iso14000-digest Tuesday, April 18 2000 Volume 02 : Number 066
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:25:12 +0100
From: "Michael Bond"
Subject: International Conference
On the 10th May The Right Honourable Michael Meacher, Minister for the
Environment (UK) will be opening a conference which will be investigating
the implications the Integrated Product Policy and WEEE directive will have
on Electronics and Electrical Equipment manufacturers.
Michael Meachers speech will follow the publication of the IPP green paper
and will be the first time he will have made a public speech on the subject
since the publication. The speaker faculty over the two day conference will
include presentations from: Xerox, BT, Motorola, Panasonic, Ricoh, Konica,
Philips, 3 Com, Electrolux, 14000 & One solutions, bank Sarasin, SJ Berwin,
Article 13 and Ernst & Young.
The issues to be covered include:
IPP, WEE, Legal issues, Sustainable Investment, Accountability, Product
Management in a Sustainable Environment, Green Procurement, Take Back, ISO
14000, EMS, Product Stewardship
The conference can be found on our website
http://www.global-business-network.co.uk/page6.html giving you full details
of the programme. The interest in the conference has been very high
particularly now that The Right Honourable Michael Meacher, Minister for the
Environment will be opening the conference.
Sustainable and Profitable Production of Electronic and Electrical Equipment
Two-Day International Conference and Workshops
9th - 12th May 2000, Meridien Excelsior, Heathrow, London
For further information about this conference contact:
Global Business Network, 9 Wimpole Street, London, W1M 8LB
Telephone: 44 (0)20 7291 1030
Fax: 44 (0)20 7291 1001
e-mail: gbn.conferences@talk21.com
Visit our website: www.global-business-network.co.uk
Kind regards
Michael Bond
Conference Director
Visit our Website: www.global-business-network.co.uk
Global Business Network Ltd
9 Wimpole Street
London
W1M 8LB
England
Direct tel: 0044 1553 849945
Direct fax: 0044 1553 849942
London Office
Tel: 0044 020 7291 1030
Fax: 0044 020 7291 1001
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:54:28 +0100
From: "Matthias Gelber"
Subject: EMAS and recruitment
Hi
I have two inquiries:
1) For an EU funded EMAS project I am looking for EMAS success stories from
the south of Europe. Case studies showing economic return will be most
appreciated, but as well non quantifiable benefits will be useful. The
companies will have the chance to be mentioned in a publication which will
be widely disseminated later in the year.
2) I am looking for recent graduate with EMS experience and good
presentation skills for a post in the context of a UK based assignment.
Please contact me by email if you can help me in any way.
Matthias Gelber
mgelber@ibm.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:00:13 +0100
From: "Matthias Gelber"
Subject: Revision debate
As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
This debate has already been happening within the context of national ISO
member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be interesting to get some
debate going within the context of this list.
What do all of you practitioners out there think???
Matthias Gelber
mgelber@ibm.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:03:59 +0200
From: "Prof. Walter Leal Filho"
Subject: Conference on =?iso-8859-1?Q?=93EC?= Environmental Law for the New =?iso-8859-1?Q?Millennium=94?=
PALLAS CONFERENCE ON ^ÓEC Environmental Law for the New Millennium^Ô
The above conference will be held on 12 and 13 May 2000 in Nijmegen, The
Nerterlands. DG Environment of the European Commission, Oxford
University Press, and the Yearbook of European Environmental Law sponsor
the Conference, which will be attended by internationally renowned
speakers from Europe and the United States and who will discuss major
challenges determining the nature and effectiveness of the environmental
policy of the EU over the next decades.
The conference, organised by the Pallas Consortium, includes inputs
from Professor L.J. Brinkhorst (Minister of Agriculture, The
Netherlands), Professor G. Winter (University of Bremen), Professor Y.
Dezalay (CNRS), Prof R. Stewart ( New York University), Dr L. Krämer
(European Commission DG Environment, Brussels) and many others
specialists from Europe and North America.
Among the topics tackled in the event, the following issues may be
mentioned:
* The Role of the EU in the Formation of International Environmental Law
*^ÓImplications of the Use of Private or Public Law Instruments in the
Area of EC Environmental Law
* New Instruments in the Control Climate Change
* The future Role of Civil Liability for Environmental Damage in the EU
* EC Environmental Law and Competition Policy
* The Role of the European Court in Enforcing EC Environmental Law
* Individual Environmental Rights in the EU - A Critical Re-Assessment
Credit points may be awarded to students attending the conference as
part of university courses.
For further information, application or conference brochure, please
contact:
The Pallas Consortium
C/o Centre for Postgraduate Legal Education (CPO)
P.O. Box 10520, 6500 MB Nijmegen
Tel.: +31 24 361 30 90 Fax: +31 24 361 58 38
E-mail: pallas@cpo.kun.nl Website:www.pallas.llm.nl
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 6:30:40 MDT
From: mbilney@harding.com
Subject: re: Revision debate
Mr. Gelber:
Excellent question. Generally speaking, I think any revisions should be examined in light of the changes and new focus in ISO 9000:2000. Ease of integration should be thought out carefully. Specifically speaking, document control might be examined for streamlining and aspect/impact identification and significance might be clarified.
Best regards,
Mick Bilney
HLA
mbilney@harding.com
- ---------- Original Text ----------
From: "Matthias Gelber" , on 04/09/2000 1:55 PM:
As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
This debate has already been happening within the context of national ISO
member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be interesting to get some
debate going within the context of this list.
What do all of you practitioners out there think???
Matthias Gelber
mgelber@ibm.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:58:26 -0400
From: benchmark@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public environmental reporting
Dear Matthias and the ISO 14000 chatsite:
I understand that at Stockholm there is to be a proposal that TC 207 produce
a standard under the ISO 14000 family, on public environmental reporting.
I would be interested to hear the views of the ISO 14001 practitioners of
this list on this subject. In particular, I would be interested to see views
aired on the following issues:
1. Should a requirement for public environmental reporting be integrated
into ISO 14001?
1a: If not, why?
1b: If yes: should this be as a the text revision of ISO 14001? If so, what
kinds of criteria would it contain and what should it omit?
OR
1c: If yes: Should a new Guidance Standard be created on Public
Environmental Reporting?
2a. If no integration is preferred: Where should EMS implementers look for
guidance on public environmental reporting? What are the implications for
auditors of a corporate environmental report separate from the EMS? Would
participants in this site endorse the practice of auditing either/both the
EMS and the report?
2b: If integration is preferred: How should this text or Standard refer to
existing protocols and practices in Public Environmental Reporting? Of
especial interest is the global standard on environmental reporting
currently being created by the Global Reporting Initiative.... see
http://www.globalreporting.org for details.
Best wishes
Riva Krut
Benchmark Environmental Consulting, Inc
111 N. Central Ave, Suite 245
Hartsdale, NY 10530 USA
914.422.2655
Co-author of: ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity, available from
http://www.earthscan.co.uk, ISDN 1853835072
- -----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Gelber
To: iso14000@quality.org
Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 3:02 PM
Subject: Revision debate
>As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
>areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
>opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
>
>This debate has already been happening within the context of national ISO
>member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be interesting to get some
>debate going within the context of this list.
>What do all of you practitioners out there think???
>
>Matthias Gelber
>mgelber@ibm.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:26:51
From: Paul Sinclair Stewart
Subject: Re: Revision debate
At 08:00 PM 4/9/00 +0100, you wrote:
>As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
>areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
>opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
>Matthias Gelber mgelber@ibm.net
Dear all:
As a consultant to the agrifood industry, I can only comment on primary
production applications of ISO, the main points being twofold:
1- the processing sector will be first off the mark (except in forestry who
have been dealing with ISO 14000 for ages), and will then force the
producers to fall in line as far as their inputs/outputs that might
negatively impact the processor's certification.
2- Subsequently, the producers, excepting the massive agrifarm
infrastructures, will be unable to afford to go through the process, unless
the regulations for primary producers allows them to be certified in
appropriate groups...ie: either by commodity, or, as would be more
appropriate for 14000, by watershed, which would be the focus of
environmental impact for farming and aquaculture, and even fisheries (where
watershed = ocean).
So my topic for discussion is:
What is the possibility of the site-specific nature of ISO certification
being mutated for the purposes of primary producer realities to include all
(eg) farms that impact a watershed, or salmon growout operations that
affect an estuary or bay, as a unit, who would be inspected en masse?
********************************************************************
Paul S. Stewart c/o ABIOGEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Marshfield Manse, RR #3 Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island, CANADA C1A 7J7
Tel: (902) 566-4078 email: abiogen@isn.net
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate"
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:10:17 -0700
From: Jordan Ghalib Wahbeh
Subject: re: Revision debate
Terrific feedback Mick,
- - Aspect and impact significance is a good candidate for solid
clarification, as well as the identification components.
- - Integration with 9000:2000, or possibly identical verbiage (where
applicable) from 9K: 2K would go a long way in facilitating adaptation of 14K.
- - "Interested Party" definition is a bit too broad and can use some
tightening up. Also, where it applies needs some "tweaking" to better
define applicability.
- - Overall structure of the requirement can be enhanced similar to 9K: 2K,
where applicable.
Best Regards,
Jordan Wahbeh
At 06:30 AM 04/10/2000 -0600, mbilney@harding.com wrote:
>Mr. Gelber:
>Excellent question. Generally speaking, I think any revisions should be
examined in light of the changes and new focus in ISO 9000:2000. Ease of
integration should be thought out carefully. Specifically speaking,
document control might be examined for streamlining and aspect/impact
identification and significance might be clarified.
>Best regards,
>Mick Bilney
>HLA
>mbilney@harding.com
>---------- Original Text ----------
>
>From: "Matthias Gelber" , on 04/09/2000 1:55 PM:
>
>As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
>areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
>opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
>
>This debate has already been happening within the context of national ISO
>member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be interesting to get some
>debate going within the context of this list.
>What do all of you practitioners out there think???
>
>Matthias Gelber
>mgelber@ibm.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:16:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Stanley Fielding" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond to the poster's address (below), not to me. --Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stanley Fielding"
To:
Subject:
Dear Listers,
A client of ours asked if the Japanese government requires Japanese
companies to do business only with companies that are registered to ISO
14001. I have not heard of this requirement. Can anyone give me either the
answer to this question or give me a contact of someone who would know. I
looked at the JAB's web site but they did not give an email address or phone
number for contacting them.
Stan Fielding
ISO 14001 Business Unit Manager
National Quality Assurance, USA
800-649-5289
sfielding@nqa-usa.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:44:41 EDT
From: DBurd52011@aol.com
Subject: Re: Revision debate
Dear Matthias, ISO 14001 list serve group,
Thank you for the question. You have sparked a variety of concerns.
Here is my two cents worth.
I agree with Mr. Jordan Wahbeh, who mentioned that aspects/impacts language
needs to be mores specifically characterized. Following my general comments
are specific suggestions regarding suggested changes to ISO 14004 language.
Additional to aspect/impact language, I believe Scope of EMS needs to be
clarified in strong, concise terms. As it stands now, ISO 14001 states that
the boundary of the aspect/impact review is that which the organization ^Ócan
control and over which it can be expected to have an influence.^Ô
This language in 14004 does not address this nor insure that the design of
the product and its impacts are included, particularly if they are off-site.
Yet, it is the design of the product that is responsible for between 65% and
90% of the total environmental impact. Design selection is accountable for
the choice of materials, the product^Òs energy consumption, its recyclebility.
By comparison, the manufacturing of the product has a relatively small
overall impact.
In short, ISO 14004 is missing language that would help guide organizations
to include their upstream and downstream entities which they ^Ówould be
expected to have influence over.^Ô
In my opinion, an EMS that does not identify the significant aspects of the
design is like trying to understand the destruction of a raging elephant by
studying its dung and attempting to curb its behavior by putting a diaper on
it.
Best regards,
David Burdick
Quality and Environmental Management Services
4917 SE Aldercrest Rd.
Milwaukie, OR 97222
Tel: 503 654-2070
ISO 14004 language change regarding Aspect/impact review and determination of
significance:
During the research for my dissertation, ^ÓA comparison of American and
European ISO 14001 accreditation requirements and their influences on
registrar practice and organization^Òs environmental performance
characteristics," I interviewed 31 different ISO 14001 registered companies
concerning their environmental performance characteristics. Results
concerning the organization^Òs methodology for identifying aspect/impacts and
the criteria used for determining significance are as follows:
· 20% of the organizations used business and regulatory criteria alone.
· 35% of the organizations used the above plus natural resource reduction
and/or global warming criteria.
· 30% of the organizations used the above plus interested party^Òs input,
bio-diversity criteria, and/or use of an environmental expert.
· 15% of the organizations used the above plus toxicological criteria, Life
cycle analysis, and/or product use criteria
The results demonstrate a need to aggressively educate organizations
concerning aspect and impact analysis and determination of significance.
Many companies interviewed used the ISO 14004 as guidance to impact and
aspect analysis. This guidance suggests using a combination of regulatory
and business concerns as criteria to evaluate the significance of their
aspects. This is inconsistent with ISO 14001, which is asking that
significant impacts be determined relative to the environment.
ISO 14001, clause 4.3.1, asks that the organization identify environmental
aspects in order to determine those which can have significant impacts on the
environment. It then requires that these significant aspects be considered
in setting its environmental objectives. Clause 4.3.3 lists these minimum
considerations for setting environmental objectives, such as legal
requirements, technological ability, financial, operational and business
requirements, and views of interested parties.
ISO 14004 on the other hand, in section 4.2.2-step 4, recommends to evaluate
the significance of the aspect and its impact by using both its environmental
risk as well as business concerns, such as its difficulty to implement, the
cost of changing the impact, how it affects other activities, and its effect
on public image.
The practical result of 14004 misleads an organization in assessing its true
impacts and their significance. It asks the organization use economic and
other business filters during the process of determining significant aspects.
This results in a filtered and biased analysis of their actual significant
aspects as compared to benchmark industry analysis. It does not allow
organizations to truly assess its aspects and nor fully comprehend its
environmental impact upon the environment.
To correct this assessment procedure, the following changes to ISO 14004 text
is suggested:
1) 4.2.2 Step 4 Evaluate significance of impacts. Environmental criteria to
include, in addition to the 4 listed, the following text:
· The toxicity of the impacts: i.e. Carcinogenicity, teralogenicity,
mutagenicity, acute toxicity, bioaccumulation/persistence and disruption of
endocrine system
· biodiversity impact
· green house effect
· regulatory requirements
2) Transfer the following business concern criteria listed in section 4.2.2,
to section 4.2.5-Environmental objectives and targets.
· potential regulatory and legal exposure
· stakeholder input
· difficulty and cost of changing the impact,
· effect of change on other activities and processes
· effect on the public image of the organization
These changes will guide the organization to more accurately identify its
aspects, impacts and the level of significance objectively and relative to
the environment. Afterward, business concerns and legal exposure are then
applied to determine which, if any, significant aspects can be targeted for
programs and objectives.
From: "Matthias Gelber" , on 04/09/2000 1:55 PM:
>
>As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in Stockholm about
>areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I wonder what your
>opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
>
>This debate has already been happening within the context of national ISO
>member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be interesting to get some
>debate going within the context of this list.
>What do all of you practitioners out there think???
>
>Matthias Gelber
>mgelber@ibm.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:31:38 +0200
From: "Pepper, John"
Subject: RE: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public environmental reporting
Dear Riva
Some brief personal thoughts on this. I would not like to see an
explicit link between ISO 14001 and public reporting. Worthy though
public reporting may be, I believe that this would significantly
discourage organisations from taking up the standard. Here in the UK
for example, there are now well over 1000 certificates issued, but the
number of EMAS statements is less than 90. Over 10% of these are from
BP Amoco.
The current revision of the EMAS regulation gives an outline on
guidance for reporting. If you haven't seen it, the EMAS Helpdesk at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/ should point you in the
direct of the latest common position.
Regards
John Pepper
Senior Environmental Auditor
DNV QA Ltd
+ 44 (0) 207 357 6080 (Head Office)
* John.pepper@dnv.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: benchmark@mindspring.com [SMTP:benchmark@mindspring.com]
Sent: 10 April 2000 13:58
To: mgelber@ibm.net; iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public
environmental reporting
Dear Matthias and the ISO 14000 chatsite:
I understand that at Stockholm there is to be a proposal that TC 207
produce
a standard under the ISO 14000 family, on public environmental
reporting.
I would be interested to hear the views of the ISO 14001 practitioners
of
this list on this subject. In particular, I would be interested to see
views
aired on the following issues:
1. Should a requirement for public environmental reporting be
integrated
into ISO 14001?
1a: If not, why?
1b: If yes: should this be as a the text revision of ISO 14001? If so,
what
kinds of criteria would it contain and what should it omit?
OR
1c: If yes: Should a new Guidance Standard be created on Public
Environmental Reporting?
2a. If no integration is preferred: Where should EMS implementers look
for
guidance on public environmental reporting? What are the implications
for
auditors of a corporate environmental report separate from the EMS?
Would
participants in this site endorse the practice of auditing either/both
the
EMS and the report?
2b: If integration is preferred: How should this text or Standard
refer to
existing protocols and practices in Public Environmental Reporting?
Of
especial interest is the global standard on environmental reporting
currently being created by the Global Reporting Initiative.... see
http://www.globalreporting.org for details.
Best wishes
Riva Krut
Benchmark Environmental Consulting, Inc
111 N. Central Ave, Suite 245
Hartsdale, NY 10530 USA
914.422.2655
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 7:12:06 MDT
From: mbilney@harding.com
Subject: RE: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public environme
John Pepper, Riva, et al:
I agree with you John. Such an explicit linkage would likely discourage adoption. It also smacks of overly prescriptive agendas on the part of proponents.
Thanks,
Mick Bilney
mbilney@harding.com
- ---------- Original Text ----------
From: "Pepper, John" , on 04/14/2000 3:33 AM:
Dear Riva
Some brief personal thoughts on this. I would not like to see an
explicit link between ISO 14001 and public reporting. Worthy though
public reporting may be, I believe that this would significantly
discourage organisations from taking up the standard. Here in the UK
for example, there are now well over 1000 certificates issued, but the
number of EMAS statements is less than 90. Over 10% of these are from
BP Amoco.
The current revision of the EMAS regulation gives an outline on
guidance for reporting. If you haven't seen it, the EMAS Helpdesk at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/ should point you in the
direct of the latest common position.
Regards
John Pepper
Senior Environmental Auditor
DNV QA Ltd
+ 44 (0) 207 357 6080 (Head Office)
* John.pepper@dnv.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: benchmark@mindspring.com [SMTP:benchmark@mindspring.com]
Sent: 10 April 2000 13:58
To: mgelber@ibm.net; iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public
environmental reporting
Dear Matthias and the ISO 14000 chatsite:
I understand that at Stockholm there is to be a proposal that TC 207
produce
a standard under the ISO 14000 family, on public environmental
reporting.
I would be interested to hear the views of the ISO 14001 practitioners
of
this list on this subject. In particular, I would be interested to see
views
aired on the following issues:
1. Should a requirement for public environmental reporting be
integrated
into ISO 14001?
1a: If not, why?
1b: If yes: should this be as a the text revision of ISO 14001? If so,
what
kinds of criteria would it contain and what should it omit?
OR
1c: If yes: Should a new Guidance Standard be created on Public
Environmental Reporting?
2a. If no integration is preferred: Where should EMS implementers look
for
guidance on public environmental reporting? What are the implications
for
auditors of a corporate environmental report separate from the EMS?
Would
participants in this site endorse the practice of auditing either/both
the
EMS and the report?
2b: If integration is preferred: How should this text or Standard
refer to
existing protocols and practices in Public Environmental Reporting?
Of
especial interest is the global standard on environmental reporting
currently being created by the Global Reporting Initiative.... see
http://www.globalreporting.org for details.
Best wishes
Riva Krut
Benchmark Environmental Consulting, Inc
111 N. Central Ave, Suite 245
Hartsdale, NY 10530 USA
914.422.2655
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:43:04 -0400
From: DTurner@ysi.com
Subject: RE: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public environment
I agree with those who caution against too much of a requiring of public
reporting. While I am in favor of all the good things about keeping
environments clean, etc., I also find that the ill-informed, self-appointed
ecopolice of the world too often take harmless information and turn it into
a political polemic. Too often their technical understanding is limited or
missing entirely and the mere mention of the word "chemical" strikes fear
into their well-intentioned but misunderstanding hearts.
Unfortunately, I also have mistrust of many in corporations who, though
well-intentioned also, want to put a good face on things for their
customers and the public. Some requirement for reporting without too much
specificity would start the process and allow organizations to learn how to
present information and allow the public to determine what is useful and
what is not. As a company, what I want from a standard is freedom within
broad constraints and some general guidance on what to report. Over time,
the public companies will figure out what is useless and manipulative and
what is informative and useful. It will not be a neat and rapid process,
but I do have faith in the evolutionary process.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 18:22:51 +1000
From: Martin Callinan
Subject: Public environmental reporting
- --=====================_118902354==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Matthias and chatsite,
The initial reaction to obligatory environmental reporting conjures more
negatives than positives in the minds of most companies. It's usually seen as a
move that increases risk and therefore one that ought to be avoided. Choosing
not to divulge information is an easy course to choose, and so employing a
system that removed this choice is not that attractive.
The key problem here is the perception of the risks involved; exposure to
legal, financial, social liabilities, regulatory obligations, corporate image
issues, unknown eventualities etc.
The estimation of these types of risk is not a well-developed process,
companies therefor err on the side of caution. The public publication of
environmental impact facts is surely a progressive measure to improve
environmental performance. It's the perceived cost of such action that is
preventative.
Through public reporting environmental performance is open to any and all
scrutiny and thus provides a benchmark that can be relied upon. And a regularly
updated basis from which to improve. If environmental performance is to be
significantly improved, such reliable tools need to be employed. Improved
assessment of the costs of such disclosure is an area in need of more work and
research.
Incorporating public reporting into an EMS standard is a progressive step
environmentally, though as has been sensibly pointed out, it is not an option
that appeals to commercial decision makers. Perhaps a compromise, which is well
tested, could be the inclusion of public reporting on a voluntary scale but
with a specific continual improvement condition attached.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Callinan
The University of Melbourne
m.callinan@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
- --=====================_118902354==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Matthias and chatsite,
The initial reaction to obligatory environmental reporting conjures more
negatives than positives in the minds of most companies. It's usually
seen as a move that increases risk and therefore one that ought to be
avoided. Choosing not to divulge information is an easy course to choose,
and so employing a system that removed this choice is not that
attractive.
The key problem here is the perception of the risks involved; exposure to
legal, financial, social liabilities, regulatory obligations, corporate
image issues, unknown eventualities etc.
The estimation of these types of risk is not a well-developed process,
companies therefor err on the side of caution. The public publication of
environmental impact facts is surely a progressive measure to improve
environmental performance. It's the perceived cost of such action that is
preventative.
Through public reporting environmental performance is open to any and all
scrutiny and thus provides a benchmark that can be relied upon. And a
regularly updated basis from which to improve. If environmental
performance is to be significantly improved, such reliable tools need to
be employed. Improved assessment of the costs of such disclosure is an
area in need of more work and research.
Incorporating public reporting into an EMS standard is a progressive step
environmentally, though as has been sensibly pointed out, it is not an
option that appeals to commercial decision makers. Perhaps a compromise,
which is well tested, could be the inclusion of public reporting on a
voluntary scale but with a specific continual improvement condition
attached.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Callinan
The University of Melbourne
m.callinan@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
- --=====================_118902354==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:38:14 +0200
From: "Prof. Walter Leal Filho"
Subject: SD On-line and World Congress
Dear Colleagues,
If you know of any courses on sustainable development in Europe (or
distance education courses on sustainability/environment worldwide),
please visit the web
site of Sustainable Development -ONLINE (
http://susdev.eurofound.ie).It is a
comprehensive web site with more than 600 links to 'sustainable
development' and a major initiative on the documentation of
sustainability projects and experiences worldwide. I would appreciate
your help.
In addition, the meeting below will be of interest to those interested
on all aspects of sustainability.Please contact Dr Pasquale de Toro for
further details
(detoro@unina.it). This is a IJSHE-supported event and I look forward to
seeing
you in Naples in a particularly pleasant time of the year!!Regards,
Walter Leal Filho
World Meeting "Man and City. Towards a Human and Sustainable
Development"
Naples, 6 -8 September 2000
The Department of Conservation of Architectural and Environmental Assets
of the "Federico II" University of Naples, with the "Suor Orsola
Benincasa" University Institute of Naples, is organizing a World Meeting
concerning "Man and City. Towards a Human and Sustainable Development".
This Meeting, coordinated by Professor Luigi Fusco Girard, will be held
in Naples on 6-8 September 2000, and it is part of the World Congress of
University Professors (subject: "The University for a New Humanism")
organized on the occasion of the Jubilee of University Professors (4-10
September 2000).
The meeting intends to provide a platform for a critical analysis of the
"Best Practices" to suggest new ideas and new instruments suitable to
promote the humanisation of city development.
Papers are now being called and the deadlines for submission of
abstracts is the 1st May 2000, with the deadline for submission of full
papers being the 10th July 2000.
The programme of the Meeting includes several thematic workshops
according to the following issues of human sustainable development:
Cultural infrastructuring: towards a multi-dimensional rationality
Institutional infrastructuring and "good governance"
Ecological infrastructuring of the city
Social economy, social enterprise and civil society building
Employment and human development
Significant examples in the scenarios of the more representative regions
between humanisation and dis-humanisation, sustainability and
unsustainability
Institutional infrastructuring: Local Agenda 21 and Habitat Agenda
Integrated evaluations for sustainable and human development
Financial infrastructuring of the city
Technical infrastructuring: urban planning and architecture
Integrated conservation of cultural/artistic/architectural heritage in
urban rehabilitation
Immaterial infrastructuring for humanisation of the city and the role of
religions
Colleagues interested to present a paper according to one of the
above-mentioned themes, must send an abstract in English (about 250
words) by e-mail to: detoro@unina.it
before 1 May 2000. Abstract should include the following details: 1)
full name; 2) qualification(s), 3) organisation(s), 4) address 5) e-mail
address, telephone and fax number(s). Each author (or co-author) must
send only one abstract, as a space for the presentation of all the
papers it will be reserved and considering that the different sessions
will be carried out at the same time. All the abstracts will be examined
by the Scientific Committee which will contact authors by e-mail before
15 May 2000. For accepted abstracts, a full paper (about 5000 words in
English) must be sent by e-mail and by ordinary mail (hard copy and
floppy disk) before 10 July 2000, at the following address:
Dr Pasquale De Toro
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali
Via Roma, 402
80132 Napoli
Italy
E-mail: detoro@unina.it
Only the papers arrived before 10 July 2000 will be published in the
CD-ROM containing the Meeting Proceedings, which will be distributed
during the Meeting to all those registered as participants.
For all the other information concerning the World Meeting see the Web
Site:
http://cds.unina.it/~girard/iubi2000
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 06:23:56 GMT
From: "jah asadi"
Subject: Information needed
Dear colleagues,
I would appreciated if you send me more information about the subject
as follows:
>>>>>>> The relations between ISO 14001 and Sustainable Development via
>>>>>>>SubClause 4.3.2 Legal and other requirements" <<<<<<<
Best Regards;
J.Asadi
ja_asadi14@hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:06:26 +0100
From: "Matthias Gelber"
Subject: RE: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public environmental reporting
Riva
The debate about environmental reporting has been around in TC 207 for
years, switching between the integration into ISO 14001, part of ISO 14031
to a separate standardisation item which has been suggested in the past, but
not gone further. There has been as well a report on the subject to the
Chairman's advisory group last year.
There is an environmental management Roundtable in Stockholm which will
address these issues with the purpose to debate it between a wide range of
stakeholders. At TC 207 the discussion is more on communication and
reporting then only on reporting, which is seen as a too static concept by
some people and EMAS experience in Europe suggests as well that a static
"one size fits all" report is not appropriate for all stakeholders that
might have a "communication or reporting need".
Below I have pasted the objectives of the debate at the roundtable, which is
the final session.
It might as well be appropriate here to point out that there will be 3
separate one day public events at TC 207, which will be open to
participation to any interested parties. These will be the Environmental
Management Roundtable, the seminar on EPE (ISO 14031) and a seminar with
looks at the range of ISO 14000 standards. You can get more info on
www.stg.se/stockholm2000
Section #4
16:00 PM to 17:30 PM
> Focused Discussion on External Communications
>
The moderator will lead an open discussion involving all roundtable
participants and the general audience on the following discussion points:
* What is the value of external communications for an organization?
Why do organizations do external communications?
* Should guidance on external communications focus on how to present
information about the actual performance of an EMS as it relates to the
organization's objectives and targets, on how to present information on the
organization's performance in general using environmental performance
indicators, or on a broader set of criteria for external communications in
general?
* What are important principles to be applied in any external
communications?
* What are considered essential content elements of any external
communications?
* What do the various stakeholders of an organization want from the
organization's external communications?
* What forms does external communications take, and what are
considered the most effective forms?
* Should guidance on external communications focus on only one form of
external communications, for example environmental reporting (understood to
mean formal, regularly-published environmental reports), or should it
address a broader range of formats and media?
* How can private sector or voluntary external communications programs
be used in conjunction with regulatory reporting requirements?
* What are the possible value or negative implications of ISO creating
a new document to provide guidance on external communications? Should ISO
develop one?
Matthias Gelber
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-iso14000@quality.org [mailto:owner-iso14000@quality.org]On
> Behalf Of benchmark@mindspring.com
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 01:58
> To: mgelber@ibm.net; iso14000@quality.org
> Subject: Re: Revision debate : Stockholm, ISO 14001 and public
> environmental reporting
>
>
> Dear Matthias and the ISO 14000 chatsite:
>
> I understand that at Stockholm there is to be a proposal that
> TC 207 produce
> a standard under the ISO 14000 family, on public
> environmental reporting.
>
> I would be interested to hear the views of the ISO 14001
> practitioners of
> this list on this subject. In particular, I would be
> interested to see views
> aired on the following issues:
>
> 1. Should a requirement for public environmental reporting be
> integrated
> into ISO 14001?
>
> 1a: If not, why?
>
> 1b: If yes: should this be as a the text revision of ISO
> 14001? If so, what
> kinds of criteria would it contain and what should it omit?
> OR
> 1c: If yes: Should a new Guidance Standard be created on Public
> Environmental Reporting?
>
> 2a. If no integration is preferred: Where should EMS
> implementers look for
> guidance on public environmental reporting? What are the
> implications for
> auditors of a corporate environmental report separate from
> the EMS? Would
> participants in this site endorse the practice of auditing
> either/both the
> EMS and the report?
>
> 2b: If integration is preferred: How should this text or
> Standard refer to
> existing protocols and practices in Public Environmental Reporting? Of
> especial interest is the global standard on environmental reporting
> currently being created by the Global Reporting Initiative.... see
> http://www.globalreporting.org for details.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Riva Krut
> Benchmark Environmental Consulting, Inc
> 111 N. Central Ave, Suite 245
> Hartsdale, NY 10530 USA
> 914.422.2655
>
> Co-author of: ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity, available from
> http://www.earthscan.co.uk, ISDN 1853835072
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Gelber
> To: iso14000@quality.org
> Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 3:02 PM
> Subject: Revision debate
>
>
> >As TC 207, SC 1 is going to debate at the next meeting in
> Stockholm about
> >areas for potential revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, I
> wonder what your
> >opinions are about which areas need to be looked at.
> >
> >This debate has already been happening within the context of
> national ISO
> >member bodies and Liaison members, but it might be
> interesting to get some
> >debate going within the context of this list.
> >What do all of you practitioners out there think???
> >
> >Matthias Gelber
> >mgelber@ibm.net
> >
>
>
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #66
*****************************