Posts tagged ‘Environment Health and Safety’
Adding the Big “S” Doesn’t Always Make it Sustainable
Mark C. Coleman
Does it seem as if environmental, health, and safety (EHS) professionals are getting longer titles? In the past year I have participated in many conferences and workshops, including NAEM’s well-attended 2011 EHS Management Forum, “EHS & Sustainability Success in the New Economic Era” in Tucson last fall. Call it a qualitative trend, but more EHS professionals now have “Sustainability” as part of their professional title. This should come as no major surprise, particularly as companies, small and large, begin to formally address sustainability within their daily operations, strategic planning and management of their enterprise.
Sustainability is serious business and it is the new and in-vogue “big S” confronting stakeholder engagement, current affairs and future competitiveness of corporations. Understanding the business context of, and taking action on, sustainability, requires support and engagement from all corporate functions (i.e., C- suite, EHS, legal, marketing, HR, public affairs, finance, manufacturing, and so on). Corporations can gain or lose ground on the “big S” depending upon how they align internal resources and pursue sustainability as a business strategy.
While this is anecdotal, it seems as if more companies have added the “big S” of sustainability to their traditional EHS functions more rapidly in the past two years. This begs the questions: Are EHS organizations equipped and prepared to deliver upon the “big S”?, Is EHS the right corporate function to lead the “big S”?, Is the “big S” truly being addressed in the company, or is it simply an additional title to maintain appearances?
These questions are highly consequential, not only to the viability of addressing sustainability in a deliberate and strategic way, but also to the success of the EHS organization, and the long-term performance, reputation and impact of the corporation. Given the challenges of the global economic environment, and amid many internal-and-external stakeholder pressures, many organizations are facing resource and talent constraints in trying to address all issues or being all things to all people. And, another responsibility, albeit a very ambiguous one at that in the “big S”, can tax those already-constrained resources.
So what to do? The following questions provide a framework for initiating critical thinking behind whether the “big S” should be part of your EHS organization, and to what degree your organization is prepared to assume responsibility for sustainability within your traditional EHS framework.
- Strategic Orientation: Does your company have a sustainability strategy? How was the strategy initiated? Has the strategy been adopted? Who is responsible and accountable to ensuring the strategy is achieved? Have processes and metrics been established to monitor and measure the performance and impact of your strategy? How frequently is your sustainability performance reviewed? Is your sustainability strategy an integral part of your overall corporate strategy?
- Current State of Affairs: What stage of development are your sustainability efforts within your corporation? Are there formal strategies, programs, processes and people dedicated to your sustainability efforts?
- Accountability: Who is responsible and accountable for ensuring your sustainability strategy is enacted, measured and integrated throughout the company? What is the scope of influence of this individual? Do they have profit-and-loss responsibilities, or do they serve an enterprise service function? Is sustainability managed as a centralized, decentralized, or combination of both functions within your company?
- Leadership and Governance: Has your senior management embraced sustainability as a strategic priority? Has your sustainability effort been reactionary to market, shareholder, stakeholder, customer needs or issues? Has the corporate board discussed sustainability? Has sustainability been integrated into corporate governance procedures, policies or documentation?
- Engagement: Have people, policies and practices been aligned toward a sustainability strategy within your company? How has this evolution occurred? Who has led the evolution of sustainability within your company?
- Role of EHS: Is sustainability considered an extension or addition to the responsibilities within EHS? What role does or has EHS served in supporting sustainability within your company?
- Integration: Has your company defined sustainability goals and strategy within the context of its people, corporate culture, business, products, history and business strategy? What internal functional groups have participated in the sustainability dialogue and evolution? What is the role of these groups going forward?
- Enterprise Risk Management: Has your organization conducted risk mapping of emerging issues, internal and external stakeholder points-of-view and perceptions, and other factors that influence the sustainability context of your business?
- Customized Pursuit of Growth and Innovation: Are your sustainability strategy and goals customized to your business, products and corporate context? Or are they a “drop-down menu” of disparate programs, metrics and goals that “seem” to be what every other company uses? Is sustainability viewed and pursued as an opportunity for risk management, innovation and corporate growth? Or is sustainability the “extra thing” on your full plate?
EHS organizations have a great deal to offer to the sustainability agenda for business, and can serve as the center of excellence to help bring corporate functions together, facilitate discussion and support strategic planning for sustainability. Benchmarking what is being done in other companies, including assessing best practices on business sustainability, is another service EHS organizations can conduct to provide immediate value to the corporation. Corporate EHS and sustainability programs are currently, and will continue to be, compared against each other as much as your product portfolio and financial performance is evaluated by external organizations. Thus, benchmarking others programs can lead to greater understanding of how others are finding value in, and implementing sustainability, and can lead to a more strategic and purposeful advancement of the “big S” within your company.
Adding the “big S” to EHS titles needs to be a deliberate and strategic decision. And once that “S” is added, we need to be prepared to be accountable to the new title. What do you think the relative opportunities and risks are of adding sustainability to the EHS function? Should any one department have responsibility for the “big S” or should it be attached to everyone’s job title?
Mark C. Coleman manages the Clean Energy Incubator (CEI) at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and is a Senior Program Manager for the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS) and the Golisano Institute for Sustainability (GIS). His first book, “The Sustainability Generation: The Politics of Change and Why Accountability is Essential NOW” will be published in September 2012.
Why You Should Attend NAEM’s EHS Management Forum
Thinking about attending or exhibiting at NAEM’s annual EHS Management Forum? Hear from some of last year’s attendees about why it’s worth the trip.
Emerging Leaders Series: Setting the Next Generation of Sustainability Targets
Margo Mosher
As a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies my days are filled with classes, reading assignments and group projects. With all the school work, it’s not always easy to get out and learn directly from those who put the theory into practice every day. Fortunately, my Business and the Environment Consulting Clinic this semester has allowed me to do just that, taking me out of the classroom and into the corporate offices of Diageo, a leading premium drinks business.
As part of this course, Diageo’s Global Environmental Manager, Roberta Barbieri, has asked two colleagues and me to help research what the next generation of environmental sustainability goals for the industry might look like. Like many businesses, Diageo has set impressive 2015 environmental sustainability targets around carbon, water and waste, and has made great progress toward reaching them.
Most of these targets relate to the company’s direct operations. As stakeholders continue to demand greater transparency, however, leadership companies are beginning to establish targets for environmental issues from across the value chain. Diageo is one of these companies and wants to ensure that its programs aim to meet these expectations.
To support Diageo in this area, my colleagues and I are benchmarking Diageo’s current environmental targets and analyzing those of other companies in the food, beverage and retail sectors. To learn about other innovative ways to set targets and future sustainability trends we also spoke to corporate sustainability experts from NGOs, consulting firms and academia.
Our project deliverable will be an analysis of industry-leading environmental targets for the beverage supply chain. Throughout my research process I have wondered how other companies go about setting sustainability targets. After meeting some of NAEM’s members at the Forum in Tucson this past fall, I know that many of you are experts in corporate sustainability. You may also be responsible for setting your company’s environmental targets, so I thought I would pose some questions to you all that I’ve been thinking about:
- Do most companies conduct a risk assessment or materiality analysis to discern which environmental areas are most critical for target setting?
- What matters most when it comes to environmental sustainability targets: The feasibility of the target? The reputational benefit the target may bring? The environmental benefit the target spurs? The cost savings a target could help bring about?
- Does partnering with an NGO help a company develop stronger targets and metrics?
- Are absolute targets always better than relative ones?
Margo Mosher is a graduate student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, where she is pursuing a Masters of Environmental Management. She is focusing her studies on corporate sustainability and will be graduating in May 2012. Prior to attending Yale, she taught urban ecology field studies in Boston as part of the AmeriCorps VISTA program. She is a member of NAEM’s Emerging Leaders group.
Measuring Change (and what Frank Zappa would say about it)
Walt Rostykus
Early in my scuba diving days I learned a critical lesson about measuring progress. While diving in the dark, cold, and fast moving waters of the Pacific Northwest, I learned not to trust just what I saw, but also what was measured.
Watching the gauge for depth and compass for direction was essential for ensuring we were moving in the right direction and at the correct pace and depth to reach our objective. This practice of checking gauges (measures) and comparing the two points of (1) where you were and (2) where you are now, to verify progress and direction, has served me well on road trips, while hiking in the back country and in managing environment, health and safety (EHS) processes. Comparing metrics to verify improvement is a critical element of any environment or safety management system. But I am still amazed at how many organizations do not apply this practice to individual workplace improvements as part of their safety and ergonomics improvement process.
Milton Friedman, American Economist and Nobel Prize Winner, stated it clearly: “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.” This simple act of comparing two points of data to validate change is a core element of EHS management system and continuous improvement process.
During Humantech’s recent benchmarking study of ergonomics program/process management, we explored if and how organizations verify the effectiveness of workplace changes and improvements. We found that:
- Only 59 percent conducted formal follow-up assessments (reassessments) using the same risk assessment tool used in the initial “ergonomic” assessment. Of these,
- 80 percent used quantitative assessment methods, allowing them to compare “before” and “after” scores to verify that the improvement reduced the level of risk. These were predominately programs in the ‘proactive’ and ‘advanced’ levels of maturity.
- 41 percent interview or survey employees as their only or a supplementary method. These were predominately programs in the ‘reactive’ level of maturity.
- 23 percent use a lagging or activity-based method. These included tracking reduction of injury and reviewing project improvement records.
- 18 percent of participants do not conduct follow-up assessments.
The benchmarking study looked at the level of maturity and effectiveness of each ergonomics process and found that all of the highest performers included comparison of before and after metrics at both the program (strategic) level, and at the tactical (workplace improvement) level.
Frank Zappa summarized it well when he said, “Without deviation, progress is not possible.”
I’d appreciate hearing from you about your experience and methods for validating improvement of EHS and/or ergonomics programs and conditions.
- Do you compare before and after, or trust that change happens?
- Are you confident of the direction and magnitude of change?
- How do you measure change? By activity or results? With lagging or leading indicators?
- What challenges have you encountered?
- What best practices have you learned?
Walt Rostykus is a vice president and consultant with Humantech Inc., a consulting firm that combines the science of ergonomics with their unique 30-Inch View® – where people, work, and environment intersect–to deliver practical solutions that impact safety, quality, and productivity. When he is not travelling for work, Walt resides in New Mexico enjoying the great outdoors.
What is the value of water?
David Crisman
This week NAEM’s Upper Midwest Local Networking Group met to discuss regional water management challenges and to explore best practices from around the world. We caught up with speaker David Crisman, Principal of EHS Management Associate LLC, to learn about his research on water management approaches in Australia.
GT: Why did you begin research water management approaches in Australia?
DC: In the case of Australia, what has been the most fascinating to me is the Murray-Darling River Basin. It’s 14 percent of the country area-wide, six percent of the water that falls on Australia falls in the basin. It’s something like half of all the agriculture comes from the basin. Just to give you an idea, 44 percent of the water consumed in Australia goes to agriculture, so you’ve got fairly substantial land area, not so big of an input (because the only input is rain) and a huge water take. And now even in a good year less than half of the water makes it to the ocean. So it’s like our Colorado River.
In Australia, the individual states control resources, so the federal government said, “Wait a second. We’ve got three major states drawing water and as the federal government, we need to say what is the environmental water needed just so it makes it to the ocean so we have aquatic habitat, we have tourism, we have those benefits that we don’t normally think about, rather than throwing it on a rice field.
I thought this was a really good example to look at because as industry people, we don’t think of water coming in; our requirements are always on the water going out. And in the industry, I used to work in (specialty chemicals), water quality was important. If you start taking too much water out of this area, you start having saline problems, you start having acidification problems. Even if I had a plant in this area, you could be saying, “Is it drinkable?” but also, “Is it even useful in a manufacturing setting?” We don’t think of the upstream side. We think of the wastewater side.
So I was really trying to get into that particular issue by taking a look at Murray Darling. I think the cutting-edge thought was what they came up with, which was to create a water market. They said, “The Basin has a finite amount of water and we’ve got to balance this whole water usage and it doesn’t matter if you’re taking it from a well or you’re taking it directly from the river, we’ve got to figure out that balance. It’s a commodity, there’s going to be years it’s in surplus, years that it’s deficient, so how do we, as Australia, buy water to lower the allocation within the Basin so there’s enough water for fish, for flow and all those other things?”
It’s a good technical problem.
GT: What are some of the guidelines of the water market Australia established?
DC: There’s permanent trades that going on – I can actually sell you my rights as a property owner—and there are allocation trades—I can sell you my annual take because it’s low this year. So if the tomato farmer decides it’s more worth his while to sell his allocation this year, he can give it to the guy who owns the vineyard. So what is the value of water? There are also regulations in place to ensure that the way you use the water on your land doesn’t impact others. So the legal framework is critical, too.
GT: How can those lessons be applied to water management in the Upper Midwest region?
DC: Everything has a yin and a yang. So the fact that we have constant supply is really great. We may never think about water coming into a facility, but when we turn the tap, we will have water. The negative is ‘Have I really been thinking of the cost?’ And will that price for water increase? And will it become a variable cost for me? Meaning that one year I will pay x, but two years later it may be 5x or something more. For businesses, it’s probably easier to plan on price than to deal with a disruption. So that’s probably an overall positive.
The next thing is quality. If I can get to a consistent quality grade it’s going to mean less disruption, less upset for my manufacturing process. But that again boils down to price. And then you start to see intangible benefits and impacts. People can’t come to work because their neighborhood is on fire. If you can have consistent supply, you can perhaps deal with drought situations. And of course there are lifestyle impacts in Australia because if you look up Australian water restrictions online you’ll see pages of instructions of when you can water your lawn, do your laundry. That’s at a more personal level but it could reach industry as well.
GT: How close do you think we are to seeing some of the approaches being used in Australia to be applied to the U.S.?
DC: It’s hard to say because it sometimes seems like if we want to focus on an issue, we need to have a crisis. Last year we were dealing with too much water. I think the question of quantity has to be driven by a drought. And certainly the Texas situation if it continues may end up pushing a lot of buttons because those Great Lakes look awfully tempting.
David Crisman is the Principal at EHS Management Associate. As the former EHS Director for a global, specialty chemical company, he is well-aware of the challenges facing today’s EHS managers. He continues to study trends to deal with water supply and quality issues throughout the world.
To learn more about NAEM’s Upper Midwest Local Networking Group, please visit http://www.naem.org/?LNG_Upper_Midwest
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.
