Posts filed under ‘Emerging Issues’
Meet the NAEM Board of Directors: What are some of the lessons you learned in 2011?
In honor of this week’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week celebration, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to talk about trends in EHS and sustainability management. Featuring Deb Hammond of Abbott Laboratories; Stephen Evanoff of Danaher Corp.; Bruce Karas of The Coca-Cola Co.; and Minda Sarmiento of Shaw Environmental Inc.
Past Presidents Series: Has Science Lost its Power of Persuasion?
Craig Liska
I am not a curmudgeon, but since Andy Rooney is no longer with us to continue his long-time “60 Minutes” tradition, I thought I would take a crack at being one…
During the 32 years I’ve worked in the EHS/Sustainability field, I’ve noticed that many EHS professionals inherently want to do “the right thing,” and are much more comfortable than most people using science as a means to help decide what is right. Traditionally, one of our profession’s biggest challenges has been convincing senior management that what is scientifically the “the right thing” to do can also be good for the business. And using a scientific rationale has typically been more appealing to the public as well. Customers and end users are more likely to rally around an idea based on good science rather than one motivated by political ideals, and I think trust has much to do with this.
Have you noticed, though, that recently there seems to be a growing tendency to defer to the short and simple solution regardless of what may be scientifically correct?
One example of this that you might have encountered is the use of recycled paper. Everyone agrees that using recycled paper is good for the environment because it keeps paper out of the landfill and reduces carbon emissions. So, the simple solution has been to use as much recycled paper as possible in every type of paper. But what if good science (Life Cycle Assessment) tells you that it is not that simple and finds that it actually depends on which type of paper you are reusing it in?
Using recycled paper in magazines can require significant processing to remove the inks before it is bright enough for use, while using recycled paper in cardboard boxes would require less de-inking with their lower brightness requirements. This extra processing usually involves fossil fuel-based electricity along with higher CO2 emissions. Most of the energy used to make virgin magazine paper, on the other hand, comes from renewable energy. Although it requires more energy to make than recycled paper, virgin paper may wind up having lower carbon emissions (thanks to the use of renewables).
So, which is better to use: recycled paper or virgin paper? The answer is, “It depends.” Unfortunately, many people don’t like that answer or want to spend the time to understand the issue more clearly. I find one of the biggest challenges in our profession is being able to communicate that complex, scientific “right thing to do” in simple terms that are persuasive. I am sure you all have similar stories on digging too deep into the weeds.
What have been your successes in communicating complex solutions in simple terms?
Craig Liska is Vice President of Sustainability for Verso Paper Corp., where he is responsible for integrating Verso’s sustainability philosophy of balancing environmental, social and economic values into decisions affecting all aspects of the business. This involves decisions from wood/fiber procurement and manufacturing to product development and final disposition of products. Prior to joining Verso, Mr. Liska worked for Motorola, where he was Corporate Director for International EHS and had a history of increased EHS responsibilities both at the manufacturing plant and corporate management level. He also has experience at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, holding various positions of increasing responsibility. He was the President of NAEM in 2005.
Can engaged employees transform the U.S. economy?
Alex Pollock
Now that the world population has surpassed the seven billion marker, the “sustainability” word is getting lots of play once again. The call-to-action bugles are again warning us of a pending global catastrophe. What could suddenly create “worldwide peace, global well-being and extraordinary advancement in human development?”
In a new book, “The Coming Jobs War,” author Jim Clifton says a solution is the appearance of a whopping 1.8 billion “good” jobs. These are jobs that provide at least 30 hours of work per week and a steady pay check. Clifton believes that the country that can best achieve job growth coupled with GDP growth will be the dominant world force.
Can the United States be this global force?
Clifton believes the explosion of entrepreneurship that GDP growth requires won’t happen here until the country doubles its number of “engaged” employees: those who are using their talents every day, yielding great results, emotionally committed and are working consistently with high energy and enthusiasm.
This number currently stands at 28 percent nationally. Going from 30 million to 60 million engaged workers will “change the face of America more than any leadership institution, trillions of stimulus dollars, or any law or policy imaginable,” Clifton argues.
But as long as “one in five U.S. managers are “dangerously lousy,” these “high-energy workplaces” will elude us, Clifton says. “Fire all lousy managers today” is an imperative, he argues, because nothing fixes bad managers: not coaching, competency training, incentives or warnings. In his experience “bad managers never get better.”
What’s your reaction to his analysis? Clearly there is an opportunity for each of us is to contribute to the creation of these attractive “high energy workplaces” where we willingly give our best every day. We just can’t just afford to be a passive observer on this one.
Leveraging EHS/S Expertise for Non-financial Risk Management
Charles Redinger
Organizational risk management has evolved from a singular focus on financial risk, to a broader perspective that includes enterprise-wide and non-financial risks. Approaches such as enterprise risk management, strategic risk management, value risk management, etc. are morphing into an area called non-financial risk management (NFRM). A paradox in this arena is that even though risk management is important, it is fragmented, siloed and poorly integrated in companies. NFRM frameworks are weak or non-existent.
A solution to this paradox can be found right down hall in the EHS/S (environmental, health, safety and sustainability) department. But the decades of risk management experience that the EHS/S function has, often goes unnoticed because of the historic focus on regulatory compliance.
In many organizations, the EHS/S function is more mature than the broader NFRM function. The challenges that EHS/S has had to address closely parallel the NFRM challenges, such as: comprehensive risk assessment; increasing employee engagement; breaking down silos; developing reliable frameworks; and developing meaningful metrics.
The EHS/S function and its professionals have well-developed structures and skills that can be used to address the accelerate development of the risk management function. This could be bad news for some readers who are worried about more work. On the other hand, it can be viewed as an opportunity to make a significant contribution in your organization.
Consider these EHS/S structures, practices and skills:
- EHS/S departments engage with every operational function in the organization;
- They have expertise in understanding regulatory compliance and “beyond compliance” approaches;
- They have unique sets of data that quantifies and measures a wide range of operations
- They have experience breaking down organizational silos and strength in generating engagement from the C-Suite downto the plant floor;
- They have the ability to analyze data used to predict outcomes;
- They have the skills to design and employ new systems within the various operations of the organization;
- With a robust EHS/S management system, they have a platform to build a strong ISO 31000-based risk management framework;
- EHS/S auditing functions are mature and can support evolving risk management performance measurement activities.
Possibly the most valuable of the above is the ability to quickly develop a strong risk management framework (or you could say, a Risk Management System) using the existing integrated EHS/S management system. The blending of ISO 31000 into a mature ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001 EHS/S MS, provides the strong risk management framework that can unify a fragmented risk management function.
Strictly speaking, ISO 31000 is not a management system. The intent of this standard is to augment existing management structures to achieve risk management goals. Not only can an ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001 management system provide a strong risk management foundation, when augmented with ISO 31000, the converse is also true. A 14001/18001 integrated system can be turbo-charged by folding in key elements of 31000, such as 31000 pieces on “establishing the context” (Sec. 5.3) and with EHS/S integration in an organization (Sec. 4.3.4). Finally, 31000 provides the lens through which a wide range of “risks” can be identified and controlled (Sec. 5.4 and 5.5), such as those associated with social responsibility, sustainability, and supply-chain issues.
When it comes to developing a framework for addressing non-financial risks, what has been your company’s approach? What other lessons do you think we could learn from the evolution of the EHS/S function?
Dr. Charles Redinger is a principal with Redinger EHS in Harvard, Mass. He has been at the forefront of environmental health & safety (EHS) management system and performance measurement research and methods development since the early 1990s. He has been a member of the US TAG to ISO 31000 on Risk Management. He has also served as the Chair of the AIHA Risk Assessment and Management Committees, and is currently serving as a national Director for AIHA. He is a Director at the Center for Safety and Health Sustainability and is a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
