|
Elsmar Cove Forum Sidebar
|
|
|
|
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
|
| Monitor New Forum Posts
|
|
Follow Marc & Elsmar
|
|
|
Elsmar Cove Groups
|
|
|
Sponsor Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
|
Courtesy Quick Links
|
 Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:
Howard's International Quality Services
Atul's Symphony Technologies
Marcelo Antunes' SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's Correct SPC - Precision Machining
NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality
|
|
 |
|

1st April 2004, 05:44 PM
|
 |
Post Responsibly
Registration Date: Oct 2001
Location: Long Beach, CA - USofA
|
|
Posts: 7,688
Thanks Given to Others: 1,588
Thanked 4,617 Times in 2,423 Posts
Karma Power: 878
|
|
Companies with No SIGNIFICANT Environmental Aspects - ISO 14001
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?
__________________
Sustainable conformity assessment must add value to all stakeholders
|

1st April 2004, 08:12 PM
|
 |
Super Moderator
Registration Date: Jun 1999
Location: Greenwood (Ft Smith area), Arkansas, USA
Age: 61
|
|
Posts: 8,020
Thanks Given to Others: 47
Thanked 2,526 Times in 1,565 Posts
Karma Power: 896
|
|
|
This has the potential to be one of those killer topics Sidney...
There are more impacts, potential or otherwise, than the two specified.
There are impacts associated with these guys going to and from work; impacts of their service/product; impacts from the materials they use for turning out their product/service (not the waste end, but from the beginning of the life cycle of the material); and possibly others.
4.3.1 is pretty specific...."determine those which have or can have a significant impact..." Nowhere does it say."except when you ain't got none".
In a case like this the organization should redefine how it determines significance...move the bar down so to speak...
Is it possible? Probably
Is it likely? I'll put it this way....This is a duck that they will need to squeeze real hard to make quack.....
__________________
We who have seen war, will never stop seeing it. In the silence of the night, we will always hear the screams. Joe Galloway
|

2nd April 2004, 02:30 AM
|
 |
Forum Administrator
Registration Date: May 2000
Location: Eskilstuna, Sweden
Age: 53
|
|
Posts: 4,549
Thanks Given to Others: 910
Thanked 628 Times in 435 Posts
Karma Power: 400
|
|
Quote:
|
In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna
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?
|
Nooooope..... We are not supposed to compare our aspects with other organisations. What would that be in aid of when it comes to improving our own situation? Our aspects will not be any better off just because someone elses happen to be worse. See ISO14004, clause 4.2.2, step 4 of the Practical help table:
Quote:
|
Step 4 – Evaluate significance of impacts The significance of each of the identified environmental impacts can be different for each organization. Quantification can aid judgement.
|
So be it if my most significant environmental aspect is an overflowing waste bin. We are supposed to consider what our own most significant aspects are, even if the neighbour happens to be a steel mill.
/Claes
Last edited by Claes Gefvenberg; 2nd April 2004 at 06:18 AM.
|

2nd April 2004, 08:15 AM
|
|
Courtesy Access
Registration Date: May 2001
Location: Warren, MI
|
|
Posts: 931
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 261 Times in 159 Posts
Karma Power: 149
|
|
|
I've implemented ISO 14001 in a few small organizations without much in the way of environmental aspects/impacts. I agree you can always find some in any organization, but there is a point where you have to ask "what is the point". I worked with a robotics company where the biggest potential environmental issue would be spilling a quart of oil. I also had a small marketing company (designed print ads) being pushed by Ford to implement it (not sure if they ever did or not). I could not see a return on the investment of implementing the formal system, paying for an audit, and so on.
|

2nd April 2004, 08:29 AM
|
 |
Super Moderator
Registration Date: Jun 1999
Location: Greenwood (Ft Smith area), Arkansas, USA
Age: 61
|
|
Posts: 8,020
Thanks Given to Others: 47
Thanked 2,526 Times in 1,565 Posts
Karma Power: 896
|
|
Quote:
|
In Reply to Parent Post by tomvehoski
I've implemented ISO 14001 in a few small organizations without much in the way of environmental aspects/impacts. I agree you can always find some in any organization, but there is a point where you have to ask "what is the point". I worked with a robotics company where the biggest potential environmental issue would be spilling a quart of oil. I also had a small marketing company (designed print ads) being pushed by Ford to implement it (not sure if they ever did or not). I could not see a return on the investment of implementing the formal system, paying for an audit, and so on.
|
Did the organization explore any "positive" aspects? Did they look at the aspects of their "product"? Did they look at the aspects related to employees? Did they look at the aspects related to purchased material/services? Lots of things to explore here.....
If they were being pushed by Ford, they implemented, if not then they no longer supply Ford.
Most of the time ROI is keeping the customer as a customer.
__________________
We who have seen war, will never stop seeing it. In the silence of the night, we will always hear the screams. Joe Galloway
|

2nd April 2004, 10:59 AM
|
 |
Quality Manager
Registration Date: Sep 2003
Location: Illinois
|
|
Posts: 10,423
Thanks Given to Others: 450
Thanked 2,609 Times in 1,704 Posts
Karma Power: 1121
|
|
Quote:
|
In Reply to Parent Post by Randy
Did the organization explore any "positive" aspects? Did they look at the aspects of their "product"? Did they look at the aspects related to employees? Did they look at the aspects related to purchased material/services? Lots of things to explore here.....
If they were being pushed by Ford, they implemented, if not then they no longer supply Ford.
Most of the time ROI is keeping the customer as a customer.
|
Sadly, my experience echoes this point of view.
The extortion tactics of some customers to require formal registration by their suppliers as a condition of doing business is absolutely deplorable.
Worse, the formal registration doesn't guarantee a better supplier, only a bitter one.
__________________
"Few minds wear out; more rust out"
Inscribed over the entrance of Louis Pasteur School, Chicago
Christian Nestell Bovee (1820-1904) in Thoughts, Feelings and Fancies, 1857
|
|
Thank You to Wes Bucey for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
|
|

2nd April 2004, 01:06 PM
|
|
Courtesy Access
Registration Date: May 2001
Location: Warren, MI
|
|
Posts: 931
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 261 Times in 159 Posts
Karma Power: 149
|
|
|
We did look at both positive and negative, products, processes, suppliers, employees and so on. There was just nothing that could be improved to the point where I could really say "this will pay for itself" - other than keeping the customer. For example, since we had to have measurables, we counted the number of dumpsters of wood pallets that were taken for recycling. This had always been done, free by the company that took them. The only change for ISO 14001 was filling out a form to record it - I don't see much value there.
|

5th April 2004, 10:37 AM
|
 |
Where's the shall?
Registration Date: Jul 2001
Location: Plymouth, MI
Age: 56
|
|
Posts: 2,504
Thanks Given to Others: 401
Thanked 405 Times in 266 Posts
Karma Power: 308
|
|
|
Let's look at my website business. I run it from home, and all environmenal aspects are minimial at best. Can say that I have no significant aspects. There are no programs that I can implement where the benefit would out weight the cost. So what am I supposed to do?
The key here is not whether there are any aspects, but any significant aspects. I say that a company can have no significant aspects. The question is can they become registered?
__________________
Dave B (the other Dave)
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Forum Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|