Posts tagged ‘Environment Health and Safety’
Transparency Begins with Data Management
Connie Prostko-Bell
Meeting the demands of new product regulations requires better data management solutions. We sat down this week with 3E Company’s Connie Prostko-Bell to learn more about this emerging issue and to find out what companies are doing to provide greater supply chain transparency.
GT: Why do companies collect MSDSs and other product data from their suppliers? What is this information used for?
CPB: Operational risk and compliance management is increasingly focused on environmental issues across the supply chain. As companies strive to deliver sustainable ongoing improvements in compliance and risk management, they are closely scrutinizing the management of products in the enterprise, especially chemicals and other hazardous materials, with a special emphasis on fulfilling requirements in environmental, health and safety (EHS) regulatory compliance. A comprehensive view of compliance performance and risk management throughout the supply chain and product life cycle is necessary to promote and sustain ongoing improvement.
This vision is fueled by accurate and comprehensive content, including environmental, health and safety (EHS) product data, such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), which can be leveraged to ensure that the products that are incorporated into finished goods meet legal, regulatory, industry and self-imposed standards. Leveraging this type of data helps communicate to a company’s stakeholders that externally sourced processes and materials do not introduce legal, financial, ethical or market access risks to the company. Furthermore, it gives organizations an opportunity to advance their own value-based agendas by leveraging buying power to enforce desired practices.
GT: What trends are driving the management of supplier-sourced product data?
CPB: Manufacturers with complex supply chains are struggling under the burden of spiraling global EHS regulations. More often than not, they possess neither the requisite internal methodologies nor the necessary personnel to collect, analyze, share, and distribute key information related to supplier compliance and corporate risk across the various functional groups within the organization. Compliance issues such as GHS, REACh, RoHS and Frank-Dodd are driving the need for a common source of product data.
The shifting regulatory landscape also burdens suppliers, who often need help gaining access from suppliers and understanding the global EHS laws with which they must comply. Companies are increasingly recognizing supplier compliance as a critical component of business continuity efforts.
GT: A company’s efforts are only as strong as the quality of its data. How can companies ensure data quality, especially when they are dealing with a multitude of suppliers?
CPB: The number of suppliers can vary wildly from company to company. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that the larger the organization, the more suppliers it will have. Many factors influence this number such as geographical diversity of operations and customers, the complexity of the product line, and availability of the required raw materials. It is certainly not uncommon for a large company to have tens of thousands of suppliers. However, regardless of whether the company has hundreds or thousands of suppliers, managing supplier data can be a very challenging task. Finding, maintaining and acting on data is difficult and painstakingly time-consuming.
It is important that companies use documented, best practice methodologies and direct relationships to gather, refine and maintain data.
When it comes to sharing the information, you should choose an easy-to-use and practical system that meet each customer’s specific needs. The data should be broad, dynamically updated, and of the highest quality and accuracy. Substance- level regulatory data and product level MSDS data should be integrated together to provide a view into the impact of regulatory changes across inventories in the enterprise.
At the product level, from its inception to the present day, the vendor supplied product MSDS has evolved into a document that goes far beyond its original purpose, now serving as a source, foundation and clearinghouse for a range of safety and regulatory compliance data, including classification, transportation, environmental, ecological and disposal considerations. MSDS product-level data should be continuously updated with information and search technologies, documented best practice methodologies and through direct data obtainment relationships with raw material and other chemical product manufacturers.
Connie Prostko-Bell is a Senior Solutions Manager with 3E Company. She has 16 years of EH&S and chemical industry experience, spanning the project management, product safety and product stewardship sectors. She will share strategies for getting accurate supplier data during NAEM’s webinar on the topic Feb. 16.
Meet the NAEM Board of Directors: What are the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week celebration, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to talk about the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012. Featuring Michael Miller of Dean Foods; David Newman; Mark Hause of DuPont; and Verne Shortel of NRG Energy.
NAEM Board of Directors: What project are you most excited about working on this year?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to chat about trends in environment, health and safety (EHS) and sustainability management. Featuring Kelvin Roth of AMCOL International Corp.; Sandy Nessing of American Electric Power Co. Inc.; Pat Perry of CVS Caremark; and John Reichling of CDM Smith.
Small Companies Can Make a Big Difference
Mark Posson
I recently had the pleasure to speak with Larry O’Connor , the CEO of Other World Computing and I came away with a stronger realization that leadership is arguably the largest factor in an organization’s environmental performance.
The company, which was started by Larry at age 14, has been providing quality hardware products and support to the computer industry since 1988. It provides peripherals for Macs and PCs with a focus on higher performance, energy efficient solid state drives to give computer users faster, more responsive systems with battery life approaching that of today’s increasingly popular tablet computers. Since its beginning, OWC has focused on developing innovative products that also meet the organization’s environmental concerns.
Under Larry’s leadership, OWC also has achieved sustained business growth, profitability and environmental excellence. The company’s environmental philosophyis elegantly simple: doing the right thing for the most effective utilization of natural resources makes for good business. And for a small firm, OWC has made a big environmental difference.
How has this enlightened leadership philosophy translated into specific actions? Here are just a few examples:
- When designing a new 37,000-square-foot headquarters and warehouse building in 1998, OWC chose to followed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria. This included the use of porous pavers led to smaller storm water retention basins, allowing for more space for future development. The company also used natural light to lower energy use and boost employee morale. The headquarters building houses the product development and customer s support teams, keeping the jobs in the United States. The attractive work environment has undoubtedly allowed OWC to attract top talent.
- A geothermal heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which produced lower long-term operating costs
- The company installed a 500-kilowatt wind turbine to meet all of their present and planned power needs. Long-term thinking? Absolutely. It’s expected to pay back in 10 to 14 years, a hedge against escalating energy costs, energy self-sufficiency and alternative technology, all of which are good long-term sustainable business strategies.
- OWC also doesn’t rest on their laurels, but rather looks for ways to continually improve its environmental performance. As an example, OWC is in the process of upgrading the efficiency of its conveyor system, its largest production power user. The upgrade is projected to yield a 70 percent reduction in energy usage and increase product through-put.
During my conversation with Larry, I kept coming back to ‘Why? What was driving this desirable business behavior?’ He summed it up for me like this:
“At the end of the day, we work to do as much right as we can for all concerns. By being long-term, we can look at the long-term win-wins for both conserving our resources and with a competitive long-term cost benefit as well. As I had said – very arguably, if there isn’t a long term cost-benefit to a technology in the current time, there is likely something to question about the real net conservation benefit of the technology as well.”
Enlightened leadership: it’s a beautiful thing.
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. He will be teaching environmental and sustainability management at University of California, Davis in the Spring. He recently began offering consulting services to help organizations improve their environment, safety and health performance.
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.
Increasing EHS Value in Tough Economic Times
Mark Posson
Can we do more with less? Absolutely! This tough economy is affecting all aspects of an organization and environmental management is not immune. Today’s reality in most organizations is stagnant or declining resources and a continuing mandate to increase environmental performance. We need to resist the tendency to pull back in tough economic times and instead be introspective and improve the way we execute. We can free up the resources to meet the demands of expanding requirements by continually improving our business processes. The increased efficiency will free up resources and the increased effectiveness will boost performance and stakeholder value.
Strategically, what processes provide the greatest value to our stakeholders? Where can we get our biggest return for the time invested? These basic questions will help prioritize your improvement targets and possibly identify processes that can be eliminated. A ranked list of processes for improvement will guide your pace of change and tactical execution.
Tactically, the simplest path to improve a process is to follow the elements of lean:
- Identify the value to the stakeholder (your customers)
- Determine the sequence of activities (current process flow)
- Identify the activities that create value
- Eliminate activities that do not add value
- Identify process inefficiencies and their cause(s)
- Eliminate the cause(s) of inefficiencies
- Create the new process (future process flow)
- Implement the new process
- Measure results
The steps are simple but often challenging to implement in light of day-to-day execution pressures. We can’t expect different outcomes by following the same processes. The investment in process improvement will provide the payback in better results with fewer resources.
What strategies do you use to do more with less?
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. He recently began offering consulting services to help organizations improve their environment, safety and health performance.
Conviction Alone Doesn’t Compel Change
Kimberly Wallis
This month in our ‘Emerging Leaders’ series, we introduce you to Kimberly Wallis, a master’s candidate at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, and a student member of NAEM. This summer she worked on energy issues as an intern with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
These days, a job in the hand is definitely worth more than two in the bush. No elected official is going to even consider a move that might cost their constituents jobs. So, convincing legislators in Ohio to invest in renewable energy, rather than in coal, one of their main industries, seems like a hard sell. Vague statements about ‘the green economy’ and ‘green collar jobs’ aren’t going to cut it with the legislators or with their constituents. “Maybe I would get better pay at a wind farm,” thinks the technician. “But I don’t know where these jobs would come from, or how many they would be. I’m better off just sticking at my old job.”
How many, where, and how much? Those are the questions the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) tried to answer regarding clean energy jobs in the Midwest states, including Ohio. It’s hard to convince people to give up the status quo for uncertainty, even if evidence shows that the change will be beneficial, so UCS put resources into erasing some of that uncertainty. As an intern there this summer, I helped paint a picture for Ohioans of what a different future might look like.
How would the change affect a household’s monthly energy bills? What would the net jobs increase be, not countrywide but in Ohio? In short, how would investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency impact the daily life of an Ohioan, and is it worth giving up the certainty of the status quo?
It’s not enough to tell people what not to do. It’s not even enough to tell them what to do instead. “Better the devil you know” – and uncertainty is always a devil. Painting a picture of what the future could look like gives people something to strive for, whether they are in your community or in your company. It’s the difference between a mission statement and a vision statement – and as the vision becomes more specific and tangible, it becomes more persuasive.
A call to “decrease waste!” or to “reduce GHG emissions!” isn’t going to convince anyone to give up the security of the status quo. What are you offering them instead, is the question.
When it comes to making the case for new EHS and sustainability programs, what tactics have you found to be most effective?
Kimberly Wallis is a graduate student in environmental management at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, where she focuses on energy issues and effective communication. She is particularly interested in how individuals and organizations change.
What is the relevance of ISO 26000?
Lina Azuero
The concept of social responsibility is not new. It has been around since the 70s, when early discussions on the role of organizations in society began. What is emergent, is the momentum social responsibility has gained and the shape it has taken.
The momentum is everywhere, evidenced through the different principles, conventions and guidelines now available on the topic or its elements, and their level of adoption. Some examples are the United Nations’ International Labor Organization Conventions, the United Nations Global Compact and Social Life Cycle Guidelines; Equator Principles; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); Social Accountability 8000; AA1000 Series and more recently the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility.
So I’m not going to spend time on the momentum, but rather attempt to discuss the shape social responsibility has taken… And yes, this is where ISO 26000 comes in handy.
ISO 26000 is a voluntary, non-certifiable standard, whose value lies in the attempt to compile all of the different elements of social responsibility in one place, define its evolved concept and provide ways to integrate it into the organization. In the past, social responsibility would be seen as purely philanthropic and/or volunteering efforts. While these are important, we now acknowledge that social responsibility requires understanding society’s expectations and evaluating the organization’s capacity to respond them, so that no false expectations are created. In addition, ISO 26000 also defines the seven core subjects that (at a minimum) need to be considered when thinking about social responsibility: governance, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues and community involvement and development.
Thus said, I’d like to make a point clear: The appearance of ISO 26000 doesn’t mean other guideline documents on social responsibility or related aspects are no longer valuable or needed. Contrary to that, they are complementary. The challenge becomes understanding how they interact and at which stage of the process to use them. ISO 26000 is filling a gap between high-level aspirations and reporting by providing a good basis for the “how”.
As with everything, social responsibility has its passionate supporters and detractors. However, if organizations are interested in staying in business for the long-term, social responsibility has to be part of the agenda. So, I’d like to end with a quote from Marc Epstein’s book, “Making Sustainability Work” that really helps getting this point across:
“The issue of whether companies should consider their social responsibility or the impact on their activities … is no longer up for discussion…The challenge has moved from “whether” to “how” to integrate corporate social, environmental and economic impacts—corporate sustainability—into day-to-day management decisions.”
Lina Azuero is a management consultant with CDM, in Cambridge, Mass. She has a graduate degree in Business and Management from Harvard University, and a B.A. in Business and Management from the University of La Sabana in Bogota, Colombia. She is a candidate for a master’s degree in sustainability and environmental management from Harvard University, where her research has centered on social and environmental life cycle assessment in supply chains. She will be presenting during NAEM’s Sept. 8 webinar “New ISO Standards and the Impact on EHS and Sustainability”.
Past presidents’ series: My How Time Changes Things
Dick Pastor
Starting this month, we’re kicking off a new series on the Green Tie, featuring blog posts by the former presidents of NAEM. First up? Dick Pastor, Vice President of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Group.
During his term as president of the Board from 2002-2004, Mr. Pastor oversaw the implementation of the Association’s Management Excellence Certificate at Carnegie Mellon University.
Recently I had a chance to reflect on how time changes things. With the arrival of my first granddaughter, I thought about the differences that I have seen since my kids were born.
I started my career in the environmental field in 1969. The same year the Cuyahoga River actually caught fire in my hometown of Cleveland, and just a few years after an inversion caused a four day air pollution incident in which 80 people died in New York.
So what has time changed since then?
- Size and Concentration: Back then regulators were striving to reduce the amount of pollutants being discharged. Primary wastewater treatment was state-of-the-art, but direct untreated discharge was the norm. Today we are fighting to get to part per billion in discharges and have elaborate treatment technologies to ensure the water is of a better quality than drinking water standards. Exotic scrubbers, injection technologies, and continuous monitoring have replaced the smokestack, and modeling now takes into account not only local impacts but regional transport and soon global impacts as well.
- Workforce Composition: In the early days, if there was a woman involved in the environmental field most people thought that she was there to take notes or get coffee. Today some of our most respected professionals are women heading environmental or sustainability departments for major, worldwide corporations.
- Skills Required: It was understood in the early environmental days that you just had to be an engineer to be able to do anything meaningful in environmental work. Most thought that a bachelor’s of science was not enough but you really needed at least a Masters in a specific engineering discipline to lead and make decisions regarding the environment. If you were not an engineer then you were relegated to a sample taker. Today the skills required to be proficient in environmental work not only require technical skills but also business acumen and interpersonal skills. You now not only understand BOD but also the social impacts of your operations.
So time changes things, but does it change everything? I would say that throughout my career, the one most prevalent thing that has not changed has been the dedication and enthusiasm of the professionals in the field. And for my granddaughter’s sake I hope that it never changes. What have you seen change in your career?
Dick Pastor has more than 42 years of experience in the environmental field, including 18 years of government service with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and 15 years with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Before joining Shaw he was Director, Environmental Services for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., where he developed the environmental management and services program for the company, going from a staff of 1 to a staff of 27 professionals. He also played a significant role in the early development of the company’s sustainability program.
During the course of Dick’s career he has taken a personal interest in assisting others in the field with their personal and professional growth. Dick has served as President of the National Association for Environmental Management where he was instrumental in developing an executive training program for EHS professions that helped bring the profession into the Board room. Dick also served as Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, a Board of Director of the National Solid Waste Management Association and a Trustee of the Institute for Professional Environmental Practice.
