Environmental Management » Iso14001

Environmentally Friendly Storage- How You Can Help

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:33:41 +0000

In today’s society, being environmentally friendly is becoming increasingly important to individuals and businesses alike. This can be implemented in an endless variety of ways.

Particularly if you work within the commercial and industrial storage equipment, you may be aware of a standard named ISO 14001.

ISO 14001 is standard which is recognised worldwide, which can direct you on how to implement an efficient and successful Environmental Management System.

ISO 14001 was introduced in 1996 and specifies the required elements for an EMS. It applies to environmental features which the business has an influence over, and which can also be expected to have an influence over the environment.

The standard is aimed at looking at and acting on the relationship between keeping and increasing profitability and decreasing any negative environmental effects. Both can be accomplished with the dedication of your personnel or company as a whole.

Many businesses and organisations, both in and out of the storage equipment industry, have reaped the benefits from gaining accreditation. These include local government, suppliers, public & private sector companies, manufacturers and local, national and international companies.

A range of additional standards are available in this ISO series including ISO 14004, ISO 14010, ISO 14011, ISO 14012, ISO 14013/5, ISO 14020, ISO 14030+ and ISO 14040+.

ISO14001 is the most renowned of the standards and the only one by which it is possible to be externally certified- which adds extra prestige to the standard and, in turn, your company.

As you can see, there are many mutual benefits to be gained from ISO 14001- both to your company’s status and reputation and, more importantly, to the environment.

By: Nicola Sampson

Iso 14001 Environmental Management Systems

admin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:41:34 +0000

The individuals dealing with management system development and improvement are often asked about the relative merits of independent as opposed to combined systems for these two standards – and other possibilities as well.

Avoiding the trap of siding with a particular faction within the organisation posing the question, the logical solution is to integrate the systems from the outset. Much of the required material for the environmental standard already exists as part of the quality management system, and the advantage of having one overall management task is surely a real benefit.

The inspection status of the two standards at the present time (2008) introduces a credible reason for splitting the systems, specifically with regard to the distinct difference in the focus on statutory and legal obligations made necessary by the documents. The soon to be appearing revision of ISO9001, supposedly more similar to the recent ISO14001, should take away this seemingly anomalous condition, although it should still be kept in mind that a company is regulated by legal requirements with respect to the environment, regardless of whether or not it utilises the environmental standard.

The expense of creating a new Environmental management system for registration requirements wouldn’t be much different to the expense of a corresponding Quality management system, where as the expense of combining an environmental piece to a current quality system would most likely be much less. This is simply because of a similar basic document framework with compatible requirements. A certain amount of training would be required, both for management and the employees, although any internal auditors may need a great deal of training and mentoring.

There is an additional financial benefit to putting the two systems together – particularly if both don’t initially exist at the beginning of the task – the good fortune to not include any of the bureaucracy that so often results from retaining a management system with a formal registration, particularly the anomalous Quality Manager appointment. This post is a throwback to the application of Quality Assurance within manufacturing, when Chief Inspectors became managers of quality, and business continued in the way it always had. With the introduction of a combined quality and environmental management system the way is clear to dispense with the management post, redistribute responsibilities to those able to deliver results against those responsibilities, and recognize control and development of the management system to be one of Systems Integrity, with little to do with product or service delivery performance.

Outsourcing part or all of this newly defined assignment would result in improved performance at significantly reduced cost.

By: Ed Bones

Key points of Synergy – Quality and Environmental Management

admin — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:27:41 +0000

s period of decreased business expenditure there is a significant reduction in the willingness of organisations to embark on new ventures, such as the application of ISO management systems. What is in evidence is a rejuvenated drive to delve into policies and strategies that have customer appeal. For us, new business has appeared from the need for organisations to be worried about environmental issues, and ISO14001 has become a focus of attention.

From a study of both of these standards there is quite bit that is the same in the documented requirements, and integrated management systems have become the end result of this similarity. It would follow that an organisation can legitimately claim to be operating an environmentally friendly (and ISO14K compliant) business without having formally adopted the 14K standard through third party assessment and registration.

The ISO9001 document allows for the organisation to take cognisance of requirements not arising from the customer, or statutory legislation, but adopted through choice by the organisation. So apart from the registration, and the public recognition(?) that is expected to follow, the ISO14K standard has little to offer an organisation with a sensibly implemented ISO9001 management system and a determination to develop it sensibly. Herein lies the actual problem with the ISO standards as usually implemented and publicly recognised.

With ISO9001 having the potential to combine environmental with quality issues in its scope, the 14K standard is of little value – as a standard. But it isn’t being used as a standard for management purposes, but for registration and publicity. Arguably the only real beneficiaries of ISO14001 are the registrars. But is this situation peculiar to the environmental standard? I think not.

The ISO9001 standard has as its title – Quality management systems. Followers of the stated rules are told to believe the end result to be constantly improving quality. Quality of what? Certainly not the product, there is no claim for that to happen. Any improvement that happens is an improvement to the system. What constitutes an actual improvement seems not to have been seriously considered by either the ISO standards authority, the registrars, or those who pay for the assessment and registration process.

The real problem lies in the nomenclature and the consequential expectation of all stakeholders. Quality management isn’t just about following systems, but understanding and managing work objectives and procedures. ISO9001 is not about quality management, it may be quality control, even quality assurance, but it is not quality management.

By: Ed Bones