Does anyone have an influenced aspect in your EMS? If so, can you give me some examples?:

:thanx:

Hi Pruetts,

what is an influenced aspect.
Influence on aspects from external sources? Please give me a hint ...:confused:

QMarc

ISO 14001:2004 element 4.3.1 states "The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s)
a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence ..."

I think you are referring to activities that are done by a supplier or vendor on your behalf. Like a waste hauler maybe. Or if you make a part that is plated for you by a supplier. You have influence on those who do things on your behalf so these activities should be a part of the EMS planning by the organization.

ISO 14001:2004 element 4.3.1 states "The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s)
a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products and services within the defined scope of the environmental management system that it can control and those that it can influence ..."



Most aspects can be fully managed and controlled by an organization, some, at a minimum, can only be "influenced." Some are beyond any ability of the organization to influence or control at all.

A manufacturer in Florida can control the raw materials they use, and even influence the material choices their suppliers use, for example selecting a supplier who can plate with Trivalent chrome, instead of Hexavalent.

Therefore, those Aspects should be identified.

There are some Aspects & Impacts they cannot control or influence, like the aftermath of a hurricane. They would not be required to list hurricanes as an Aspect. (They are permitted to list it if they choose.)

However, if they have outside storage tanks with toxic liquids, in a hurricane zone, they would be expected to protect them, if possible, in such a way that a hurricane cannot cause a toxic spill. That portion could be considered within the area they could control or influence, and would be expected to be listed.

Most aspects can be fully managed and controlled by an organization, some, at a minimum, can only be "influenced." Some are beyond any ability of the organization to influence or control at all.

If this is the case hjilling they are not at all aspects of the organization and are not at all relevant to the organizations aspects evaluation process. Read 4.3.1 again please.

If this is the case hjilling they are not at all aspects of the organization and are not at all relevant to the organizations aspects evaluation process. Read 4.3.1 again please.

I'm not familiar with the standard, but can we assume that an "aspect" is defined as a "thing" that can be controlled or influenced? If that's the case then maybe hjilling was using "aspect" in its standard (non-jargon) contextual sense?

I'm not familiar with the standard, but can we assume that an "aspect" is defined as a "thing" that can be controlled or influenced?
Exactly!! Thank you for simplifying.

Even more simple to understand is the following...

Ford, General Motors, Chrysler-Daimler, Toyota, and others have identified their suppliers as "aspects" they have influence over. These aspects were determined to be of some significance and they decreed the control mechanism to be 3rd party registration.

Indeed. The most obvious aspects that can be influenced are the ones over an organization's supplier, but an organization can also influence aspects related to customer aspects, eg, by developing new recyclable packaging and packing materials, as well as create influence over it's employees, such as promoting car pooling, facilitating recycling of household batteries, etc... Just a couple of ideas.

Indeed. The most obvious aspects that can be influenced are the ones over an organization's supplier, but an organization can also influence aspects related to customer aspects, eg, by developing new recyclable packaging and packing materials, as well as create influence over it's employees, such as promoting car pooling, facilitating recycling of household batteries, etc... Just a couple of ideas.

Absolutely. There are many ways to look at 4.3.1. This particular requirement was written to be open-ended and allow freedom, so an organization feels free to apply it loosely. No need to parse it or make it legalese. Interpret it as loosely as you wish. No harm done.

Let's face it. Any aspect and impact that can be improved is beneficial for the planet. So, improve lots of 'em folks, I like breathing clean air...

Even more simple to understand is the following...

Ford, General Motors, Chrysler-Daimler, Toyota, and others have identified their suppliers as "aspects" they have influence over. These aspects were determined to be of some significance and they decreed the control mechanism to be 3rd party registration.

Dear Randy,

I need some help; I am not able to understand how Ford and other companies have identified their "Suppliers" as aspects. If I go by the definition, aspect is "that element of the activity, product and service that can have an impact on the environment", I can think of their "Supply chain (procurement) Activity" (or any of its elements) as the aspect not the "supplier". I would infer that the some of the aspects identified (in procurement etc.), are addressed through operational control procedures (4.4.6) which in turn are applicable to suppliers. I would appreciate your helping me to understand how supplier himself becomes an aspect for these companies. Thanks for your response.

With best regards,

Ramakrishnan

Dear Randy,

I need some help; I am not able to understand how Ford and other companies have identified their "Suppliers" as aspects. If I go by the definition, aspect is "that element of the activity, product and service that can have an impact on the environment", I can think of their "Supply chain (procurement) Activity" (or any of its elements) as the aspect not the "supplier". I would infer that the some of the aspects identified (in procurement etc.), are addressed through operational control procedures (4.4.6) which in turn are applicable to suppliers. I would appreciate your helping me to understand how supplier himself becomes an aspect for these companies. Thanks for your response.

With best regards,

Ramakrishnan
Sorry, I'm not Randy (there is only one!) but I am always keen to join the debate. The idea of the EMS is to think of the whole process from digging / drilling / harvesting raw materials all the way to what happens with your product when the end customer has finished with it. (The so called cradle to grave approach) The larger customers may identify a lot of their significant aspects relate to components and systems they buy in and require their suppliewrs to manage their own activiites - hence the requirement in the automotive supply chain for registration. The standard itself has some examples of how it should be considered in the guidance - Annex A. Examples they give are:

— design and development,
— manufacturing processes,
— packaging and transportation,
— environmental performance and practices of contractors and suppliers,
— waste management,
— extraction and distribution of raw materials and natural resources,
— distribution, use and end-of-life of products, and
— wildlife and biodiversity.

Absolutely. There are many ways to look at 4.3.1. This particular requirement was written to be open-ended and allow freedom, so an organization feels free to apply it loosely. No need to parse it or make it legalese. Interpret it as loosely as you wish. No harm done. The only bit I'd disagree with is the "apply it loosely" - the requirement is for an organization to consider the aspects of its processes within the scope of the EMS. So aspects have a broad scope rather than a loose interpretation.

So aspects have a broad scope rather than a loose interpretation.


That is indeed a better way to articulate my thought. I intended it as a apply it is as broad a scope of application as the organization may wish.

Not loose or careless in interpretation.

Hello everybody!
New at this kind of forums but I would like to add my perspective on influenced aspects.
Working for an airport we have identified many env aspects which we try to influence like for instance noise. Airline do operate aircrafts which land and depart from an airport so noise is an aspect generated by their activity but the impact is received by us for as we have seen by the comnuity as the polutor. So we try to convince and reach an agreement with airlines to act for reducing the noise but beeing a commercial contract between us, we can only influence not control!!!:thanx: