Myths, Misconceptions and Roadblocks

ISO 14001 does NOT have to be paper heavy. It is essentially very simple but .......there are a number of myths that start appearing as soon as the term "ISO" is seen.

The most common myth is the notion that an ISO 14001 management system is necessarily huge and that it adds an enormous overhead to the business. This myth is a hangover from poor consulting practices in early quality systems where the consultants were supposedly "experts" and some imposed overly complex systems then sold maintenance contracts. The business manager or owner is the expert about his business and the consultant merely provides useful tools, training and hopefully coaching, to help the business owner to use a management system to increase business efficiency and help the environment at the same time. It is a fact that well implemented management systems save time and money.

I think also we have all had experience of the large company with an ISO 9001 quality system that has not entered the culture of the business and we have been disappointed. We should not condemn an entire system because some operators do not do it well.

One ISO 14001 auditor recently gave a conference presentation in which he stated that the single greatest roadblock currently inhibiting the effectiveness of ISO 14001 certified Environmental Management Systems (EMS) is the shortcomings of Certification Bodies which have to-date retarded ISO 14001's potential. Although the ISO standard has the capacity to be an effective business tool that assists industry to improve environmental performance, there is a need for certifiers, to exercise professional accountability in the environmental audit process and play a larger service delivery role.

Auditors need to use a practical approach to allow for innovative solutions previously not seen by them and to focus more closely on actual improvement and environmental performance. As stated in the last chapter on certification, there are still many auditors who have come from Quality with no real understanding of environmental issues and who are out of their depth. It is good to hear this debate beginning in the certification industry.

People have lots of misconceptions about standards and even what international standards may mean. At a recent World Organic Conference I was even accused of being an advocate of Globalisation when someone asked what ISO stood for and I explained that it stood for International Organisation for Standardisation. She wanted me drummed out of the conference.

Another myth is that ISO 14001 doesn't have any base standards. This is untrue because ISO 14001 includes a commitment to comply with legislation. The business has to make the commitment to comply with legislation and to make continuous improvement.

The benefit of ISO 14001 is that it starts business on a spiral of continuous improvement and it does not matter where the business is when it starts.

The biggest block is the initial expense and most importantly the time commitment during setup which is a definite disincentive. The implementation phase typically takes between six and twelve months and does require a commitment of time while the manager and his staff are working on their business as well as in it. Once in place it save time. Small and medium businesses are usually short of both time and money. They also worry about ongoing overheads and fear the myths.

Another fear is certification costs and this is very real. Certifying bodies have to comply with a series of guidelines that have been written to suit larger businesses. The system of needing a pre-audit, a desktop review and then the certification audit is way over the top for a small business. I asked a European consultant about the situation there and was told that it was more of a "Berlin Wall" than a barrier. The certification guidelines are not designed for small to medium enterprises and some certification bodies charge very high fees. The certification bodies (CBs) need to be flexible enough to certify groups not only individual businesses. Some do this. The certification guidelines are not designed for small to medium enterprises and certification cost is a definite barrier.

Jargon is yet another block. Business wants to "do the right thing" but they do not want to get bogged down over aspects, impacts, objectives, targets and non conformances. I find that helping them identify "issues" first works well. Then once they are listed, and they understand the cause and effect relationship, they can introduce jargon like aspects and impacts which are a block to getting started. I will never forget being asked by a fisherman "what the **** is a non-conformance?" and on being told that it was a way of communicating things that have gone wrong I was told to call it a "*******" communication form" and a Communication Form is what I have called them ever since and found that the name change encourages a whole range of additional communication which enhances the system.

Recent surveys show that publicly listed businesses are implementing environmental management systems at a far greater rate than the small to medium and privately owned sectors. Part of this is because of these myths and misconceptions.

Also I seriously question why the community does not subsidise business to implement management systems that will improve the environment for the common good. We live in a time when our environment has changed so much that it is now beyond our ability to accurately model climate change and we all need to pull together.

The smaller end of town and the rural and regional businesses with much larger distances to travel will be hard hit by climate change because many do not have the financial resilience to make sudden infrastructure changes.

Small and medium businesses need help to get them across the initial cost barrier to implement environmental management systems and the emphasis here does need to be on systems as we move forward. In Europe, small to medium enterprises are subsidised to work on environmental systems to a full ISO 14001 Standard, in groups. The subsidies are carefully controlled to ensure the best value for money and the consultants are selected on track record of successful outcomes and qualifications.
 
Top