Informational Companies with No SIGNIFICANT Environmental Aspects - ISO 14001

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
All,

After determining all of the activities and by-products that could have and adverse or beneficial impact on the environment no matter what the organization does it will have some environmental aspects that are more significant in their impacts when compared with the others.

The most significant aspects can then influence the setting of objectives and targets and the operational controls.

Companies can draw their line of significance at whatever level of environmental impact they want. Normally I advise drawing the line fairly high at first to focus on limiting adverse impacts and increaing beneficial impacts.

One of each is advisable so client is not just doing less that is bad but also more that is good for the environment.

Having used the management system to achieve the earlier objectives the line of significance can be drawn lower and lower. Indeed, in a mature system this would be welcome evidence of continual improvement.

I cannot imagine a day when all that we do has no adverse or beneficial impact on the environment.

John
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
5

5battenburg5

Hi all,

New member here - though it would be better to post in an existing thread in the first instance (even one that hasn't been active for a few years!) so apologies if it would be more appropriate to start a new thread. I may start a more general thread too, but this seems like an appropriate place for this particular question.

I work at a small (<15 people) office-based company. We're currently in the process of implementing an Environmental Management System which we hope can be certified to ISO 14001. This has been on the cards for a number of years but has always been pushed back in favour of other work so I'm trying to tie everything together to finally get the EMS in place.

This thread is of particular interest because, on the points scoring system we are using (which has come from a template, so the score thresholds were not defined by us) we have no significant environmental impacts. However, there are still a few things that we would like to improve on. So, in our procedure for defining significant aspects, I've added some text to say that even if an aspect is not formally deemed significant, we may still decide to have an aspect control sheet (and associated objectives and improvement programme) if we feel we can reduce our impact in relation to that aspect. So, things like reducing electricity consumption or encouraging people to cycle to work.

I'm now going through the Standard to check we're covered on everything and arrive at clause 4.5.1 for having a monitoring and measurement procedure for your significant aspects. My question is, do you think I need a formal procedure for this, given that the aspects which we're going to try and improve are not formally significant in our system? In reality, the only really quantifiable aspect we're going to have is electricity usage, so is it proportionate for me to have a write a procedure for for contacting the office service company to obtain our meter readings and recording them on a spreadsheet? I'm trying to keep things simple to start with. so I don't want to have to create additional paperwork whilst the System is still in the early stages and just bedding in.


Any advice much appreciated. And as an aside, stumbling across this website has been a massive help – its incredibly useful to see the opinions of others who are actually Environmental Managers rather than having to try and interpret the guidance on my own.


Cheers!
 

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Congrats on your first post 5battenburg5 and welcome! :bigwave:

Without knowing all the details of your company or the template, why can't you simply change the thresholds? This will then identify those "significant" items. The template was designed to be generic and just because it works for one company does not mean that it will work for all.

It's also part of continual improvement - as processes become more stable (and improved), what was once significant may end up "losing" that designation, and you can now focus on the next big item(s).
 
5

5battenburg5

Thanks RCBeyette.

Adjusting the thresholds is certainly an option. We currently have two aspects - electricity usage and waste - which are just below being significant so adjusting the banding slightly would change the category on those. I suppose it's a case of what's significant to us, and in the grand scheme of what we do then these would be the most significant things.

I've just started a new thread which explains a bit more about the company I work at and a few of the issues I'm encountering. Any additional advice or info much appreciated!
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
Battenburg,

I understand you have put your aspects through an off-the-shelf tool for determining significance.

The tool's default criteria for determining significance may be set for organizations that pollute more than yours.

You should input your own criteria for determining significance and do not forget your aspects with beneficial impacts.

Then you will have a logical force for setting objectives, targets, controls and improvements in accordance with your environmental policy.

John
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Just to be clear, it is the expectation of ISO 14001 that each company identify those aspects which are more significant than others, as part of continual improvement. ANAB wrote an Accreditation Rule 7 which addresses this, and there are several guidance documents as well. Otherwise, the system would be rather stagnant.
 

poh.s.lim

Poh S. Lim (Minuteman Resources Pte Ltd)
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.
Wes, I absolutely agree with you, it only make sense to flow the requirement for need of ISO 14001 down to suppliers who would most likely have significant aspects that affect the environment, not one where the aspects are negligible such as a two man accounting firm. Having said that, getting certified to a standard has always been voluntary and if an unreasonable customer is trying to compel a company to become certified where it does not make sense to obtain certification, I would say that the company is probably better off not doing business with such an unreasonable customer.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Stoic Are any medical device companies using the 2011 FDA process validation guidance instead of GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
M ISO 13485 extended Site (Two companies) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
D 3 Companies - Medical device parts and substances - Responsibilities EU Medical Device Regulations 4
F ISO Certified companies - Is there a list of certified companies that I can access ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
S Managing specification changes on standard parts purchased through trading companies Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
Q How is Medical Device Number (MDL) assigned to companies? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
Nicole Desouza Are Shipping Companies Suppliers? Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
S Companies that maintain your machine should be in ASL? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
D Are medical device companies required to document every change made to their website? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
D Why are pharma companies automating QMS systems? Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 2
M ISO 27001 ISMS scope for companies with subsidiaries IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 0
M Informational From RAPS: Danish Regulators Seek to Help Smaller Companies With EU MDR Compliance Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
R ISO 9001 versus ISO 13485 for Suppliers to Medical Device Companies ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
R Qualification of Distributors such as McMaster-Carr and Digikey to Medical Device Companies ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
N MDSAP Participants 2019 - How many companies are participating YTD? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 20
T Why are most companies have Quality reporting to Engineering or Operations and not to CEO ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 38
T Series A ready company - Term for medical devices companies? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
R How to keep track of all FDA rules and regulations for medical device companies 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
D Design Transfer between two companies with different QMS CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
T QMS/MDD scope - Two companies located in different places work together Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 10
J What my companies RoHS declaration should say 2011/65/EU, 2015/863, or 2017/2102 REACH and RoHS Conversations 3
K Outsourced Major Processes - Working for Two Sister Companies AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
Y FDA PreCert Program for Software (Companies) - 2017 Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
A ISO 9001:2015 Implementation for Marketing and Sales Companies ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
J Recommendation for US Agent Services for Medical Device Companies EU Medical Device Regulations 6
T Register of TS 16949 Certified Companies IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
H How Calibration Precision checks are implemented in medical device companies General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Using a Complaint Management Software (Medical Device companies) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
T Transfer of AS9110 Certification between Companies AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
I FDA Medical Device Registration - Scenario - Two Companies 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P Where to start to helping other companies to get ISO IEC 27000? Consultants and Consulting 1
S Elisa kits for poultry disease check up companies US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
Marc What companies think climate change will have a material impact on their business? Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 6
E Should companies that perform calibration services be ISO 17025 accredited? ISO 17025 related Discussions 13
E CAPA Management Software Tool Recommendations for Small Companies Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 3
O List of ANVISA Registered Companies Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
Ajit Basrur FDA Loosens Pharmaceutical Regulations on 13 Companies Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
I Auditing Transport Service Companies Service Industry Specific Topics 5
T What type of industries or companies that should implement PAS 55? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2
D Documentation Control Software for small companies on a Budget Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 10
T ISO 9001 for a Holding Company which owns several Food Companies ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
B Three Sub-Companies - Is One Quality Manual Enough? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
B ISO 9001 Certified Company and acquisition of non-ISO 9001 Certified Companies ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
R How do companies measure QC Productivity? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 3
L Automotive Companies which require ISO 14001 certification of suppliers ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 17
S Two companies on EC and ISO Certificate EU Medical Device Regulations 3
N Can two different companies share the same document? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
S TL 9000 Certified Companies - REMINDER - TL 5.0 Measurements Effectivity - July 2013 TL 9000 Telecommunications Standard and QuEST 1
A Evaluation of Service Providers such as Consultants and Calibration Companies 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
D Auditing Abroad - Internal Audits of our European Sister Companies ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom