iso14000-digest Tuesday, January 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:10:58 -0500
From: Rob
Subject: EMS templates
Dear Sally Goodman and Connie Glover Ritzert ,
I'm responding to you criticism of templates for EMS.
First off let me make it clear that I am the Director of Marketing and Sales
for GreenWare Environmental Systems Inc., a consulting firm in Toronto,
Canada that specializes in environmental software and publications.
I agree with your assessment of software that provides an off the shelf
solution for EMS, and DOES NOT require the user to invest the time and
thought necessary to development and manage an EMS that suits the site it is
intended for. However, the ISO 14001 standard contains requirements that
must be met by all those aspiring to meet the standard. Therefore a
framework for an EMS that takes those requirements into consideration is
possible. The mistake that some software developers make is to limit the
user's ability to use their knowledge and exercise judgement in conjunction
with the content of the software.
GreenWare produces software for assessing , implementing and auditing ISO
14000 EMS. The software is not databased but document based and the
implementation module results in an EMS manual for the user. The Audit
module provides a full audit protocol, including controls and tests of
controls, through our application of the audit risk module to an
environmental audit. All modules are fully customizable by the user. Our
software doesn't supplant the knowledge and judgement of the individual
implementing the EMS, but rather provides a very effective and flexible
framework for use. The result is a tool that is very effective and increases
efficiency markedly.
Please visit our website for information. I would be very interested in
hearing back from you.
Best regards,
Robert Ganzhorn
Robert Ganzhorn
Director of Marketing and Sales
GreenWare Environmental Systems Inc (http://www.greenware.ca)
Specialists in environmental management information systems
145 King Street East, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5C 2Y8
tel: (416)363-5577 ext.123; fax: (416)367-2653; email: rob@greenware.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:32:04 -0500
From: Connie Glover Ritzert
Subject: RE: EMS templates
In response to Rob and others on the subject of templates - I am certainly not against software or other types of tools to facilitate management. My previous comments about templates were rather terse ( as well as negative). To clarify what I intended
to contribute to this discussion:
Developing, implementing, and maintaining an effective EMS (whether ISO 14001 or other) requires that the organization understand what it needs to manage, how it intends to manage, and how well it is doing what it intends to do ( emphasis on the word "
understand"). In too many cases, I have seen a desire to shortcut the "understanding" process by using a template - a fill-in-the-blanks approach. This is usually self-defeating, not immediately, but in the longer term. Therefore, a little more effort
spent up-front can pay off. This does not mean that the experience of others and whatever tools can be applied are not useful. Whether for small or large companies, a balance between relying on previously developed tools - or templates - and building y
our own system components is probably the best way to achieve a system that works for you.
Software can be useful; tools can be useful; and yes - even templates might be useful, as long as they don't substitute for thinking.
Connie Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
Meredith-EMC
- ----------
From: Rob [SMTP:rob@greenware.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 12:11 PM
To: sally.goodman@dnv.com; critzert@fyi.net; iso14000@quality.org
Subject: EMS templates
Dear Sally Goodman and Connie Glover Ritzert ,
I'm responding to you criticism of templates for EMS.
First off let me make it clear that I am the Director of Marketing and Sales
for GreenWare Environmental Systems Inc., a consulting firm in Toronto,
Canada that specializes in environmental software and publications.
I agree with your assessment of software that provides an off the shelf
solution for EMS, and DOES NOT require the user to invest the time and
thought necessary to development and manage an EMS that suits the site it is
intended for. However, the ISO 14001 standard contains requirements that
must be met by all those aspiring to meet the standard. Therefore a
framework for an EMS that takes those requirements into consideration is
possible. The mistake that some software developers make is to limit the
user's ability to use their knowledge and exercise judgement in conjunction
with the content of the software.
GreenWare produces software for assessing , implementing and auditing ISO
14000 EMS. The software is not databased but document based and the
implementation module results in an EMS manual for the user. The Audit
module provides a full audit protocol, including controls and tests of
controls, through our application of the audit risk module to an
environmental audit. All modules are fully customizable by the user. Our
software doesn't supplant the knowledge and judgement of the individual
implementing the EMS, but rather provides a very effective and flexible
framework for use. The result is a tool that is very effective and increases
efficiency markedly.
Please visit our website for information. I would be very interested in
hearing back from you.
Best regards,
Robert Ganzhorn
Robert Ganzhorn
Director of Marketing and Sales
GreenWare Environmental Systems Inc (http://www.greenware.ca)
Specialists in environmental management information systems
145 King Street East, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5C 2Y8
tel: (416)363-5577 ext.123; fax: (416)367-2653; email: rob@greenware.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:24:22 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Catherine.Duchock@stn.siemens.com] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:41:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Catherine.Duchock@stn.siemens.com
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: cost and time
To whomever can offer information:
I am currently trying to gather information about ISO 14000 to make a
presentation to our top management. One thing they will definitely want to
know is the cost of implementation and an estimated time schedule. Our
company employs approximately 1600 people. We are an electronic
manufacturing facility (a small quantity generator). I know the cost will
most likely be off set by savings we encounter and time scheduling will
depend on a wide variety of issues, but you could send me what you found
was an approximate cost and time, I can at least present general
information. Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated.
Catherine
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:20:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [hwengel@arcadis.be (Heinz Werner Engel)] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 05:58:09 -0500 (EST)
To: iso14000@quality.org
From: hwengel@arcadis.be (Heinz Werner Engel)
Subject: Continuous Improvement forum
Eco-Conseil Europe
246 Ch d'Alsemberg
1190 Brussels
Ph+ 32 2 346 69 70
F + 32 2 346 64 65
E-mail: hwengel@arcadis.be
Brussels, 14th January 1998
Dear friends in the USA,
We would like you to join our network discussing continuous improvement in
environmental management on a net forum.
EPE is the only European, multi-stakeholder, private organisation that
fosters action towards sustainable development. It brings together public
authorities, companies large and small, trade unions, institutes, and
environmental and other NGOs.
Our project is to
- - share experience and best practice;
- - reshape ideas and concepts by discussing with all stakeholders;
- - draft useful guidelines for the existing and future EMAS regulation and
environmental management systems on the road to sustainability.
The overall objective is to deliver some insights thus enriching the EMAS
revision process under way, managed by DG XI.
A limited number of people will meet at least three times in Brussels and
focus their creativity on 12 elements relevant to modern ecomanagement and
the EMAS regulation. They will use all material produced on our forum,
take out the essence and share it again with you. They will be in charge
of drafting guidelines in February 1998 to be used as toolbox to implement
existing and future EMAS and environmental management systems.
The topics which are discussed on our website are:
1. Workers implication, job enrichment
2. Resource management
3. EMS and environmental performance
4. Environmental reporting
5. Company's environmental policy
6. Stakeholder participation
7. Impact reduction and prevention
8. Innovation and ecological product design
9. Audit and verification
10. Environmental performance indicators and ecobenchmarking
11. Empowerment of SME
12. Green purchasing, indirect environmental effects
A short reply from your side would be greatly appreciated
Yours sincerely,
Heinz-Werner Engel
Pierre Arnould
Continuous Improvement - From words to action.
Implementation of the principle of continuous improvement to environmental
performance is a key component of both any environmental management system
and the environmental benchmarking through which public opinion, bankers
and lenders will judge performances of production, products and services.
Debating, sharing and drafting useful guidelines on continuous improvement
is part of the revision process of the EMAS regulation in Europe.
Continuous improvement may have many expressions - it depends from the
actors and the fields they work in. Traditionnaly, the concept of
continuous improvement has emerged from quality management thinking and
has to develop now towards the management of sustainable development.
Product and service quality concerns have to be extended far beyond the
horizon of ethics, environmental impacts and resource management,
eco-innovation and shifting towards dematerialised and sustained
economical and open societies. Continuous improvement is the key driver
in organisations to become centers of environmental excellence.
Environmental excellence is only demonstrated by real creative sustained
actions.
Visit our website: http://www.epe.be and follow the Continuous Improvement link
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:06:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: New FOOD-QUAL Email Discussion List
NOTE: This is an announcement of a new list at QUALITY.ORG. It is being
delivered to all subscribers of other QUALITY.ORG lists. You will get
duplicate messages if you are subscribed to more than one QUALITY.ORG
list. My apology for the unavoidable duplications.
- ------
At the request of many people, including some of you being cc:'d on this
announcement, QUALITY.ORG is pleased to announce that we have created
another topic-specific quality-related email discussion list on Quality
Issues in the Food Processing Industry.
At this time, the list is NOT moderated. If the volume becomes great
enough--and a suitably-qualified volunteer emerges--turning it into a
moderated list is possible.
This list also has a Digest version, which you can subscribe to in
addition to or instead of the "single-message-at-a-time" list. A new
Digest will be generated and emailed to the Digest subscribers whenever
over 25,000 characters have been posted to the list. Digests are not
generated on the basis of date or time-elapsed since the previous Digest.
Digests will also be archived at the QUALITY.ORG website.
As with all lists at QUALITY.ORG, you must be a subscriber to the list in
order to post a message to the list. This also means that the address from
which you, as a subscriber, are trying to post a message must be EXACTLY
the same as the address at which you are subscribed to the list. We use
very good list management software--called Majordomo--to manage the
automated subscription/unsubscription processes. But, it is not artificial
intelligence or intuitive; it has no way of telling that
"john.brown@aol.com" is the same person as "john_brown@cisco.com". All it
does is compare the "from:" line of your attempted post to the lines in
the subscriber file. If it doesn't find one EXACTLY the same, it won't
post the message. So, it's very important for you to subscribe yourself to
the list from the address (if you have more than one) that you expect to
be using most of the time.
To Subscribe to the FOOD-QUAL List:
1. Address your message ONLY to: Majordomo@quality.org
2. In the BODY of your message, place ONLY these two words:
subscribe food-qual
and/or subscribe food-qual-digest (if you want to subscribe to the
Digest version; you can subscribe to
both list versions, BUT each command
line must be on a separate line)
** (DON'T put any other text in the BODY of your message or Majordomo will
try to interpret it against the commands it knows. It won't be able to and
will bounce it back to you.) **
3. Majordomo will respond by sending an authentication message back to
you. You will need to return the authentication code and command line back
to Majordomo@quality.org in order for your subscription request to be
completed. The authentication message will be sent to the address
being subscribed, not the address from which the message originated. We do
this so you can verify that YOU are the person requesting your address to
be added to the list. A common malicious act is to subscribe people to
thousands of lists; so, we request Majordomo to verify the wish to join
the list with the address being subscribed.
4. When your subscription request has been authenticated and completed,
Majordomo will also send you an "informational" file about the list.
Please SAVE that message, as it will also contain instructions telling
you how to remove yourself from the list. It is "bad form" to send your
"remove me from this list" messages to the list itself, so KEEP THE
MESSAGE.
To Post a Message to Everyone Else on the List:
1. Address your posting to: food-qual@quality.org
2. I recommend that all new subscribers to the list start off by posting an
introduction to the other members of the list, to get the conversational
ball rolling. Since it is not a moderated list, the only way any
discussion will occur is when the subscribers themselves initiate it. If
everyone waits around for someone else to post, it will be a very boring
list.
3. Please don't send large attachments with your messages. It's better to
just let people know that you are willing to send them "this file",
whatever it may be, and let those who are genuinely interested request it
from you, rather than forcing everyone to deal with, whether they want to
or not. This way is also much more courteous to your fellow subscribers.
Remember that not everyone may have a similar connection to yours, so
large attachments may crash their system or may be restricted from
receipt. Take the "world view".
4. Please be professional and deal with the issues, not with the
personalities behind the opinions. While the posting may strike you as
"juvenile", there is nothing to be gained from "flaming" or insulting the
poster because you have differing opinions. If I am repeatedly notified of
an obnoxious poster, that person may have his/her subscription removed,
possibly being banned from the QUALITY.ORG system entirely. Remember that
this site is not a democracy; it is privately-owned and -operated. Even as
a subscriber, you are just a guest here. So, behave yourself.
Enjoy the discussions!
Regards.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
President, Associated Quality Consultants, Inc. Fax: +1 703 834 8209
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Online Quality Resources Website and Bookstore at
http://www.quality.org
=============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 98 18:07:51 +0000
From: richard@frey.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Cost Benefits of Implementing ISO 14001
Dear Martin,
You asked about cost and benefit. I will do my best to answer your questions accurately, but it will not be easy because the main parameters which affect the cost and benefits lie in your hands or in your circumstances rather than in mine. Itšs a bit li
ke asking a jockey if hešs going to win before hešs seen the horse.
Project Costs
As a starting point, here are some EMS case studies from my own experience.
1] Rail vehicle assembly facility in the 150 - 250 employee range. Man-days of external support: 25. Certification cost: ~$5,000. Internal costs: difficult to estimate but the quality manager and one or two others on the project team managed it in a
ddition to their existing jobs; pessimistically 2 man-months. Total project time: 5 months. Not counted in the above is the time/cost for actually implementing the identified improvements.
2] Electrical manufacturer in the 150 - 250 employee range. Man-days of external support: 10. Certification cost: unknown but probably 5-6 man-days at the certifieršs rate. Chinese company, HK certified. Total project time: 6 months.
3] Rail vehicle repair with about 2,000 employees in four businesses. Man-days of external support: ~200. Certification cost: unknown but first quoted as $19,000. Internal costs: unknown but probably monstrous. Planned project time: 9 months. Actua
l project time: 24 months.
Example 1 was a prototype and took longer than later sites because of the development work. In addition, the consultant worked as a team member, rather than as an adviser. Example 2 was a young, dynamic Chinese company with a very efficient quality syst
em and great morale. Example 3 got all the basic success factors wrong and drowned in paper. (It was NOT my project.)
Total project costs do not relate to number of employees except as regards training but they are mainly controlled by these factors:
a) Effectiveness, efficiency and worth of existing management systems, particularly quality systems.
b) Organisational complexity - multiple businesses on one site or shared areas = bad news.
c) How well the project is managed; No management support, no clear view of what is wanted, no clear route, no plan, co-opted or unenthusiastic team members, big project teams are all slow death to an EMS project.
Support costs are determined by how intensely support is provided. At the economy end, is ^Ėteacherš mode, where the client is told how, then left to sink or swim. This has the lowest chance of success and the best chance of an unsatisfactory result. ^
ĖTeam memberš mode buys considerably more support time, offering a good result and the shortest project time. It also has the highest support cost.
For the average company, overall project costs are lowest somewhere in-between the two extremes. With larger companies, costs tend to be higher, but will be nowhere near proportional to employee numbers.
Benefits
I am sure you checked out the case studies on my web page. All are taken from published material and all are believed to be reasonably accurate.
In my experience, most manufacturing companies treat environmental costs such as waste as an overhead to be borne rather than something to be managed. For this reason, a company with typical waste streams can take as much as a fifth off this cost without
too much trouble. There is a great deal of literature from open projects in UK companies such as the Aire and Calder Project and Project Catalyst. This last operated in fourteen companies generating savings of $4 million, effectively at zero cost, wit
h a further $4.8 million with pay-back periods of a year or less.
It is perfectly possible to ^Ėcherry-pickš things such as waste minimisation without doing anything about a formal environmental management system. But people tend to slip back into the bad old ways without a framework to hang further performance improve
ments on. I think itšs better to use some of those savings to implement an EMS.
Most managers understand money and pay-back period. Money is nice, and itšs made nicer by the fact that all such savings are net - they go straight to the bottom line, where they are equivalent to a much larger increase in sales.
However, at the end of the day itšs only money. My personal feeling is that the non-cash benefits will be seen to be much more important in the longer term. Things such as better relationships with financial markets, better control over potential liabil
ities, image protection, marketing advantage, product differentiation, etc.
For example, how much would Exxon have been willing to pay its fairy godmother to avoid the Exxon Valdez incident? That sort of PR disaster is a classic example of how a problem with a single operating unit can impact the sales of an entire multinational
structure. This is one reason why companies such as ABB are implementing ISO 14001 at all their sites. They are doing it for reasons of informed self-interest, not just to be nice. Decentralised organisations just cannot manage the day to day affairs
of all their facilities, yet any one could destroy the public standing of the whole.
You may have noticed an announcement from the insurance industry after the Kyoto conference that it would no longer invest in companies unable to demonstrate responsible environmental management.
The proposition behind ISO 14001 is that companies should manage the environmental implications and risks of their businesses just as they manage production or finance or anything else. I would hope this sounds eminently reasonable. If it does not, try
reversing the proposition to see how it sounds: Companies should not manage the implications and risks of their businesses, but just let things muddle along as long as itšs legal^Ę
A Step-wise Alternative
The fact that you are asking about cost suggests that your management may have other concerns. There are some step-wise options which would allow you to get a better estimate of costs and benefits etc. before committing to a formal certified EMS. Those
options include:
1] Add up your energy, water and waste costs. Unless you have had cost minimisation programs in the recent past, allow a portion of these costs as potential savings. Conservatively, allow 10%. Optimistically, allow 20%.
2] Diagnose your quality system. If it is not efficient, effective, valued, used, consider reforming it first. If your quality system is bureaucratic, inflexible, expensive to run, not valued, your EMS will have the same problems.
3] Have someone with implementation experience (like me) do an Initial Review to get a better handle on costs, benefits and preparedness. This cost would be relatively low.
4] Implement ISO 14001 as an informal system, and track the benefits. If you are happy with the results, upgrade it to a formal system. When you are satisfied, upgrade it to a certified system.
Health warning: this is a pitch.
Implementing an EMS is an activity with pitfalls. It is desperately easy to drown in paperwork and show little benefit. A lot of companies had that sort of experience with quality systems in the ^Ė80s. I recommend low-bureaucracy systems with the minim
um amount of paperwork. There are models and methods which have been proven to work in a range of industries and company sizes. Your September 1998 deadline is quite tight unless you start very soon and get the planning right. If you want help, please
contact me direct.
Best wishes,
Richard Frey
Frey Environmental Associates Limited
Specialists in the design and implementation
of environmental management systems.
http://www.frey.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:10:28 -0400
From: Reinaldo Ramirez
Subject: Some Topics about templates, time to implement, and principles.
- --------------BA6B9EE1514E703D796A3BCE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The use of templates in order to elaborate an EMS inhibits the
creativity of people. In more than 10 years of consulting services in
Quality and related topics I learned the most powerful tool in order to
write any class of manual : You must write first the procedures, works
instructions and (quality or environmental) records before you learn
what to write in your manual. Any manual must follows what you "really"
do in your company and must be write in the order your company do its
business. The best template I know is sit down with each person with the
responsibilities refered in the procedure and write each "shall" of the
standard your are using to develop your (quality or environmental)
management system.
Regarding the time to implement: each company have its own time,
considering number of employees, complexity of processess, and, the most
important and forgotten aspect of a good implementation effort: THE GAP
ANALYSIS (How your quality/environmental system compares with the
standard used to implement the system). The mean time to implement after
the gap analisys depends how your current system is separated of the
standard used. For a 50% of compliance at the of the gap analisys:
stimate at least 10 months to implement.
Regarding cost of quality/environmental efforts: your company must begin
studying the overall waste of the system. Purchasing and maintenance are
the most forgotten aspect of waste. Remember that both (quality and
environmental) management systems are based in the Dr. DEMING CYCLE:
PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT. This cycle is fundamental in order to prepare any
quality/environmental management system implementation plan. May be your
company really needs to change the purchasing and maintenance systems
before the implementation of the system (quality/environmental). I
suggest the book (old book) : MANAGERIAL BREAKTRHOUGH, by JOSEPH M.
JURAN. McGraw-Hill, 1964. Chapter 3: Breakthrough in attitudes Other
book suggested is Dr. DEMING`s OUT OF THE CRISIS, MIT 1986, chapter 11:
Common Causes and Special Causes of Improvement. Stable systems, in
order to return to the basics.
Finally, both standanrs (ISO 9001 and ISO 14001) are complementaries
(See ISO 9004-1 : 1994, Chapter 0, 0.1 General, literals d) and e) and
ISO 14001, clause 4.2 : Environmental policy, literals c) and f).
Regards for all in the ISO 14000 discussion group.
REINALDO RAMIREZ
Caracas, Venezuela.
Saturday, 17 January, 1998.
- --------------BA6B9EE1514E703D796A3BCE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The use of templates in order to elaborate an EMS inhibits the
creativity of people. In more than 10 years of consulting services
in Quality and related topics I learned the most powerful tool in order
to write any class of manual : You must write first the procedures, works
instructions and (quality or environmental) records before you learn what
to write in your manual. Any manual must follows what you "really" do in
your company and must be write in the order your company do its business.
The best template I know is sit down with each person with the responsibilities
refered in the procedure and write each "shall" of the standard your are
using to develop your (quality or environmental) management system.
Regarding the time to implement: each company have its own time,
considering number of employees, complexity of processess, and, the most
important and forgotten aspect of a good implementation effort: THE
GAP ANALYSIS (How your quality/environmental system compares with
the standard used to implement the system). The mean time to implement
after the gap analisys depends how your current system is separated of
the standard used. For a 50% of compliance at the of the gap analisys:
stimate at least 10 months to implement.
Regarding cost of quality/environmental efforts: your company
must begin studying the overall waste of the system. Purchasing and maintenance
are the most forgotten aspect of waste. Remember that both (quality and
environmental) management systems are based in the Dr. DEMING CYCLE: PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT.
This cycle is fundamental in order to prepare any quality/environmental
management system implementation plan. May be your company really needs
to change the purchasing and maintenance systems before the implementation
of the system (quality/environmental). I suggest the book (old book)
: MANAGERIAL BREAKTRHOUGH, by JOSEPH M. JURAN. McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Chapter 3: Breakthrough in attitudes Other book suggested is
Dr. DEMING`s OUT OF THE CRISIS, MIT 1986, chapter 11: Common Causes
and Special Causes of Improvement. Stable systems, in order to return to
the basics.
Finally, both standanrs (ISO 9001 and ISO 14001) are complementaries
(See ISO 9004-1 : 1994, Chapter 0, 0.1 General, literals d) and e) and
ISO 14001, clause 4.2 : Environmental policy, literals c) and f).
Regards for all in the ISO 14000 discussion group.
REINALDO RAMIREZ
Caracas, Venezuela.
Saturday, 17 January, 1998.
- --------------BA6B9EE1514E703D796A3BCE--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:09:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Aleksander Mortensen" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:18:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Aleksander Mortensen"
To:
Subject: statistical material iso14000?
Hi!,
I have been trying for some time to locate statistical information on the
uptake of iso14000 in small and medium sized enterprises UK or worldwide. It
seems a hopeless task!
Does anyone know where such information might be found?
Cheers,
.
Aleksander Mortensen
.
University of Dundee
School of Town and Regional Planning
BSc(Hons) Environmental Management Part IV
.
Personal mail: aleksander@oslo.online.no
Research mail: iso14001@online.no
.
Environmental Management Website:
http://home.sol.no/~siljam/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:51:59 GMT0BST
From: ROBERT BAYLIS
Subject: Re: Non-member submission from ["Aleksander Mortensen"
In response to the enquiry about SME uptake of ISO 14001, please see
details of our working paper which I have provided below. This
includes data from a winter 1996/97 survey of industry in South
Wales, UK. It includes questions on implementation and intentions to
implement various EMS options.
Robert
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:09:41 -0500
(EST)
> From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
> To: iso14000@quality.org
> Subject: Non-member submission from ["Aleksander Mortensen"
> ] (fwd)
>
>
> NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
> "Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
> the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
>
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> Bill
>
> =============================================================================
> Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
> Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
> =============================================================================
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:18:53 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Aleksander Mortensen"
> To:
> Subject: statistical material iso14000?
>
> Hi!,
>
> I have been trying for some time to locate statistical information on the
> uptake of iso14000 in small and medium sized enterprises UK or worldwide. It
> seems a hopeless task!
>
> Does anyone know where such information might be found?
>
> Cheers,
> .
> Aleksander Mortensen
> .
> University of Dundee
> School of Town and Regional Planning
> BSc(Hons) Environmental Management Part IV
> .
> Personal mail: aleksander@oslo.online.no
> Research mail: iso14001@online.no
> .
> Environmental Management Website:
> http://home.sol.no/~siljam/index.htm
>
>
Number 14. Environmental Regulation and Management: A Preliminary
Analysis of a Survey of Manufacturing and Processing Companies in
Industrial South Wales. Robert Baylis, Lianne Connell and Andrew
Flynn August 1997 stlg12 (pp113)
ISBN 1 897901 04 6
This working paper is an analysis of the responses of 420
manufacturing and processing companies to a written questionnaire
survey carried out in the industrial part of South Wales during the
late autumn and winter of 1996/1997. The survey was amongst the
largest of its type in the United Kingdom and its respondents were al
st equally divided between small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)
and large companies. The working paper therefore contains much data
and analysis which will be of value to industry, practitioners,
policy makers and academics alike.
Through forty two searching questions, the survey explored: .
regulation: perceptions, aspirations, understanding, relevance and
implementation; . environmental help and advice received; . waste
management: practices and understanding; . implementation of
environmental management tools; . supply chain position; .
environmental improvements undertaken and motivation; . costs and
benefits of environmental improvements; . perceptions of
environmental impact and opportunities; . sustainable development in
practice. This working paper focuses on the effects of company size
on environmental perceptions and practices with the specific aim of
providing a basis for developing industrial and environmental
policies which are sensitive to the differences between SMEs and
large companies.
At present, environmental policy and environmental initiatives tend
to view all companies, irrespective of size, as being the subject of
similar pressures, open to similar opportunities and likely to adopt
similar responses. This is particu rly so in the case of the
encouragement being given to companies to implement environmental
management systems certified to standards such as ISO 14001. This
paper is therefore timely in that it reveals the many ways in which
SMEs should be regarded in d ferent ways to large companies.
For more information about the project and the team
which carried out the survey, please visit its web site
(http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/cplan/pollwaste.html).
Papers in Environmental Planning Research are produced by the
Environmental Planning Research Unit of the Department of City and
Regional Planning. Copies of these papers can be obtained from : The
Publications Secretary Department of City and Regional Planning,
University of Wales, Cardiff PO Box 906, Cardiff, CF1 3YN, Wales, UK.
Telephone: + 44 (0)1222 874882. Fax: +44 (0)1222 874845 (The
12 GBP price is inclusive of postage and packing. Credit card orders
can be accepted.)
>
Robert Baylis
Department of City and Regional Planning
University of Wales, Cardiff
PO Box 906
Cardiff, CF1 3YN
Wales, UK
Telephone + 44 (0)1222 874000 X6243
Fax +44 (0)1222 874845
Web Page http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/cplan/pollwaste.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:40:19 -0400
From: Reinaldo Ramirez
Subject: Statistical about uptake ISO 14000
Aleksander: Try this group: ASK AN EXPERT. E-mail: qsunews@aol.com
Reinaldo Ramirez.
Caracas. Venezuela.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:57:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [Frank Montabon ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:46:23 -0500 (EST)
To: iso14000@quality.org
From: Frank Montabon
Subject: ISO 14000 research
To the members of the ISO 14000 mailing list:
As you are well aware, ISO 14000 is becoming an increasingly important part
of the business world. Here at Michigan State University we have organized
a team to study this issue. As part of this research, we are now
conducting a "matched pairs" survey. We would like to invite your firm to
take part in this important research.
If you agree to take part, we will send you multiple copies of a survey
dealing with ISO 14000. We would ask you to forward a copy of the survey
to different functional areas (manufacturing, accounting, marketing, etc.)
of your firm. We will supply postage paid envelopes for each respondent.
As part of this research, we will create a summary or benchmarking report
based on the data collected. We will be happy to send a copy of this
report to those participating firms that request it.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you would like to
participate in this research, or if you have more questions, please contact
Frank Montabon:
e-mail: montabon@pilot.msu.edu
phone: 1-517-353-6381
fax: 1-517-432-1112
Best Regards,
- -Frank Montabon
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Montabon, CPIM, CIRM
Ph.D. Candidate
N461 NBC
Eli Broad Graduate School of Business
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI USA 48824-1122
e-mail: montabon@pilot.msu.edu
Phone: (517) 353-6381 x276
Fax: (517) 432-1112
WWW: http://pilot.msu.edu/user/montabon/index.htm
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #21
*****************************