SUSTAINABLE”
1: capable of being sustained
2
a: of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged <sustainable techniques> <sustainable agriculture> b: of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods <sustainable society>”
Another authority I agree with is the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, which defined ‘sustainable development’ in 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The Commission provided a clear contextual definition that worldwide efforts could rally around. Granted, the path to sustainable development markedly varies, primarily based on the starting point of each group, but all are striving to meet the needs of today without compromising the future.
I therefore try to avoid the use of the word ‘sustainability’ altogether in favor of ‘sustainable’ in the context the specific subject: sustainable energy sources, sustainable development, sustainable environment or sustainable economy. This clarity has gone a long way to achieve consensus on issues and solutions to achieving the desired outcome.
Let’s hear from you. What is your definition of ‘sustainability’? Can we add clarity and context by using the adjective and not the noun, and thereby improve the quality of our discussion and our effectiveness in making our world a better place?
Mark Posson is Operations Director for Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company in Sunnyvale, Calif. During his free time, Mark enjoys fishing, hiking, biking, racquetball, public service and spending time with his family.
Understanding Renewable Energy Certificates
Steve McDougal
Renewable energy certificates are a vital tool for offsetting a company’s carbon footprint, but there is still plenty of confusion about how best to use them.We caught up with Steve McDougal, Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development for 3Degrees Inc., and asked him to shed some light on the subject.
GT: What is a renewable energy certificate (REC)?
SM: A REC is proof or verification that one megawatt-hour of renewable energy has been created and delivered to the grid. Power is traded like a commodity, undifferentiated from fuel sources, and a REC is like a claim check that corresponds to electricity generated from renewable resources. It’s purchased separately, however, so the buyer of that REC knows that they’re funding (or helping to fund) the same amount of renewable energy going into the grid as what they pull out of the grid.
GT: Who uses RECs?
SM: RECs are used by a variety of organizations. They’re used by utilities to meet state government renewable energy compliance regulations; they’re used by organizations on a voluntary basis to meet sustainability goals and by green building professionals to earn Green Power Credit points towards LEED green building certification.
GT: What kind of premium could a buyer expect to pay for energy from a renewable source?
SM: For a voluntary buyer purchasing a REC that is sourced from anywhere in the United States, the premium is about 1 percent.
GT: How do RECs help companies reach their sustainability goals?
SM: While businesses may do their best to reduce their electricity usage, at the end of the day, all organizations still need electricity to operate. Unfortunately, there is a significant environmental impact associated with the electricity that they use. The purchase of RECs mitigates this impact, while helping improve the profitability and return on investment of renewable energy projects, thereby driving more of those projects forward.
GT: When should a company use a REC versus a carbon offset?
SM: If you want to “green” your electricity, RECs are the way to go. But they are not meant to be used as a carbon offset for Scope 1 or Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, primarily because RECs are not a precise way to measure greenhouse gas emission reductions. They’re a proof of one megawatt-hour of clean electricity, but they are not designed to balance out the greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impact of energy use other than electricity. Everything else outside of electricity use, from driving your car to burning some natural gas to putting another log on the fire, that’s what you want to use carbon offsets for.
GT: How do you demonstrate value/metrics for those who buy these credits?
SM: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculator provides one look at the environmental impact RECs can have. You can enter the amount of megawatt-hours that you’re buying and it will convert it to a measure that shows the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been generated using traditional electricity generation. It then tells you how these greenhouse gas emissions correspond to the amount of greenhouse gases produced annually by an average car, or absorbed by an acre of forest in a year. Many companies also measure themselves by setting a percentage goal and increasing the amount of RECs they use over time.
GT: Can REC’s totally offset a company’s carbon footprint?
SM: One should always look at RECs as a complement to energy efficiency and conservation efforts, realizing that it’s not one or the other. The best approach is to say, ‘We’re going to reduce our energy use, costs and environmental impact as much as possible,’ using energy efficient technologies and conservation. But even if we do our best, we will still use some electricity from the grid, which will have an environmental impact. And a comprehensive environmental sustainability effort can mitigate this impact by supporting the generation of the same amount electricity from renewable energy sources as the electricity you use from the grid.
Steve McDougal is Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development for 3Degrees Inc. and a member of NAEM’s Affiliates Council. You can hear him speak more about renewable energy credits during the upcoming webinar “Understanding the Business Value of Renewable Energy Certificates” Jan. 13 from 1:00-2:15 p.m.
It’s hard to be present when you’re “always on”
Alex Pollock
A recent USA Today headline caught my attention…. “2010 The Year We Stopped Talking.” Texting and emailing are now our preferred way of communicating. While being breathlessly, deliriously busy has been equated with commitment and value generation, I sense people are starting to push back against this pressure to be “always on.”
One of the ways people are planning to “take their life back” is by re-evaluating their use and dependence on e-messaging tools. How do these devices affect our workplaces and how well we serve as leaders?
Please allow me to fuel some conversation by sharing some observations:
- As humans we need and thrive on our connections with others. Relationships are built through contact…the spoken word, the tone and the expression are vital. Electronic media can help maintain meaningful relationships but they can’t create them. In the extreme, e-messaging can be a cowardly way of sharing information.
- To be effective leaders we must focus on these people under our sphere of influence. Being all things to all people is a foolish pursuit. We must be available to those we have a responsibility to shepherd.
- Too much information of little or no value is passed around. Break the cycle. Lead the way by cutting your e-messages by at least 50 percent and help others do the same.
- Multi-tasking doesn’t work. Dedicate a portion of the day to exclusively reading and answering e-messages. It’s rude and insulting to have one eye ball on a colleague and the other on your Blackberry.
What do you think about our use of e-messaging tools: Have we mastered these devices or have they mastered us? What are your watch-outs with communication technologies? Please share ways that you have found to harness the power of electronic tools. We can learn from you. Thanks!
Turning our attention to water
Anita Dawson
Water availability and corporate water use continue to be an important issue facing our profession. I recently had the terrific experience of chairing the Water Sustainability program at the Auditing Roundtable’s national fall meeting in Philadelphia.
It was clear from discussions with water professionals from companies such as the Coca-Cola Company and LimnoTech that water issues have been, and are, top of mind for many in the environmental profession and becoming a higher priority.
And the issues are typically complex, requiring collaboration from multiple stakeholders.
Indeed, the opening keynote by Carol Collier, executive director of the Delaware River Basin Commission, illustrated the complexity of water management issues for a watershed that serves four states, 838 municipalities and 28 different congressional districts. Here are a few of the basic tenets of water management she shared:
- Water is one interconnected system. Surface water and groundwater supply sources are managed in an integrated system along with storm water and wastewater.
- Water does not recognize political boundaries. It resides in watersheds and needs to be managed on a watershed basis.
- Activity on land impacts adjacent surface water and underlying groundwater. Effective water management requires a coordinated land management effort.
Emerging opportunities, including those for industry and utilities also can affect the water system. For the Delaware River basin, current plans for extracting natural gas from the underlying Marcellus Shale are expected to use substantial water volumes for hydrofracking, with estimates ranging from 3-5 million gallons per well. And as the hydrofracking fluids return to the surface, flowback water likely will contain very high levels of total dissolved solids and may be affected by additives.
With population increases and climate change expected to put additional stress on our water supplies, water sustainability is certainly an issue I’m sure we’ll continue to discuss.
In the meantime, I’d love to hear about some of the work you’re doing to address water at your company. How would you rate the complexity of water issues for your company? Is water management a priority now or reaching priority level? What are the water issues or water opportunities in your supply chain?
Anita Dawson is an active NAEM member, and served on the Board of Regents as Director of Global EHS with Cadbury in the Americas. She has more than 20 years of EHS experience in the pharmaceuticals, specialty chemicals and consumer goods industries, including leadership roles in EHS policy, compliance assurance, and global programs.
