Posts tagged ‘Risk Management’

Using Change to Drive EHS Improvement

Stephen Evanoff

Stephen Evanoff

In a business, change presents an opportunity to eliminate environment, health and safety (EHS) risks, and  learning how to initiate and drive necessary change is an important skill for EHS leaders to cultivate.

Here are a few observations on how to reduce EHS risks by taking advantage of change:

  • Identify the relevant opportunities:  One of the key challenges is to explain which opportunities merit your involvement and why. While this may seem obvious to you, it may not be to your leadership or to the project managers who are under pressure to deliver results on schedule, under budget.  There are the big opportunities such as a facility move, consolidation, or expansion, and new or modified equipment.  These offer excellent opportunities to implement fire protection systems, machine guarding, electrical safety devices and ergonomic principles.  New or reformulated chemicals or materials and changes in chemical use offer a more subtle opportunity to reduce EHS risk by substitution, improved control and more efficient use.  New product introduction can be an opportunity to address long-term, regulatory-driven challenges such the European Union Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive or the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) directive.  New customers, contracts and suppliers may be game-changers where EHS requirements are concerned.
    Business leaders need to understand the EHS risks and opportunities that come with these new relationships.
  • Get a seat at the table during the initial planning phase:  This requires networking upfront with key process leaders as well as infusing EHS into the policies and procedures of the engineering, manufacturing and procurement departments. It also means engaging in strategic planning and product development processes.  These relationship-building investments will pay dividends in the long-term.  I have experienced missed opportunities due to lack of upfront involvement, such as failing to conduct a Phase I ESA prior to leasing a manufacturing facility and not specifying fireproof ceiling materials when renovating a building.  Typically, trade-offs in material and equipment selection and capital investments are much more palatable when considered as part of a change.
  • Make the business case in broad, but tangible terms:  When conducting the traditional return on investment analysis that we are all familiar with, consider the financial benefits of EHS- driven investments that improve quality, improve productivity (e.g., more efficient material flow, reduced labor, and shorter cycle time associated with ergonomic improvements), reduce insurance premiums and avoid the cost of regulatory compliance administrative tasks (e.g., regulatory reviews, operating permits, and compliance training).  Lastly, customer and employee satisfaction and retention are highly persuasive aspects of making a business case, if you can do it in credible, concrete terms.
  • Reinforce the value of your involvement by measuring and reporting results: This is often forgotten in the swirl of the work day and the pressure to move on to new challenges.  Once the change has been made and you are operating at steady state, do the analysis and demonstrate that the change has delivered what was promised.  It will make people more receptive to your input the next time a change is contemplated.

What advice do you have for ensuring EHS is included in the management of change process?  What lessons and success stories can you share?

 Stephen Evanoff is Vice President of Environment, Health and Safety for Danaher Corp., a Fortune 250 global science and technology company. To learn more about the habits of effective change agents, tune in for NAEM’s Emerging Leaders webinar on “Strategic Influencing: How to Drive and Manage Change” on Sept. 20

September 7, 2012 at 8:30 am Leave a comment

Measuring the Effectiveness of Your Training Program

James Basore

A few years ago a colleague sent me a research article. The article stated that 90 percent of training resources are devoted to the design, development and delivery of training, yet only 15 percent of what is learned transfers to the job (Brinkerhoff, 2006).  After reading this article, I not only started digging up more research but I also quickly realized that I didn’t have a process or set of tools for evaluating whether our training program at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) was effective.

When I talked to my colleagues, I found out I wasn’t alone. All of us were evaluating whether participants valued the training and whether they actually learned.  Beyond that, many of us also struggled with having the time or resources to evaluate whether our training was having a positive effect on safe work performance or contributing to the success of our organizational goals.

As I began to research the topic of training evaluation, I discovered that there was one dominant model used to evaluate training effectiveness. It is the Kirkpatrick Model. In short, the Kirkpatrick Model is built around a four-step process, in which each step (or level) adds precision, but also requires more time-consuming analysis and greater cost.

The following is a brief overview of each step:

Level One: Evaluating Reactions: Measures how participants value the training. Determines whether participants were engaged, and whether they believe they can apply what they learned.

  • Evaluation tools include end-of-course surveys that collect whether participants are satisfied with the training, and whether they believe the training is effective.

Level Two: Evaluating Learning: Measures whether participants actually learned from the training.

  • Evaluation tools include:
    • Pre-test and post-tests and quizzes
    • Observation (i.e. Did person execute a particular skill effectively?)
    • Successful completion of activities

Level Three: Evaluating Behavior: Measures whether training had a positive effect on job performance (transfer). This is a cost-benefit decision, because this can be resource-intensive to evaluate, requiring a more time-consuming analysis. It may be that a level three is performed for safety skills that have a high consequence to error, where you want to make sure safety skills/performance transfer to the job.

  • Evaluation tools include:
    • Work observation
    • Focus groups
    • Interviews with workers and management

Level Four: Evaluating Results: Measures whether the training is achieving results. Is the training improving safety performance? Has training resulted in better quality, increased productivity, increased sales and better customer service? The challenge here is that there are many factors that will influence performance, so it is difficult to correlate increased performance to training alone.

  • Evaluations include:
    • Measure reduction in number, or severity, of incidents or accidents compared against the organization’s performance (or contract goals).
    • Measure reduction in total recordable cases (TRC)
    • Measure reduction in DART rate (days away, or restricted work)

When it comes to evaluating training effectiveness at your organization, what methods do you use? Has the Kirkpatrick Model worked for you? Which metrics do you collect? How have you evolved your training programs based  on this kind of analysis?

James Basore is the EHS Training Manager for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He will share more details about his training approach in theDriving Success Through Effective and Efficient EHS Training” session at NAEM’s EHS Management Forum on Oct. 17-19 in Naples, Fla. 

August 22, 2012 at 5:45 pm Leave a comment

Aligning Environmental Metrics with Business Performance

Howard Brown

I have been working in the field of integrating business and environmental management since 1980. The growing community of people working in this field has made great progress in recent years. Environmental managers have, for example:

● Developed better techniques and software for tracking, managing, and reporting waste and emissions
● Incorporated waste reduction and recycling into vast numbers of industrial processes and business operations
● Demonstrated to investors that successful companies are the ones with good environmental performance commitments and records (and vice versa)
● Demonstrated to management that good environmental practices can reduce risk and costs
● Proven that companies can protect their brand and asset value through good, documented environmental performance and transparency
● Garnered the attention of investors and CEOs regarding these issues.

In spite of all of this progress, environment and business are still viewed as separate topics with separate (albeit more closely related) goals. The actual intersection at which good environmental and business practices become one – the point at which they become truly aligned – has eluded us.

As I have argued in previous Green Tie posts, I am now convinced that the ultimate key to aligning business and environment is managing resources, not just waste and emissions. Many of you have heard me say, “The more you use, the more you lose, no matter how good you are at managing what you are losing.”

As companies grow and use more, they generally waste more. I’m not just talking about waste as it is typically defined, as a byproduct of industrial processes (what’s hauled away or dispersed as air and water emissions). The definition of waste has to be expanded to mean the use of any resources that aren’t essential to delivering benefits to customers. By this definition, most of what goes into delivering our products and services is waste. But even if we accept that resource use is a decent proxy for environmental performance, what about business performance?

To get alignment you have to step back and look at the whole. Access to key resources will be the critical issue for business in the coming decades. Every nation and every business will be jockeying to secure supplies of the lowest-cost resources to meet their needs. In fact, the game of resource management and competition is already well underway. We are quickly reaching the point at which maneuvering with supplier contracts, influencing national economic policy, and other such techniques will not do the trick.

Finding truly innovative ways to deliver more value – to deliver more benefits to customers with less resources – will increasingly become the basis for controlling costs, reducing risks, pleasing investors, differentiating products and services in the marketplace, and gaining competitive advantage. This is the direction in which companies will focus innovation, as well as the method they will use to most effectively reduce environmental impacts.

 

Howard Brown is co-founder of dMASS, Inc. and a co-author of the new book “Naked Value: Six Things Every Business Leader Needs to Know About Resources, Innovation & Competition“. 

August 16, 2012 at 2:59 pm 1 comment

Sandy Stash: “Not on my watch”

With more than 30 years in the oil and gas, and hard rock and coal mining industries, Sandy Stash has significant experience representing business on controversial natural resource, public health and environmental issues.   A petroleum engineer by training, she spent her early career as one of the first women to work as a drilling engineer and drilling rig foreman at ARCO locations across North America. Today she is the Global Senior Vice President of Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Operational Assurance at Talisman Energy. Her current project is introducing a holistic operational management framework that will govern risk management across Talisman’s global businesses. We spoke with her at NAEM’s recent Environmental Women’s Leadership Roundtable about her career.


GT: You were one of the first women to work as a drilling engineer. What was it like for you back then?

SS: Actually, it was a blast! In all seriousness, I made a conscious decision, particularly as a woman, to get some good solid field experience. The first thing I learned about was the equipment. I also gained a better understanding of the culture of the oil industry.  And finally, I learned an awful lot about influencing people because as you might imagine, I was a 22-year-old female thrown on a drilling rig, ostensibly to be “the boss,” yet I really didn’t know what I was doing. I think I learned a lot about how to listen to people, how to influence them and how to build the teamwork necessary to make me successful.

GT: Throughout your career, you’ve also been involved with driving change in a lot of complex organizations.  What are some of the strategies you’ve used?

SS: Well, first of all,  it’s very, very hard work because I think that as human beings we tend to be change resistant, so I think it’s important to take the time to understand everyone’s perspective.  Number two, there’s a bit of collaborative work that needs to be done to come up with a common vision.  In other words, it’s a lot easier if you own part of the change, rather than having someone else telling you that you need to change. The third thing is that once you’ve made the decision, you need to be very clear about who is accountable for the outcomes. And finally, and this may be the toughest part, you’re always going to have some people who don’t want to get on board, and you need to get them out of the way.

GT: You have been involved with structuring the EHS guidelines for Talisman’s hydrofracking operations. One of the most important components you identified was a commitment to transparency. Could you explain why you included that?

SS: Hydrofracking or ‘fracking’ comes under a lot of pressure because of the concerns that people have about the materials or the chemicals that go into the frack jobs.  Truthfully, it’s a very, very small percentage because mostly it’s water and sand, but we feel that we can dispel a lot of concerns and bad information by just fully disclosing  what chemicals are in our frack jobs. And finally, by being transparent about chemical usage and whatever it is, the next very important step is that you actually set metrics to improve, reduce or increase whatever the metric is. So transparency leads to very important target-setting, which is important for all of us to continuously improve our businesses.

GT: You also said that your attitude when it comes to incidents is “Not on my watch.” What did you mean by that?

SS: I think that as HSE professionals we should be preventing accidents, not responding to them. We may always have the need to respond, but the more we can do in the way we design our plants, operate our plants, train our people and create clarity around people’s accountability, the better we will be at preventing accidents in the first place.

For more interviews with speakers from the Environmental Women’s Leadership Roundtable, please visit www.youtube.com/NAEMorgTV.

July 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm 2 comments

Extended Producer Responsibility: Recycling for the 21st Century

Dania Nasser

In April, Dania Nasser, a graduate student at Yale University and a member of NAEM’s Emerging Leaders group, sat down to speak with Michael Washburn, Director of Sustainability at Nestlé  Waters North America,  about why the company is supporting an innovative approach to recycling called extended producer responsibility (EPR).

DN: Michael, what exactly is EPR?

MW: Common in Europe and Canada, EPR requires industries, such as the beverage industry, to pay for the collection and recycling of their products once they reach the end of life. We hope to bring the financial responsibility of recycling back to the industry, while collaborating with municipalities to increase access to curbside recycling and recycling away from home.

In 2010, Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA) supported the launch of an EPR program in the Canadian province of Manitoba, featuring four key elements: curbside recycling, public spaces recycling, commercial/institutional recycling and a public education plan. Results thus far have been encouraging, and will provide key learnings for EPR in the U.S.

DN: Why does NWNA support EPR?

MW: At Nestlé Waters, we seek to capture and reuse every Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage container, so we put ourselves on the front lines of advancing recycling, whether it is in the lab, the field or at the policy level. While PET containers for bottled water make up less than 1 percent of all U.S. municipal solid waste, much work remains to ensure these, and all valuable recyclable materials, stay out of landfills.

It’s really in our best business interest as well: EPR serves as a risk-reduction strategy around our materials. Volatile commodity prices are an issue for us, and the ability recoup materials can help stabilize our costs.

To evaluate how to get our bottles back for creation of recycled PED (rPET) bottles, we examined a variety of recycling programs and found we’d need a multi-pronged approach that includes institutional and commercial recycling, as well as curbside and away-from-home. We see EPR as the only way you can do it, by folding fees into a broad variety of packaging, isolating them – importantly, outside of government – and then using funds derived from those fees to meet recycling goals that are set by state government.

Speaking of recycling goals, we hope that EPR will help to double U.S. recycling rates for all PET plastic bottles to 60 percent by 2018, a Corporate Citizenship goal we set in 2008.

DN: Some states have redemption incentives for in place for people. Did you examine this approach as well?

MW: We don’t want to dismantle bottle bills, but we do want to out-perform them,   and so we are focusing our current efforts on non-bottle bill states. But there are other challenges to consider. Among other issues, bottle bills reinforce the notion that plastic bottles and beverage containers are the problem, when, in fact, these are only part of a broader societal problem in which too much valuable packaging material is going to landfills.

We want to have a deliberate, fact-rich dialogue on what EPR is and how it works, so we are working to launch EPR in states that don’t have a bottle bill, but have good recycling infrastructure and support in place, like Minnesota and Maryland. This will mean we can collaborate around EPR as a new model, without having to delve too far into the relative wisdom or merits of bottle bills.

In addition, we want to engage the kinds of stakeholders who traditionally support bottle deposits so they can come with us on this journey and understand that we can get higher rates of recovery with a different tool, and – from an environmental and efficiency standpoint – can ultimately out-perform bottle bills.

DN: What kinds of industry players and other stakeholders are you working with in support of EPR?

 MW: We’re working with a really broad range of stakeholder groups, including consumer product companies, beverage companies, various trade associations, commodity groups, private haulers, municipalities, state legislatures, environmental NGOs, grocery retailers, other retailers, the forest product industry and more.

I’ll share one example of a stakeholder group. Recycling Reinvented is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to advancing recycling rates of waste packaging and printed material in the U.S. through an EPR model that would require brand owners to develop and fund effective recycling programs. We are directly supporting Recycling Reinvented’s efforts, both through funding and our CEO Kim Jeffery’s leadership as a member of the organization’s board.

In addition, many people are aware of a dialogue process facilitated by a group called Future 500 that has brought together 30 organizations to talk about the best attributes of an EPR program that could work in states in the U.S and how to craft a legislative package and a strategy to successfully pass that package. We’re going to try and move legislation in 2013.

DN: Obviously, you’re hoping for the legislation to be successful. What’s its best selling point from a societal and government perspective?

MW: This is really the most rational approach to what is a challenging dynamic around the disposal of valuable materials in this country. Taxpayers should be uncomfortable with contributing to a system that brings only a 30 percent recycling rate for plastic bottles. So this is deeper than our own interests in the issue. We’re going to see a louder drumbeat growing over time from the standpoint of commodity associations that want this material back, municipal governments who are fiscally burdened by the current system and stakeholder groups that think that companies should shoulder this responsibility. I think that’s where our broader culture is headed—more and more, companies are expected to take responsibility for their products, from the sourcing of ingredients to disposal of packaging.

Dania Nasser is completing a Masters in Environmental Management at Yale University. She is  Director of Environmental Affairs at a New York law firm specializing in environmental and construction law and a member of the Board of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce Green Finance Committee. Ms. Nasser has an undergraduate degree in environmental engineering and a law degree. 

May 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm 1 comment

Five Approaches to Managing Occupational Musculoskeletal Disorders

Walt Rostykus

Walt Rostykus

While working and benchmarking with a wide variety of companies, I hear a range of interpretations of what constitutes an “ergonomics program.”  Unfortunately, the term is being used to describe a mix of approaches (in addition to ergonomics) to managing musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

Several leading organizations are in the process of evaluating and changing their programs to simplify, improve focus and improve efficiencies in addressing and preventing MSDs. Currently, there are five general, but very different, approaches used to manage MSDs.  Companies use a few, some, or all of these to reduce losses resulting from these types of injuries.

1.     Change the Work and Workplace: This approach focuses on the design of new jobs, or changes to existing workstations, tools and equipment to better fit the population doing the work.  This is occupational ergonomics, which has been defined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as “The science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population.  Ergonomics is an approach or solution to deal with a number of problems – among them are work-related musculoskeletal disorders.”

The most effective workplace changes are engineering controls, which are adjustments and changes in the physical workplace to ensure that the reaches, forces and distances are within the acceptable limits of the workforce.  This means designing the workplace to fit people, from the fifth-percentile female to the ninety-fifth-percentile male, to prevent exposure to MSD risk factors for most workers.  Engineering controls have been proven to be effective and efficient through research and benchmarking studies.

A secondary level of control is administrative controls, or changes to the administration of work, like job rotation, rest breaks and slowed pace.  Unfortunately, administrative controls do not reduce or eliminate the presence of MSD risk factors; they just reduce the exposure time.  They can also create additional work and challenges for managers and supervisors as they shift people between work task assignments.

Both of these types of controls are best supported by ergonomists, engineers, and professionals qualified in ergonomics.

2.     Change the Capability of the Person: This approach is based on trying to change the capabilities, fitness and stamina of the individual doing the work.  This is an element of fitness and wellness programs, and includes stretching, exercise and conditioning.  The focus is on changing the individual employee and is dependent upon the willingness and participation of people, as well as their existing physical condition.

Although some organizations mandate stretching before and during work, many find it a challenge to get people to participate in stretching and wellness programs.  In addition, company-mandated stretching programs have not been proven to be effective in preventing MSDs.

Unfortunately, employers have limited influence on the personal health and wellness of their employees, and have no control over pre-existing conditions.  This approach is typically supported by fitness trainers/specialists, physical therapists and occupational therapists.

3.     Change how the Person Performs the Task: This approach is based on getting people to behave differently in hopes of reducing exposure to MSD risk factors.  This is behavioral modification, and may include behavior-based safety programs, training and awareness campaigns, and use of body mechanics.  This requires people to change their perceptions of work and risk, and change how they perform work (consistently throughout the day, week and their careers).

Even when behaviors do change, they rarely have a significant impact on preventing exposure to MSD risk factors.  Managers have expressed their frustrations on “getting people to use safe working practices.”  This approach is typically supported by behavioral safety professionals/programs, training and fitness trainers.

4.     Fit the Person to the Task:  In this approach, the focus is on the individual employee (or candidate), measuring their physical abilities (strength, reach, range of motion), and matching their individual capabilities to the demands of work tasks.  This is accomplished by conducting a Functional Job Analysis and Pre-Work Screening to match the results to Functional Job Descriptions.

It requires an investment in performing tests on each employee and the time to match them to the physical demands of a task.  This practice was in favor in the 1960’s through the early 1980’s but appears to be waning.  It is our experience that 15 to 30 percent of U.S. companies still practice this approach. Companies in which manual material handling and field tasks are common typically have these programs in place.

Physical therapists can provide valid test methods to help match the capabilities of an individual to the physical requirements of a task.

5.     Fix the Person: When people experience an MSD or sprain/strain injury, they must be diagnosed and treated, and then managed in their return to work.  This is medical management, a reactive program to reduce the losses due to injuries that have already occurred.  The need for good medical management is totally dependent on the exposure to MSD risk factors in the workplace and the effectiveness of the ergonomics, fitness and job placement programs in place.  A medical management program is best supported by health care providers (nurses and doctors) qualified in occupational health.

So, how does your organization manage MSDs?

What approach or approaches do you use?

What has worked for you and what hasn’t?

What changes have you made to improve management of MSDs?

April 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm 1 comment

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.

March 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm 1 comment

Older Posts


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 211 other followers

Like NAEM on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter @thegreentie

Categories


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 211 other followers