Tag: International Organization for Standardization

Water Scarcity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Environmental Aspects Worthy of Management System Attention

Posted on by John Shideler

Two of the most successful International Standards of the last 25 years are ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. ISO 9001, a quality management system standard now used by more than one million organizations, first gave international prominence to the “systems approach” to management. It has become one of the all-time best-selling standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Its success helped launch ISO 14001, an environmental management system based on the “plan-do-check-act” virtuous cycle of policy-driven planning, managing to meet objectives, establishing operational control, and monitoring and measuring progress towards meeting identified objectives and targets. Several hundred thousand organizations around the world have adopted ISO 14001, usually as an enhancement of a quality management system which has the goal of managing processes for delivering quality goods and services and satisfying customers.

Fundamental to an environmental management system is the identification of the environmental aspects of an organization. These are the “elements of the organization’s activities, products and services that have or can have an impact on the environment,” whether adverse or beneficial. Identifying environmental aspects is key to the successful implementation of the management system, because it helps organizations proactively manage “those that can have a significant impact on the environment.”

Many early adopters of ISO 14001 environmental management systems reaped major benefits from their efforts. Energy efficiency, waste reduction, prevention of pollution, improved compliance with environmental legal requirements, all paid returns that contributed to the organizations’ bottom line while improving their standing among stakeholders, driving improvements through the supply chain, and augmenting workforce morale. Alas, the more the environmental management system standard became commonplace, the greater was the tendency of some later-adopting organizations to use the system as a regulatory compliance management tool and for little else.

In such cases, the true potential of the environmental management system is shortchanged. Properly implemented, ISO 14001-based systems should identify all environmental aspects that have the potential to create significant environmental impacts, whether they are currently regulated or not. Two prominent issues that fall in this category are water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

With the world population approaching seven billion, water scarcity is a growing concern. Organizations fortunate enough to be located in water-rich regions can ill afford to be complacent. Although “water wars” have not broken out recently in the United States, regions not normally considered water constrained have experienced some skirmishes. The contested northern boundary of the state of Georgia comes to mind, where claims of a flawed early nineteenth century survey that demarcated the boundary with Tennessee recently were raised. Why the sudden interest on behalf of the state of Georgia in a small strip of land that for nearly two centuries had been recognized as part of Tennessee? The explanation is access to the Tennessee River, which could have been tapped to relieve a drought that recently afflicted northern Georgia.

Another example is public opposition in Minnesota, the land of ten thousand lakes, to commercial development of the state’s water resources to feed an ever-expanding consumer thirst for bottled water. No thank you, say Minnesotans, who much prefer to keep their water for themselves.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is another issue that concerns many stakeholders. Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is now occurring in California and has become an important consideration for the siting of new power plants across the country. For many companies, however, regulation of carbon dioxide is an issue for some time in the future, not today.

However, US companies ignore greenhouse gases at their peril. Aircraft operators landing in Europe or taking off from there face regulation from 2012 as part of an expanded European Union Emissions Trading System. This includes all US transatlantic carriers, and even some general aviation. France and other EU countries have proposed legislation that would mandate disclosure of the “carbon footprint” of products sold in that country from as early as January 2011. Imports from the US would be affected.

Identifying water consumption and greenhouse gases as potentially significant environmental aspects in an ISO 14001–based management system makes good business sense today, in advance of regulations. Doing so helps organizations take early actions to tackle critical issues before the mandates arrive.

© 2010, Futurepast: Inc.

ISO Guidance on Social Responsibility Advances Toward Publication With Substantial–But Not Unanimous–International Support

Posted on by John Shideler

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) reached a milestone in February when countries participating in the development of ISO 26000, Guidance on social responsibility, approved the latest version of their document as a Draft International Standard. This brings ISO one step closer to publication of an International Standard which could occur later in 2010 or in 2011.

The road to this milestone has been long and bumpy. Seven meetings of 430 experts from 90 countries and representing 40 organizations have been held, and what could be the final one is scheduled for May 2010. Although the Danish host of the May meeting, Ole Blöndal, stated in his invitation letter that the document now represents “broad consensus on common guidelines among different stakeholders around the world,” the results of the DIS ballot suggest that serious differences of opinion remain. Before returning to that topic, let’s take a closer look at the content of the standard.

The heart of the document is found in sections 3-6. Section 3 introduces the topic of social responsibility through discussions of its historical background, recent trends, characteristics of social responsibility, and the different roles for states and organizations with respect to the creation and application of laws.

Seven principles of social responsibility are set forth in section 4. They include:
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Ethical behavior
• Respect for stakeholder interests
• Respect for the rule of law
• Respect for international norms of behavior
• Respect for human rights.

Section 5, “Recognizing social responsibility and engaging stakeholders,” provides guidance on the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders and society. It defines core subjects and issues of social responsibility and describes the “sphere of influence” on these subjects and issues that an organization has.

The “core subjects” covered by the standard include the most likely economic, environmental and social impacts that should be addressed by organizations, namely:
• Organizational governance
• Human rights
• Labor practices
• The environment
• Fair operating practices
• Consumer issues
• Community involvement and development.

Section 6 of the standard is organized around the core subjects and associated issues relating to social responsibility. Subsections provide an overview for each subject, principles and considerations in understanding an organization’s role with respect to the topic, and detailed descriptions of issues and what related actions and expectations an organization should take with respect to them. For example, in subsection 6.5, the guidance provides an overview of the relationship of an organization to the environment and identifies four principles for organizations: environmental responsibility, use of the precautionary approach, environmental risk management, and polluter pays.

A section on “considerations” refers organizations to the following approaches and strategies:
• Life cycle thinking
• Environmental impact assessment
• Cleaner production and eco-efficiency
• A product-service system approach
• Use of environmentally sound technologies and practices, and
• Sustainable procurement.

Four environmental issues are analyzed in detail. They include prevention of pollution, sustainable resource use, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and protection of the environment and restoration of natural habitats.

Section 7 provides guidance on integrating social responsibility throughout an organization. Topics include increasing understanding of social responsibility and setting expectations, communication, taking action, monitoring progress and improving performance, and evaluating the relevance of voluntary initiatives outside the organization that are designed to assist organizations in meeting social responsibility objectives.

When all the country votes on adopting ISO 26000 as a Draft International Standard were counted in February 2010, the document that so many experts had worked on since 2005 barely achieved the needed margins for approval. It needed 52 affirmative votes and got 56; and it had to attract no more than 19 negative votes (it received 18). Half of no votes came from states in the Middle East. The other nine negative votes were cast by an array of countries that included Russia, China, India, Malaysia, Cuba, Viet Nam and Kazakhstan. Thirteen countries abstained or did not vote.

ISO/DIS 26000 represents a serious attempt to address the social responsibilities of organizations. The document is not designed to be used for certification purposes, and explicitly says that any certification program that makes such a claim is misrepresenting the intent of the standard. Nonetheless, it is difficult to define “actions and expectations” related to the world’s most important economic, social and environmental issues and not expect watchdogs, self-appointed or otherwise, to take heed and to hold organizations accountable for their actions, or inactions.

ISO/DIS 26000 is available for download at www.iso.org/wgsr.

© Futurepast: Inc., 2010

Taking the Measure of Organizations’ Supply Chain Climate Risks and Opportunities: Reporting Upstream and Downstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Posted on by John Shideler

An emerging focus of managing climate change risks centers on greening the supply chain. Organizations do this for a variety of reasons. They want to ensure the dependability of the raw or intermediate materials they source, and materials produced and transported in an environmentally sound manner have lower risk profiles. They take an interest in the readiness of their supply chain partners to meet new greenhouse gas regulatory requirements and to absorb potentially higher or more volatile energy costs. And they seek to protect their corporate reputations by dealing with supply chain partners that conduct their businesses sustainably and in compliance with legal requirements and ethical principles.

Greenhouse gas emissions from supply chain partners increasingly are analyzed to detect missed opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. This scrutiny may begin when an organization inventories its “Other Indirect” greenhouse gas emissions, also known as “scope 3” emissions. Other Indirect emissions are those that are influenced by a reporting organization, rather than emitted directly as combustion, process or fugitive emissions. Other Indirect emissions are also distinguished from “Energy Indirect” emissions, which result from the consumption of purchased electricity, steam or cooling. Other Indirect emissions from the production and transportation of raw or intermediate materials that occur outside the organizational boundary of the reporting organization are known as “upstream emissions.” Other Indirect emissions resulting from wholesale and retail distribution of products, and during the use and disposal phases of a product’s life cycle, may be called “downstream emissions.”

Other Indirect emissions can be more difficult for organizations to quantify and report than either Direct or Energy Indirect emissions. Often, the data needed to inventory these emissions reside outside the reporting organization in its supply chain, and are difficult to access. Complicating matters further are questions of allocation, which arise when a supplier furnishes a diverse set of products for multiple customers and then is asked to account for only the emissions associated with a subset of those. Practical questions include “how much to count,” and “how far upstream and downstream” the supply chain accounting should go.

Requests for business-to-business greenhouse gas emission information are becoming more common, and are likely only to increase. Business customers, particularly those with well-known brand names to protect, want assurance that suppliers are managing their risks, including those related to climate change. The concern does not stop with emissions accounting, as a broad examination of climate risks include physical risks from climate change, regulatory risks, and shifting consumer preferences. The first category of risks includes increased frequency of extreme weather conditions, flooding and sea level rise, and changing temperature and rainfall patterns. Resource scarcity is a corollary impact from climate change, which may be triggered by decreasing biodiversity, higher rates of disease, or an increase in desertification. Regulatory risks include the potential imposition of cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, or requirements for installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Changes in consumer preferences can impact organizations by shifting consumption from one product category to another, enhancing or harming reputations, and creating markets for new products and services.

Business drivers for taking action now are gaining board room attention. According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysts who interviewed more than one thousand CEOs from the world’s leading companies for the Carbon Disclosure Project, “48% of CEOs were already making changes in their supply chain in response to climate change or would start in the next 12 months. 66% of these CEOs were already making a return on this investment or expected to do so within the next 12 months. We have seen a number of examples delivering real cost reductions as a result of using carbon as the value driver within the supply chain. For example, one major clothing retailer recently reduced their supply chain operating costs by 17% and saved over 4,500 tonnes of carbon by redesigning their distribution and logistics chain.” (CDP Supply Chain Report 2009, p. 7, accessed on 2010-01-10 at www.cdproject.net/reports.asp.)

For companies whose primary customers are other businesses, meeting the demand for information concerning their greenhouse gas emissions and other climate risk management strategies can be challenging. Many corporate staffs find it difficult to respond, with in-house expertise thinned and overextended. What’s more, the desired response from customers seeking climate change related information is not satisfied with the provision of a copy of the supplier’s environmental policy or ISO 14001 registration certificate. Real data are demanded that meet data quality standards and adequately characterize uncertainty.

Help is available from specialized consultancy firms like Futurepast. And new international standards and consensus-based protocols are under development. One of the first documents specifically to address supply chain reporting of greenhouse gas emissions is the Scope 3 Accounting and Reporting Standard, to be published as a Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Protocol. This document is available in draft form (November 2009) from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative, at www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-and-supply-chain-standard (accessed on 2010-01-10).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also has begun to develop a document. ISO Technical Report 14069, Greenhouse gases – Quantification and reporting of GHG emissions for organizations (carbon footprint of organizations) – Guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1, is intended to complement the ISO 14064 Part 1 standard published in 2006. Publication of the ISO technical report is not likely before the end of 2012. Futurepast’s president, John Shideler, serves as a US Expert on the ISO working group developing this document.

The main purpose for counting Other Indirect emissions is, of course, to manage them better. Once quantified, organizations in all parts of the supply chain can focus on initiatives to design more sustainable products, improve energy efficiency in manufacture, optimize transportation and logistics resources, and promote end-of-life recycling. Some observers will see connections to other business planning tools such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing which now will be applied to help meet the goals of reducing carbon emissions and managing climate risks.

COP-15 Accord Breaks New Ground In Voluntary Commitments from China, India and Brazil; Could an ISO GHG Management System Standard Help with Verification?

Posted on by John Shideler

The COP-15 negotiations in Copenhagen did not produce a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. This left many countries and observers bitterly disappointed. It also left in doubt the future beyond 2012 of institutions spawned by the Kyoto Protocol such as the Clean Development Mechanism and the program of Joint Implementation, both “flexible mechanisms” of Kyoto that produce tradable carbon offset credits.

But the agreement brokered by US President Barack Obama did accomplish one goal the US has long held dear. It formally committed the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, to concrete goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions. At Chinese insistence these goals will be based on reducing the intensity of China’s growth in future emissions rather than in absolute cuts. And for now, no text has been agreed to that will give China’s or any other country’s emission reduction targets the force of international law. Nonetheless the largest of the world’s most rapidly industrializing developing countries have agreed to set targets, and that principle is important.

Many details of the new agreement have been left for resolution to future meetings. One of the most contentious is the verification regime that will permit assessment of the progress developing countries make on achieving targeted reductions. President Obama insisted that independent verification was essential and that all countries should consent to it. Earlier in the talks the Chinese had insisted that its sovereignty was at stake and that it would certify the results of actions taken without the involvement of outside parties. While the details are not yet clear, President Obama’s direct negotiations with the Chinese premier on Friday Dec. 18 appeared to have succeeded in obtaining China’s agreement to some acceptable form of monitoring and verification.

Transparency was a major theme of the COP-15 before the international leaders arrived on the scene for conference’s waning days. At an earlier COP the principle had been agreed to that emission reductions from developing countries should be “monitored, reported and verified”—or MRV’d for short. The MRV concept specifically was to be applied to “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” that developing countries take on a voluntary basis. Hence the interest of having the largest emitters in the rapidly industrializing world, China and India in particular, set targets and agree to some kind of regime for monitoring and verification.

It was left to a future meeting—perhaps the COP-16 in Mexico City in December 2010—to flesh out the details for monitoring, reporting and verification. In the meantime ISO—the International Organization for Standardization—presented a concept at a side event cosponsored by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for a greenhouse gas management system standard that could be used by national governments—or regional or local subunits of governments—to manage, monitor, report and verify climate change mitigation actions. The outline of such a standard was presented by the US-based United Nations Foundation, an advocacy group, and commented on by an Indonesian delegate to the talks in his capacity as Vice Chair of ISO Technical Committee 207 Subcommittee 1 on Environmental Management Systems. Last week in my blog I described the standards published by ISO TC 207 Subcommittee 7 on Greenhouse Gas Management and Related Activities which would also support this management system approach.

The ISO approach is valuable for at least two reasons. First, it provides a framework for countries, regions, or communities to manage climate change mitigation actions at the operational level. A management system provides a ready framework for capacity building and technology transfer, which is just what the developing world needs to implement mitigation actions. Second, it provides assurance to countries furnishing climate change mitigation assistance that their investments in hundreds of locations throughout the world are properly deployed and that results are monitored, reported and verified.

ISO management system standards, in particular ISO 9001 for quality management and ISO 14001 for environmental management, are some of the most popular and widely adopted management system standards in the world. There is no doubt that a management system standard for climate change mitigation could be developed on an accelerated timetable and that it could be of enormous importance in achieving the verification objectives set forth in the Copenhagen COP-15 accord. Third-party verification could be achieved by bodies independent of any national government or the UNFCCC while at the same time augmenting the effectiveness of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions.

Copenhagen COP-15 Side Events Highlight ISO Greenhouse Gas Standards for Managing Responses to Climate Change

Posted on by John Shideler

Negotiators at the fifteenth “Conference of the Parties” to the Kyoto Protocol, meeting in Copenhagen, enter their final week with eyes focused on the text of an agreement to reach a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Heads of state are gathering during the coming days to commit their countries to concrete actions to curb climate change.

At the meeting developing countries are pressing developed ones to lead the way in abating concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases that have risen steadily since the beginning of industrialization in the eighteenth century. Developed countries, the developing ones say, have benefitted disproportionately from the industry and trade that are associated with the rise from approximately 250 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 in 1750 to the 385 parts per million that now are accumulated in the troposphere. This rationale explains the “common but differentiated responsibilities” that underlie the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

One thing is sure. Reaching agreement will be difficult, as developed countries seek global participation in “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” (NAMAs) from all signatories to the UNFCCC and emission reductions that are “monitored, reported and verified.”

While the daily to and fro of high-level negotiations grab most media attention, discussions of myriad details related to climate science, sectoral emission reduction approaches, and institutional mechanisms take place on the sidelines. Two “side events” at the COP-15 involved ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. More than 160 countries are members of ISO which is based in Geneva. Since 1947, ISO has developed more than 17,000 standards in support of international trade.

One of these side events, co-sponsored by the UNFCCC, offered delegates a perspective on how a proposed international greenhouse gas management system standard might support the implementation of NAMAs at both national governmental and local levels. Another side event, sponsored by the International Emissions Trading Association, highlighted existing ISO greenhouse gas standards and their role in promoting governance, trust and integrity in emissions markets.

I had the privilege of representing ISO Technical Committee 207 Subcommittee 7 as a standards expert in these two side events. In both sessions I explained the purpose and role of published standards on greenhouse gas quantification and reporting at the organizational and project levels (ISO 14064:2006 Parts 1 and 2). I also described published standards on greenhouse gas verification (ISO 14064:2006 Part 3) and requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies (ISO 14065:2007). Our technical committee has forthcoming standards on the competence of greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams, the carbon footprint of products, and guidance for the establishment of greenhouse gas inventories.

ISO standards facilitate capacity building by providing benchmarks for training, certification of personnel, and accreditation of the bodies that oversee these activities. They play an important role in helping organizations achieve the objectives they set for themselves—or that are set for them by local ordinance, national law or international agreement.

ISO standards define the rules by which independent verification bodies can audit the “greenhouse gas assertions” made by organizations at the entity, facility or project level. ISO greenhouse gas standards currently support emissions trading in both voluntary and regulatory markets. Future standards will offer organizations a means to identify the carbon footprint of products and thereby influence greenhouse gas emissions intensity within a supply chain.

Voluntary, consensus-based ISO standards stand ready to underpin the negotiated agreements reached by countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

© Futurepast: Inc., 2009

John Shideler at ISO Side Event in Copenhagen