An interesting article on the Environmental System Update magazine this month about the possiblity of small (service) organizations not identifying any SIGNIFICANT environmental aspects and still being certified to ISO 14001.
There is a request for interpretation to the TC 207 about this issue, but some people defend the position that if your environmental impact is minimal, e.g., a two men accounting firm. You could claim that the only E impacts are electricty consumption and solid waste (paper, trash, etc . . .). If this small organization has good energy reduction and paper recycle programs, one could make a case that their environmental impacts are really not significant.
But is significant a relative or absolute term in the context of ISO 14001? Obviouly the impact of the example above is negligible, compared to the ones resulting form a large steel mill or petrochemical plant.
One could also ask what is the point of a small organization implementing an EMS/ISO 14001?
But what say you? Would an EMS with no identified SIGNIFICANT aspect be compliant with ISO 14001?
There is a request for interpretation to the TC 207 about this issue, but some people defend the position that if your environmental impact is minimal, e.g., a two men accounting firm. You could claim that the only E impacts are electricty consumption and solid waste (paper, trash, etc . . .). If this small organization has good energy reduction and paper recycle programs, one could make a case that their environmental impacts are really not significant.
But is significant a relative or absolute term in the context of ISO 14001? Obviouly the impact of the example above is negligible, compared to the ones resulting form a large steel mill or petrochemical plant.
One could also ask what is the point of a small organization implementing an EMS/ISO 14001?
But what say you? Would an EMS with no identified SIGNIFICANT aspect be compliant with ISO 14001?