2. State Official’s Guide
to Environmental
Management Systems
by Yvette Hurt, J.D.
Research assistance provided by Dave Moss
Articles contributed by Shelley Metzenbaum, Jason Johnston,
Carolyn Orr and Sandra Vasenda
The Council of State Governments
Copyright 2003,The Council of State Governments
Manufactured in the United States of America
ISBN #0-87292-808-x Price: $25.00 printed version, $10.00 electronic version
All rights reserved.
Inquiries for use of any material should be directed to:
The Council of State Governments, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910
CSG’s Publications Sales Department: 1-800-800-1910
3. CSG is the nation’s only organization serving every elected and appointed official in all three branches of each
state and territorial government through its national office, as well as regional offices based in the East,
Midwest, South, and West. CSG champions excellence in state government by advocating multi-state shared
problem solving and states’ rights, by tracking national conditions, trends, and innovations, and through non-
partisan groundbreaking leadership training and support.
Council Officers
President: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ark.
Chair: Rep. Dan E. Bosley, Mass.
President-Elect: Gov. Frank Murkowski, Alaska
Chair-Elect: Sen. John Hottinger, Minn.
Vice President: Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del.
Vice Chair: Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.
The Council of State Governments
Preparing states for tomorrow, today . . .
Headquarters
Daniel M. Sprague, Executive Director
2760 Research Park Drive
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578-1910
Phone: (859) 244-8000
Fax: (859) 244-8001
Internet: www.csg.org
Washington, D.C.
Jim Brown, Director
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5460
Fax: (202) 624-5452
Eastern
Alan V. Sokolow, Director
14 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 912-0128
Fax: (212) 912-0549
Midwestern
Michael H. McCabe, Director
614 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone:(630) 810-0210
Fax: (630) 810-0145
Southern
Colleen Cousineau, Director
P.O. Box 98129
Atlanta, Georgia 30359
Phone: (404) 266-1271
Fax: (404) 266-1273
Western
Kent Briggs, Director
1107 9th Street, Suite 650
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 553-4423
Fax: (916) 446-5760
4. i
Environmental Management Systems
Foreword
States across the country are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst since
World War II. More than ever, state leaders must find creative and innovative ways to
implement important programs in the absence of new funding and, in some cases, with
reduced funding. Yet, state leaders are committed to environmental quality—to ensur-
ing the health and vitality of their natural areas and the protection of their rivers, steams
and lakes. State environmental officials must ensure their citizens breathe clean air and
live and work upon land that is protected from pollution. States are on the front line of
environment protection, monitoring the many activities that impact our environment
and enforcing the laws and regulations that safeguard environmental quality. These crit-
ical safeguards must continue in spite of current budget constraints.
Over the last several years, The Council of State Governments (CSG) has been
working to educate state officials about new, innovative tools for managing and pro-
tecting the environment. After cosponsoring a two-year pilot project to identify the
most promising new tools for environmental management, CSG launched the Center
for Environmental Innovation in January 2003. We are pleased to provide the State
Official’s Guide to Environmental Management Systems as the first product of our
new center. This guide will aid state policymakers in designing programs that spur
environmental innovation and leadership in their states. By harnessing the resources
and ingenuity of the private sector and the community-at-large, these programs can
improve environmental performance at a lower cost to government and business.
We want to extend special appreciation to the following members of the CSG
Center for Environmental Innovation national advisory board, whose guidance and
recommendations were invaluable in creating this guide:
State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. of New Jersey
State Representative Jackie Dingfelder of Oregon
Jay Benforado, director of USEPA National Center for Environmental Innovation
Darryl Banks, senior fellow at New America Foundation
David Hess, former secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Mary Werner and John Vana of New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Pollution Prevention Unit
Jeff Lane, vice-president of State and Local Government Relations, Proctor &
Gamble
Dell Perelman, senior counsel of American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care
Brian Borofka, principal strategist at Wisconsin Energy Corporation
Steve Brown, executive director of Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)
Andrew Gouldson, Ph.D., professor of environmental policy and management,
London School of Economics
Dan Sprague
Executive Director
The Council of State Governments
9. vi
State Official’s Guide
Acknowledgements
Funding for the State Official’s Guide series is provided in part by The Council of
State Governments’ 21st Century Fund. The 21st Century fund is an internal foun-
dation operating within the Council’s 501(c)(3) organization. The purpose of the
fund is to strengthen the Council’s policy and research capacity by supporting inno-
vative and entrepreneurial approaches to product development. Contributors include:
American Express Company Pharmacia Corporation
BellSouth Corporation Philip Morris Management Corporation
BP America PhRMA
DuPont The Procter & Gamble Company
Eastman Kodak Company R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
GlaxoSmithKline SBC Communications, Inc.
Intuit 3M
Loeffler Jonas & Tuggey LLP United Parcel Service
Metabolife International, Inc. USAA
Pfizer, Inc. Wyeth
10. vii
Environmental Management Systems
Private Sector Collaborative Principles
The Council of State Governments (CSG) is the only national organization serv-
ing every elected and appointed official in all three branches of each state and territo-
rial government. Since 1933, CSG has championed excellence in state government by
advocating multi-state problem solving and states’ rights, recognizing and tracking
national trends, identifying innovations, and providing nonpartisan groundbreaking
leadership training and support. CSG performs this work through its national office,
as well as regional offices based in the East, Midwest, South and West.
CSG’s activities are supported by state dues as well as federal government, founda-
tion and private sector funding. Work performed and products produced by CSG are
designed to benefit CSG members and to meet the most stringent standards of qual-
ity and integrity without regard to funding source.
11. viii
State Official’s Guide
Executive Summary
The Environmental Management System (EMS) developed over the last decade as
a tool to improve environmental performance. Proponents believe EMSs can advance
environmental quality while increasing flexibility and reducing costs for the regulated
community and the agencies charged with enforcing environmental regulations. By
encouraging internal, systematic control of an organization’s environmental impacts,
EMSs offer a complementary system to government regulation, which imposes
requirements on an organization from the outside,
How will this guide help state officials?
This guide is for state officials in the legislative and executive branches who are
searching for promising new tools for managing the environment and who struggle
with the need to balance environmental protection with the cost and inflexibility of
regulations. The guide will help officials assess the usefulness of EMSs in a wide vari-
ety of applications and develop programs to encourage their use. These initiatives,
known as Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs), have been implemented in a
number of states and are being considered for development in others. States have
developed a variety of programs to spur these efforts at innovation.
The key benefits of ELPs are the willingness and engagement of voluntary partici-
pants and the ability to harness facility managers’ knowledge about their own opera-
tions and how improvements can be made. However, state officials should consider
carefully the type of EMS they want to encourage through a state program. Not all
EMSs are alike, and only some of them promise environmental or other public poli-
cy benefits. To be useful as a public policy tool, an EMS should:
establish environmental goals more protective than the regulatory minimum;
require progress toward those goals to be regularly measured;
require the goals and results of progress measurement to be publicly reported; and
require public reporting to occur on a regular basis and in a form the public can
understand and trust.
These elements are most important in a state program that offers substantive
rewards like regulatory flexibility or financial incentives. The decision to adopt an
EMS should be voluntary, but a state program that encourages EMS adoption should
require substantive commitments before substantive rewards are offered. An EMS
without these characteristics can serve as a valuable internal tool for the facilities that
use them, but may not be useful as a public policy tool for states.
Why should states take the lead on environmental innovation?
It is important for states to take the lead in encouraging the adoption of more effi-
cient, more protective environmental practices. State agencies are on the front line of
environment protection, monitoring the many environmental impacts of industrial
and other activities and enforcing the laws and regulations that protect our waterways,
the air we breathe, and the land on which we live and work. State officials know what
works and what doesn’t in the current regulatory system. They know what needs to be
fixed and how best to fix it.
12. ix
Environmental Management Systems
Moreover, because states are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst since
World War II, finding creative and innovative ways to use state dollars has become
more important than ever. States will be faced with the challenge of doing more with
less on the environmental front over the next several years. By harnessing the energy,
ingenuity and resources of the private sector and the community-at-large, state leaders
can help improve environmental performance in the absence of new funding.
Environmental Leadership Program models
There are three basic models—recognition and assistance, menu-based, and negoti-
ation-based—on which ELPs are patterned.
Recognition and assistance programs often have the least stringent requirements of the
three types of programs and tend to attract the widest participation. These programs
encourage companies to take their first steps toward implementing an EMS.
Menu-based programs allow agencies to implement proven programs and strate-
gies on a wider scale by offering a standardized set of benefits for prescribed
commitments. These programs often require more ambitious commitments than a
recognition and assistance program, but reach a wider audience than negotiation-
based programs.
Negotiation-based programs tend to attract the most sophisticated companies that
are leaders in the field and help inform the environmental innovation process.
Through one-on-one negotiations with facility owners and managers, this kind of pro-
gram offers incentives and rewards that are tailored to a particular facility, builds rela-
tionships between regulators and facility managers, and is likely to require communi-
ty involvement.
The State Official’s Guide to EMSs presents a sampling of state programs that are
representative of these models and provides a state-by-state profile of programs in
Appendix B. The guide also makes recommendations for designing an ELP that avoids
potential pitfalls and encourages the adoption of sound, comprehensive EMSs. States
are encouraging EMS adoption outside the framework of an ELP, including providing
written guidance, offering technical assistance in EMS implementation and conduct-
ing pilot projects, and the guide profiles some of these efforts as well.
Overcoming funding obstacles
Limited financial resources can be an impediment to ELP development. These state
programs often rely on the volunteer efforts of participating facilities and state agency
employees. ELPs also can be vulnerable to political and economic changes, which can
lead to budget cuts, program redesign or even cancellation. Resource-intensive, nego-
tiation-based programs have proven to be the most difficult to sustain. Observers have
seen a movement over the last several years toward menu-based programs and away
from negotiation-based programs, likely because of the lower cost per participant of
implementing menu-based programs. No matter what the design, however, funding
will be a critical factor in the success of an ELP.
Programs with dedicated funding tied to fees for hazardous waste generation or
waste reduction appear the most stable because the funding is less vulnerable to the
political and economic uncertainties of the state general fund. Another strategy that
13. x
State Official’s Guide
helps ensure stable funding is a comprehensive and long-range funding plan that seeks
dollars from a variety of sources, including dedicated state dollars, federal funding and
private foundations.
States lead by example
In addition to developing programs that encourage businesses and other organiza-
tions to adopt EMSs, state governments are adopting EMSs for their own operations.
Many of the same problems—inefficiency, lack of coordination, and negative envi-
ronmental impacts—that result from business activity exist in governmental agencies
and the facilities they operate. EMSs are particularly useful for agencies that operate
labs, manage wastewater treatment facilities, own fleets of cars, or manage lands. By
implementing an EMS, a governmental agency not only reaps the rewards of
improved environmental performance, but also serves as a powerful example for busi-
nesses and other organizations.
16. Introduction to State Official’s Guide to EMSs
A changing perspective
The way we think about managing and protecting the environment has undergone
a fundamental shift in this country. Over the last decade, a new movement has
emerged, one that emphasizes performance over compliance, information more than
regulation, and a holistic approach rather than the media-specific (i.e., air, water and
waste) focus prevalent now.
Our country’s current regulatory structure has accomplished a tremendous amount
since the 1970s in reducing point source pollution in our waterways, tracking and
controlling the movement and disposal of hazardous waste and addressing some
sources of air pollution. However, we have made little progress in areas like climate
change and non-point source pollution, and these problems represent major ongoing
threats to the health of our environment.
The traditional regulatory command-and-control approach, in the opinion of some,
may be inadequate to address these non-discrete sources of pollution effectively.
Moreover, the way we currently address point source pollution and other discrete
impacts sometimes leads merely to shifting the impact from one medium to anoth-
er—from land to air, or from water to land.
At the same time, business and industry have continued to complain that the cost
of regulation sometimes outweighs the benefits to society. Some in the private sector
argue that they can do an effective, sometimes more effective, job of monitoring and
controlling the environmental impacts of their operations while reducing the cost of
compliance. They argue that current regulations encourage companies to aim for only
minimal compliance and as a result discourage investment in new technologies that
can bring about greater improvement in environmental performance.
A new approach to managing the environment
All these factors have contributed to a new way of thinking about environmental
management, a perspective that zeros in on “management” in a new, holistic way.
Looking at a facility and its impacts as a whole, rather than in piecemeal fashion,
represents a minor revolution in our thinking about how to achieve environmental
protection.
The United States environmental regulatory structure has been built around the
idea of addressing the impact to each medium—land, air, and water—through spe-
cialized governmental agency divisions. Each of these agencies has specific statutory
and regulatory authority and each has developed specific monitoring and reporting
requirements unique to that division. There has been little coordination between
these regulatory schemes.
This sometimes has led to duplication and inconsistency in the demands govern-
ment makes on the regulated community. Defenders of the command-and-control
system argue that these results are necessary side effects of an otherwise effective sys-
tem that has made great strides in reducing pollution. Critics of the system argue its
costs to industry are high and that it fails to create the incentive to achieve perform-
ance beyond the regulatory minimum. In other words, critics argue the regulatory sys-
3
Environmental Management Systems
Our country’s current
regulatory structure
has accomplished a
tremendous amount
since the 1970s in
reducing point source
pollution and other
environmental impacts.
However, we have made
little progress in areas
like climate change
and non-point source
pollution, and these
represent major ongoing
threats to the health of
our environment.
17. tem as it exists now fails to take advantage of the competitiveness and ingenuity that
has made America an economic leader in the world.
What both camps seem to agree about is the need to develop new approaches to
the most serious and intractable environmental problems our country faces—prob-
lems such as climate change, non-point source water pollution and the cumulative
effects of point source pollution on our waterways and watersheds—while keeping in
place a compliance-based system for the worst actors who will not, or cannot, respond
to incentive-based programs that require them to be proactive.
One of the first tools developed in response to this new way of thinking is the
Environmental Management System (EMS). EMSs provide a new systematic
approach to environmental management that has been instituted voluntarily by large
and small companies over the last decade. The EMS concept is now being applied to
other types of organizations, including governmental agency operations at the state
and federal levels, municipal facilities, military bases—even watersheds.
The EMS is used as a complement to traditional regulation, which imposes require-
ments on an organization from the outside, by encouraging the organization to
assume systematic, internal control of its environmental impacts. While traditional
regulatory schemes have tended to take a one-size-fits-all approach to facilities that fall
within defined categories, the EMS takes into account a particular facility and its spe-
cific size, mode of operation, geographic location, waste streams and other unique
environmental impacts on land, air and water.
What will this guide do?
This guide focuses on one specific tool—the EMS—that has received a lot of atten-
tion by states and the EPA. EMSs are just one of many innovative environmental con-
cepts that have developed over the last decade, concepts such as market-based mech-
anisms that use the marketplace’s built-in economic incentives to drive environmental
and technological improvements.
This guide is for state officials in the legislative and executive branches who are
searching for a promising new tool to manage the environment and who struggle with
the need to balance environmental protection with the cost and inflexibility of regula-
tions. This guide will help officials assess the usefulness of EMSs in a wide variety of
applications and will help officials develop programs that encourage the use of EMSs.
The EMS has been identified as a tool that may be able to advance environmental
quality while increasing flexibility and reducing costs for the regulated community
and state agencies charged with enforcing the regulations. The point of view of this
guide is that, before adopting a program that encourages the use of EMSs or chang-
ing their current program, states should do the following:
Consider carefully all benefits and potential pitfalls of such a program.
Choose carefully the incentives to be offered and the commitments that should be
required to be eligible for each incentive.
Look carefully at what is being tested by other states to see what is working.
Ensure that the program establishes quantitative goals for environmental improve-
ment, requires participants to meet those goals, requires documentation that the
4
State Official’s Guide
While traditional regu-
latory schemes have
taken a one-size-fits-all
approach to facilities
that fall within defined
categories, the EMS
takes into account a
particular facility.
Improved environmental
performance that goes
beyond the regulatory
minimum is the
ultimate goal of an
EMS program.
18. goals have been met and requires the results to be publicly reported, if substantive
incentives like regulatory flexibility or financial incentives are offered.
Not all EMSs are alike, and only some of them promise environmental or other
public policy benefits. To be useful as a public policy tool, an EMS should establish
environmental goals more protective than the regulatory minimum, should require
that progress toward those goals be regularly measured, and should require that the
goals and results of progress measurement be publicly reported on a regular basis and
in a way the public can understand and trust.
The decision to adopt an EMS should be voluntary, but a state program that
encourages the use of EMSs should require these substantive commitments before
substantive rewards are offered. An EMS without these characteristics can serve as a
valuable internal tool for the facilities that use them, but may not be useful as a pub-
lic policy tool for states.
Improved environmental performance that goes beyond the regulatory minimum
is the ultimate goal of an EMS program, but without adequate quantitative data that
is publicly reported, states cannot effectively assess whether this goal is being met.
Moreover, by encouraging the generation of quality environmental data states can
make better decisions about where the problems are and how they should be
addressed. States receive this benefit even when specific participants don’t meet their
goals for environmental improvement. As will be discussed in later chapters, the qual-
ity and quantity of information is the key to an effective EMS and the effectiveness
of programs and policies that encourage their use.
Why is it important that states take the lead on innovation?
State agencies are on the frontline of environment protection, monitoring the
many environmental impacts of industrial and other activities and enforcing the laws
and regulations that protect our waterways, the air we breathe, and the land on which
we live and work. State officials know what works and what doesn’t in the current reg-
ulatory system. They know what needs to be fixed and how best to fix it.
Moreover, in developing new policy, officials on the state level know the stake-
holders within their states that need to be invited to the table. By striving for con-
sensus-based policy-making that solicits and considers all perspectives—from busi-
ness and industry to citizens and environmental advocacy groups—state officials
can ensure the best policy is developed. Officials can increase the chances of a new
program’s success by engaging the business leaders and environmental advocates
whose enthusiasm and support are so important for an initiative based on volun-
tary action.
Because states are facing a fiscal crisis that has been called the worst since World
War II, finding creative and innovative ways to use state dollars has become more
important than ever. States will be faced with the challenge of doing more with less
over the next several years. By harnessing the energy, ingenuity and resources of the
private sector and community at large, state leaders can improve environmental per-
formance in the absence of new funding. The budget crisis might actually help states
motivate their staff and the private sector to think more creatively about achieving
environmental protection and may create a climate in which proposed changes are
more acceptable.
5
Environmental Management Systems
CSG’s efforts to tackle environ-
mental innovation
Between 2000 and 2002, CSG
coordinated a program called the
Policy Academy on Environmental
Management Tools, cosponsored by
the Multi-State Working Group on
Environmental Management Syst-
ems. The Policy Academy designed
and held a series of national dia-
logues that brought together repre-
sentatives from state and federal
government, the business sector and
the environmental advocacy com-
munity to identify and assess the
most promising innovative approach-
es to environmental management.
To build on the recommenda-
tions that resulted from that effort,as
well as the work of its national
Environmental Task Force, CSG
launched the CSG Center for
Environmental Innovation (CSG-CEI)
in January 2003. The mission of the
new center will be to prepare state
leaders to use the next generation of
environmental management tools by
focusing on approaches and pro-
grams that are performance-based
and information-driven. Innovation
proponents believe that the environ-
ment will benefit by creating incen-
tives for the regulated community to
closely monitor environmental per-
formance at their own facilities, to
develop systematic approaches for
reducing environmental impacts and
to establish goals for environmental
improvement that go beyond the
regulatory minimum.
The center’s ultimate goal is to
help state officials implement innova-
tive programs that improve environ-
mental performance in their states.
The innovative approaches promot-
ed by CSG-CEI hold the promise of
producing environmental improve-
ments at a lower cost to business,
industry and government.
Continued on page 6
19. How will this guide help state officials?
Much has been written about the theory behind EMSs and environmental innova-
tion in general. However, very little basic, nuts-and-bolts guidance specifically aimed
at state government officials has been produced. CSG has written this guide to help
state officials navigate their way through the jargon of environmental innovation, and
EMSs in particular, to set up a successful program that improves the environmental
bottom line in their states.
This volume also provides guidance about setting up an EMS for state agency or
local government operations. Many of the same problems—inefficiency, lack of coor-
dination, and negative environmental impacts—that result from business activity exist
in governmental agencies and the facilities they operate. EMSs are particularly useful
for agencies that operate labs, manage wastewater treatment facilities, own fleets of
cars, or manage lands. By implementing an EMS, a governmental agency not only
reaps the rewards of improved environmental performance, but also serves as a power-
ful example for businesses and other organizations.
6
State Official’s Guide
Continued from page 5
CSG created a national advisory
board to guide the center’s activities
and provide input for this guide. The
advisory board, made up of repre-
sentatives of states, the business
community and non-governmental
associations, ensure CSG-CEI has the
diverse input and guidance needed
to identify the most critical environ-
mental policy needs of the states.
The advisory board also provides
real-world experience that ensures
this guide contains the information
state officials need to implement suc-
cessful environmental innovation
programs, such as those that encour-
age the adoption of EMSs.
22. What do you need to know about Environmental
Management Systems?
What is an Environmental Management System?
How do we define an EMS? Experts in the field define the concept this way: An
EMS is a formal structure of rules and resources that an organization’s managers adopt
to establish organizational routines that help achieve environmental goals.1
It is a kind
of regulatory structure that arises from within an organization; a collection of inter-
nal efforts at policy-making, planning and implementation that are intended to yield
benefits for the organization and society.2
The EMS stands in contrast to traditional government regulation, which imposes
requirements on an organization from the outside. More importantly, traditional reg-
ulatory schemes have tended to take a one-size-fits-all approach to facilities that fall
within defined categories. An EMS, on the other hand, allows a self-regulating scheme
to be developed that takes into account a particular facility and its specific size, mode
of operation, geographic location, waste streams and other unique environmental
impacts on land, air and water.
The most appealing element of an EMS is that, in theory, it represents a system of
continuous environmental improvement—a process that never ends and continually
strives to meet new outcome-based goals. Most EMSs incorporate four basic elements:
Plan – Identify environmental impacts, establish goals for improvement and design
or revise processes to improve environmental results.
Do – Implement the plan through training and operational controls.
Check – Measure performance, assess results of changes in operation controls, and
report results to decision makers.
Act – Review the assessment of data and decide on changes needed to improve the
process, then feed that information, through a feedback loop, back to the employ-
ees that need to implement the operational changes.3
These elements evolved from the plan—do—check—act cycle of Total Quality
Management, developed in the 1950s to improve performance in the manufact-
uring sector.4
Based on this model, an EMS begins with the evaluation of a comprehensive set of
data about a facility and its environmental impacts. After reviewing the data, per-
formance standards and outcome-based goals that will lead to improvement of a facil-
ity’s overall environmental performance are developed. A set of actions intended to
meet those standards and goals follows. As the actions are carried out, their effective-
ness in meeting the standards and goals is monitored and the success or failure of each
element determined. That information is carried by a feedback loop back to the indi-
9
Environmental Management Systems
1
Cary Coglianese and Jennifer Nash, Regulating from the Inside: Can Environmental Management Systems
Achieve Policy Goals? (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2001).
2
Ibid.
3
U.S.EPA’s About EMSs webpage,<http://www.epa.gov/ems/info/index.htm>;Coglianese and Nash,10-11.
4
See ISO 9000 quality management standards, at <http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage>
Most EMSs incorporate four
basic elements:
Plan – Identify environmental
impacts, establish goals for
improvement and design or
revise processes to improve
environmental results.
Do – Implement the plan
through training and opera-
tional controls.
Check – Measure performance,
assess results of changes in
operation controls, and report
results to decision makers.
Act – Review the assessment of
data and decide on changes
needed to improve the process
and feed that information,
through a feedback loop, back
to the employees that need to
implement the operational
changes
PLAN
CHECK
ACT DO
23. viduals within the organization whose job it is to establish the goals and the actions so
that they can make adjustments and improvements to the system. This cycle of activ-
ities theoretically never ends.
In reality, the quality and comprehensiveness of the information developed about a
facility’s environmental impacts, the design of the EMS itself and the willingness of
corporate management and staff to follow through on every aspect of the EMS deter-
mines how effective it will be and whether any improvement will be achieved.
The Evolution of the EMS
The EMS has its roots in Total Quality Management (TQM), a standard devel-
oped by the International Organization for Standardization in the 1950s to help
ensure product quality in the manufacturing sector. The organization’s ISO standard
for EMSs was published in 1996 and adopted many of the same elements for sys-
tematic quality control as TQM.5
ISO-certified EMSs are developed around the
same four basic steps, plan–do–check–act, that form the TQM model for continu-
ous improvement.
Programs for certifying EMSs
Several programs for certifying EMSs have been developed over the past decade and
new structures for their implementation, new applications for their use and further
refinements in existing programs are being developed all the time.
ISO 14001 is the most widely applied EMS standard today.6
The International
Organization of Standardization, founded in 1946 to promote “standardization and
related activities in order to facilitate international exchange of goods and services,”
published the ISO 14001 in 1996. An international, voluntary standard designed to
help businesses track and improve their environmental operations and performance,
ISO 14001 has been adopted by large and small corporations around the world. Large
automakers like Ford and GM have enacted policies requiring their suppliers to
become ISO 14001-certified.
To become certified, or registered, under the ISO 14001 standard, a facility must
undergo third-party auditing to evaluate every aspect of the EMS implemented and deter-
mine whether it conforms with the standards set forth in ISO 14001. There are basic
requirements a facility must fulfill to become ISO 14001-certified. The facility must:
adopt a written environmental policy that acknowledges corporate commitment to
continuous improvement;
identify all environmental impacts of the facility’s activities, products and services;
set objectives and targets for continuous improvement in environmental performance;
develop a plan for implementation (the EMS);
assign clear responsibilities for implementation, training, monitoring and corrective
actions;
10
State Official’s Guide
5
ISO 14001, Environmental Management Systems—Specification with Guidance for Use,
<http://www.goau.com/goau/iso14001.html>
6
ibid.
24. implement the EMS; and
evaluate and refine EMS over time to achieve continuous improvement in envi-
ronmental objectives and targets.
ISO 14001 provides a framework for systematically managing a facility’s environ-
mental impacts, but the standard lacks two elements that are important for deter-
mining its usefulness as a public policy tool.
First, the ISO standard does not require that a facility actually achieve improve-
ment in environmental performance. The system focuses on a more efficient, system-
atic process for managing environmental impacts, including the establishment of per-
formance goals, but does not require that those goals be met. Certification of an ISO
14001 EMS likewise does not require documentation of environmental performance
improvements, only that the facility has adhered to the standards.
Second, the ISO 14001 system does not require that the contents of the EMS plan
adopted and the facility’s performance in response to the EMS be publicly reported.
The absence of these two elements make it difficult for policy makers and the public
to judge how effective the systems are in improving environmental performance at a
particular facility, as well as judge their effectiveness in improving environmental
quality on a local, state or regional level.
Another international standard, the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS),
was adopted by the European Union in 1995.7
This standard, adopted by EU member
countries, incorporates both the performance and public reporting elements ISO 14001
lacks. Under EMAS, the EMS must evaluate the facility’s environmental performance
and those results, along with the design of the EMS itself, must be publicly disclosed.
While the ISO standard has become the most widely applied standard for EMSs,
a recently completed study found no significant advantage in ISO certification. The
final report of the National Database on Environmental Management Systems
(NDEMS) study of 83 facilities over a two and half-year period was released in
January 2003. The report found there were “no statistical differences between the net
quantified benefits observed at facilities that were registering their EMS to the ISO
standard and those without registration intentions.”8
However, many companies that
have implemented ISO certified EMSs likely would tout the system’s internal benefits
and the importance of certifying an EMS’s conformance to the ISO standards.
Trade groups encourage innovation
Trade associations have played a significant role in the development and application of
improved environmental management practices. Trade groups began establishing indus-
try guidelines in the late 1980s to improve the environmental performance of their mem-
bers.9
The American Chemistry Council was the first trade association to adopt such
11
Environmental Management Systems
7
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) information available at <http://europa.eu.int/
comm/environment/emas/index_en.htm.>
8
Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve
Performance?, National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,
(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003), available at <http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report.htm>, ES-17.
9
Jennifer Nash, “Keeping up to Code: Trade Associations are emerging as leaders of environmental
Change,” Chemistry Business, the Journal of the American Chemistry Council, Volume 28, No. 6
(July/August 2000).
26. EPA’s most recent innovation program is the National Environmental Performance
Track program, launched in 2000.15
EPA coordinates with states on its Performance
Track efforts in a number of ways. First, EPA works closely with state officials to eval-
uate Performance Track applications for facilities in a particular state, to ensure the
applicant is an appropriate candidate from the state’s perspective. Second, EPA has
worked to create joint incentives with states by entering Memoranda of Agreement
that allow formal coordination between the federal and state environmental agencies
and the incentives offered to a particular facility through Performance Track and a
state-sponsored program. EPA currently has MOAs with Texas, Virginia, Colorado and
Massachusetts.16
Finally, EPA has evaluated 13 established state programs that encour-
age the adoption of EMSs, outlining the similarities and differences between those pro-
grams and Performance Track.17
This allows facilities interested in participating in
Performance Track to determine whether there is overlap between the federal and state
programs and whether participating in both programs is feasible.
EPA has helped states develop EMS programs on the state level by offering grants
for program development. A number of state programs in existence today began with
an EPA-sponsored pilot program.18
The most recent projects funded by the EPA state
grants program are the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, for develop-
ment of a web-based, GIS-based system that will simplify and expedite storm water
permitting; the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, for development of an innovative permitting approach for a small business
sector—auto body repair—that is facing new air quality requirements; and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for development of a water-
shed-based permitting system to integrate non-point-source control with point-source
permitting to achieve a nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). (As required
by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, TMDL is the total amount of pollution that
a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.)19
The EPA grant program is designed to support state innovation and address key
environmental priorities identified in EPA’s Innovation Strategy.20
Specifically, EPA has
solicited projects that test innovative permitting approaches by using incentives to
motivate “beyond-compliance” environmental performance or move whole sectors
toward improved environmental performance over a 2-to 3-year period.
13
Environmental Management Systems
15
Visit the National Environmental Performance Track website at: <http://www.epa.gov/performance-
track/>
16
See <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/statepar.htm>
17
See <http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/partners/linkage.htm>
18
To encourage greater cooperation between EPA and the states, and formally establish procedures
for EPA’s review of proposed state innovation programs, EPA entered into the Joint EPA/State Agreement
to Pursue Regulatory Innovation with state environmental official members of the Environmental Council
of the States (ECOS) in 1998, available at <http://www.epa.gov/EPA-GENERAL/1998/May/Day-
05/g11799.htm>
19
See FY 2002 State Innovation Pilot Grant Competition at: <http://www.epa.gov/innovation/state-
grants/>
20
See U.S. EPA guide, Innovating for Better Environmental Results:A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation
of Environmental Protection, at <http://www.epa.gov/innovation/strategy/index.htm>
EPA has helped states
develop EMS programs
on the state level by
offering grants for
program development.
A number of state
programs in existence
today began with
an EPA-sponsored
pilot program.
EPA’s National Environmental
PerformanceTrack
EPA’s National Environmental
Performance Track is designed to
recognize facilities that consistently
meet their legal requirements and
implement high-quality EMSs. The
program is open to facilities of all
types, sizes, and complexity, public or
private, manufacturing or service-ori-
ented. The program encourages par-
ticipants to work closely with their
employees and the community to
achieve continuous improvement in
environmental performance.
Performance Track applicants
must have an:
EMS in place;
history of sustained compliance;
commitment to continuous envi-
ronmental improvement; and
commitment to community out-
reach.
In return, EPA offers incentives
that include national, local and peer
recognition; low priority for routine
inspections; streamlined reporting;
regulatory flexibility; and network-
ing opportunities with EPA officials
and environmental innovation lead-
ers at EPA-sponsored events. EPA
also works with members to coor-
dinate Performance Track incen-
tives with those of applicable state
EMS programs.
27. States run with the innovation ball
As will be discussed in the next chapter, states responded to EPA’s efforts by devel-
oping new policies and programs to encourage the voluntary adoption of EMSs by
business, industrial facilities and other organizations. These state efforts have become
known as Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs).21
There are many types of pro-
grams and policies that fall under the general heading ELP and this guide will use the
term in its most inclusive sense. ELP is used here to refer to the entire spectrum of state
environmental innovation efforts, from the enactment of policies that merely assert the
state’s support for the voluntary adoption of EMSs to the most ambitious programs
that offer individually negotiated financial and regulatory rewards in exchange for
individually negotiated commitments by participants.
What are the benefits of using an EMS?
The systematic, information-driven approach of an EMS make it a useful tool for
industry and other organizations that want to get a better handle on the environmen-
tal impacts of their operations. EMSs have the potential to help organizations achieve
better compliance and can motivate them to move beyond minimal regulatory require-
ments by establishing higher environmental performance goals.
Benefits for the environment
Most EMSs or other environmental management schemes in use today incorporate
the basic steps of reviewing the organization’s environmental goals and analyzing its
impacts; establishing objectives to ensure compliance with current legal requirements
and movement beyond minimal requirements; developing policies and operational
controls that attempt to meet those objectives; and monitoring the results. EMS pro-
ponents believe this kind of systematic, internally driven approach to managing a facil-
ity’s environmental impacts inevitably will bring about improvement in the facility’s
environmental performance.
Overriding themes in EMS theory that make the system compelling include the
following:
Holism: Taking a coordinated, holistic approach to a facility’s environmental
impacts on all media (e.g., land, water, and air)
Beyond compliance: Setting goals or performance standards for environmental per-
formance that exceed the regulatory minimum required
Activities follow goals: Planning activities designed to meet performance goals
established
Feedback loop: Monitoring all environmental impacts of the facility or organization
and producing information that is fed back into the system so that goals and actions
on the front end can be adjusted
Continual Improvement: Overarching goal of continual improvement in environ-
mental performance over time
14
State Official’s Guide
21
Michael Crow,“Beyond Experiments,” Environmental Forum, May/June (2000).
States responded to
EPA’s efforts by devel-
oping new policies and
programs to encourage
the voluntary adoption
of EMSs by business,
industrial facilities and
other organizations.
These state efforts have
become known as
Environmental
Leadership Programs.
28. Transparency and stakeholder input: Public involvement in the design of the EMS
and public disclosure of the final EMS design and the facility’s environmental per-
formance in response to the EMS
While not all EMSs in use today contain all of these elements, the ones that do are
the most likely to offer substantive environmental benefits and bring about improve-
ment in ambient environmental quality. Transparency and stakeholder input in par-
ticular make the EMS more valuable as a public policy tool for achieving environ-
mental protection.
Benefits for business and government
The use of EMSs can lead to direct savings in production costs and waste disposal
fees for businesses and for governmental agencies that engage in business-like activi-
ties (e.g., print shops, maintenance divisions, fleet operations). In addition, some state
programs offer financial incentives to business or other organizations that implement
an EMS, including a reduction in waste generation fees that must be paid to the state.
However, state officials and the business sector also need to focus on the indirect eco-
nomic benefits of using EMSs. A well-designed EMS should reduce a facility’s impacts
on the surrounding environment, helping prevent violations of environmental statutes
and regulations that can lead to costly legal fees and the imposition of civil penalties. In
the long run, EMSs can inform managers’ strategic decisions about product changes,
operational changes, and development and implementation of new technologies.
A state program that encourages the widespread use of properly designed EMSs
should improve the state’s overall air and water quality, helping lower the cost of
enforcement actions, state-sponsored remedial work, emergency response operations
and litigation with aggrieved citizens, neighboring states and the federal government.
The recently released final report of the National Database on Environmental
Management Systems (NDEMS) study of 83 facilities over a 2 1/2 year period found
that 86 percent of those facilities reported benefits accruing from the adoption of an
EMS, including increased management efficiency, increased operational efficiency,
reduced liability, regulatory benefits, improved community relations and improved
customer/supplier relationships.22
Some of these benefits are purely internal to the
facilities, but some of them improve the facilities’ impact on the environment. For
instance, the benefit of reduced liability reported by a majority of participants includ-
ed improved environmental compliance, reduced fines and expedited permits. These
are benefits that improve the environmental bottom line. The report also found that
whether the EMS was ISO-certified did not make a significant difference. For
instance, the report found that the non-registering facilities were no less likely to have
reported at least one perceived or quantified benefit than were registering facilities.
Trade-offs to think about
Any regulatory approach, when applied in the real world, will involve some trade-
offs. Allowing regulatory flexibility and more discretion in enforcement in exchange
15
Environmental Management Systems
22
Richard N.L. Andrews and Deborah Amaral, Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve
Performance? National Database on Environmental Management Systems (NDEMS) Project Final Report,
(Chapel Hill: January 30, 2003). Available at <http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report.htm>. Note that this
study tracked a self-selected group of facilities that volunteered to participate in the study.
California company finds sig-
nificant savings with an EMS
Artistic Plating is a medium-
sized, 100 employee, metal finishing
facility in Anaheim, Calif. It was one
of several companies chosen to
participate in an EPA-sponsored
pilot project, the Merit Partnership,
designed to test a metal finishing
EMS template. The Merit Partner-
ship is conducting a series of pilot
projects to evaluate the environ-
mental and economic impacts of an
ISO 14001-based EMS in various
industries.
Artistic Plating began imple-
menting the EPA-designed EMS in
June of 1999 and participated in
monthly workshops that provided
training and guidance.
As a result of EMS implementa-
tion, Artistic Plating staff gained a
more comprehensive understanding
of the environmental legal require-
ments that apply to the company’s
operations, reduced the hazardous
chemical concentration of its dis-
charges, began monitoring waste-
water discharges and storm-water
runoff more often than is legally
required, and generated environ-
mental information that was not
available previously.That information
includes the company’s environmen-
tal policy, a list of significant impacts,
objectives and targets, and perform-
ance indicators. The information is
available to the public upon request.
The company predicts it will save in
excess of one million dollars over a
ten-year period, as a result of EMS
implementation.
29. for voluntary actions by business and industry that are designed to improve environ-
mental performance creates new risks not present under a command-and-control sys-
tem. There is a risk, for example, that newly available regulatory flexibility and
enforcement discretion could be used improperly by agency administrators or others
in the executive branch to reward politically influential companies.
Critics of regulatory innovation efforts caution that when states develop a program
that allows greater flexibility and discretion, they must also build in greater protections
against abuse of this more flexible system. Greater transparency is the primary protec-
tion advocated by many observers—transparency at every level, from agency adminis-
tration of the program to a facility’s implementation of actions such as the design and
adoption of an EMS.
How is transparency achieved?
Transparency is achieved through a multitude of actions by government and par-
ticipating businesses that ensure the widest stakeholder involvement possible.
Stakeholders include citizens who live in neighborhoods adjacent to the facility in
question, citizen organizations whose mission it is to protect natural areas and water-
sheds, public health organizations, and administrators of nearby schools or other insti-
tutions where the health or comfort of citizens will be impacted. Building adequate
public notice provisions into every level of a state program that encourages EMS’s will
help ensure citizens and other stakeholders are made aware of decisions and actions by
state administrators and program participants that impact them.
Why do states need to be concerned about public involvement?
By giving citizens access to monitoring data collected by program participants, the
facility’s plans for improving environmental performance, and information evaluating
how well the facility is meeting its goals for improvement, states can enlist an army of
volunteers to help make this new system work effectively. As states struggle under the
burden of budget deficits that have been called the worst since World War II, they will
have to find creative ways to maintain and improve environmental quality in their
states. By enlisting the resources of the private sector and citizen volunteers, states can
help make up for budget shortfalls in the near-term. More important for long-term
environmental quality, however, is the state’s ability to build programmatic infrastruc-
ture that encourages citizens and businesses to be actively involved in protecting the
environment and to build trust between the public sector, the private sector and the
citizens and customers each sector serves.
What are the potential applications for EMSs?
EMSs started as a tool for businesses—mainly those in the manufacturing sector—
but have been adapted over the last decade to address the environmental impacts of a
multitude of other operations. For instance, EMSs are being used in agriculture to
address the problems of runoff and other impacts of farming that historically have
been hard to control. (See Carolyn Orr’s profile of agricultural EMSs in Chapter 4.)
16
State Official’s Guide
30. New applications like forestry, governmental operations and defense
EMSs are being used by logging companies to manage their operations in our
forests. (See Sandra Vasenda’s profile of EMSs in forestry in Chapter 4.) EMSs are
increasingly being adopted for governmental operations at the federal, state and local
level, including local subsidiaries like school and water districts. (See Chapter 3 pro-
files of state and municipal EMSs.) Even military bases have begun adopting EMSs.
EMSs are also being incorporated into agreements that resolve civil and criminal
enforcement proceedings as supplemental environmental projects. (See Jason Johnston’s
analysis of the intersection between EMSs and our legal system in Chapter 4.)
Watershed and community-based EMSs
In addition, the EMS approach is being tested on whole watersheds and entire
communities. The Policy Academy on Environmental Management Tools, a pilot pro-
gram administered by The Council of State Governments in conjunction with the
Multi-State Working Group, is sponsoring the development of a community-based
EMS in Milwaukee, Wisconsin Co-sponsors of the project are the Delta Institute, a
non-profit organization that engages in the policy and practice of improving environ-
mental quality and promoting community and economic development in the Great
Lakes region, and Sixteenth Street Community Health Center (SSCHC), a primary
health care provider in Milwaukee. The two groups have recruited We Energies of
Wisconsin (formerly Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas) to design and implement an
EMS for We Energies’ Menomonee Valley power plant. The Menomonee Valley
Power Plant is the country’s largest co-generation facility, supplying steam to approx-
imately 480 steam customers in and around downtown Milwaukee, plus approxi-
mately 280 megawatts of electricity.
The specific activities of the project are to:
recruit participants for the model training course, including local and state envi-
ronmental regulatory representatives, economic development groups, environmen-
tal groups, neighborhood organizations and planning organizations;
identify environmental and community issues of concern;
create sample performance objectives, metrics, and reporting options that could be
used to address issues of concern, including facility-based (e.g., discharge or emission
levels, energy use, stormwater discharges) and valley-wide objectives and targets (e.g.,
Menomonee River water quality, stormwater quality, groundwater quality, local air
quality, transportation and public access, active and passive recreational opportunities,
etc.); and
provide training and mentoring to participants, including general training on the
basics of developing and implementing an EMS and the methods for addressing
community and environmental issues of concern, with We Energies providing
technical leadership, and mentoring for up to four facilities that agree to develop
an EMS as outlined in the training course.
The ultimate goal of the project is to create a guidance document that can be used
as a training module for developing community-based EMSs around the country. The
17
Environmental Management Systems
31. training document will be based on the experience of developing practical EMSs that
address real world community and environmental concerns in the Menomonee River
Valley in Milwaukee. The project, which began in June 2002 and will be completed
by June 2003, serves as a valuable example of community planning that engages all
sectors of the community in developing an EMS.
EMSs and Pollution Prevention
EMSs are becoming a more integral part of other innovative environmental man-
agement programs like pollution prevention. States have made a concerted effort to
promote pollution prevention activities during the last decade and most states now
have an office devoted to pollution prevention activities.
Pollution Prevention was defined by Congress in The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 as “source reduction” and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation
of pollutants through 1) increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water,
or other resources, or 2) protection of natural resources by conservation.23
Source reduction means any practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released
into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or
disposal; and reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated
with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
In passing the legislation, Congress declared pollution prevention a national policy
of the United States. According to the act, pollution should be “prevented or reduced
at the source whenever feasible; recycled in an environmentally safe manner when pre-
vention is not feasible, treated in an environmentally safe manner when recycling is
not feasible; and disposed or otherwise released into the environment only as a last
resort and in an environmentally safe manner.”24
There is a great deal of overlap between activities that promote pollution prevention as
defined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act and those generally designed into an EMS.
The EMS represents the alliance between the “green” ethic of pollution prevention and
the “quality” ethic of management systems.25
The systematic EMS approach to managing
environmental impacts often involves pollution prevention and the benefits of pollution
prevention can be significantly enhanced through the EMS framework.26
Both incorpo-
rate concepts such as long-range planning, innovation, continuous improvement, system
control, avoidance of “crisis management,” and measurement of results.27
It is not surprising, then, that pollution prevention offices in many states have ini-
tiated development of programs that encourage the voluntary adoption of EMSs. (See
18
State Official’s Guide
23
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 133.
24
Ibid.
25
New York State Pollution Prevention Unit, Understanding and Implementing an EMS, a Step-by-Step
Guide for Small and Medium-Sized Organizations, available at <http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/
ppu/p2ems.html>, 12.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
The EMS represents the
alliance between the
“green” ethic of pollu-
tion prevention and the
“quality” ethic of man-
agement systems.
32. Chapter 2 for state program profiles.) Most of these programs, referred to
Environmental Leadership Programs, specifically incorporate pollution prevention
elements. As both program types evolve at the state level, there is likely to be even
greater coordination. By coordinating these efforts within state agencies, participation
in voluntary environmental protection activities can be enhanced.
Conclusion
The EMS is an innovative tool that, when used as a complement to the tradition-
al regulatory system, can bring about improved environmental performance. The con-
cept of an EMS developed from the total quality management model for continual
improvement employed by manufacturers. The ISO 14001 model was the first EMS
standard developed and has been widely adopted by industry as a way of improving
environmental efficiency and performance. The use of EMSs can lead to direct sav-
ings in production costs and waste disposal fees for businesses and for governmental
agencies that engage in business-like activities. More importantly, proponents believe
EMSs can reduce the impact of industrial or other regulated activity on the environ-
ment beyond that required for minimal regulatory compliance.
A program that encourages the wide-spread use of EMSs should help improve the
state’s overall air and water quality, helping the state lower the cost of enforcement
activity and many other costs associated with compromised natural resources.
However, not all EMSs are alike and only some of them offer public policy benefits.
Before state policy-makers offer substantive incentives like regulatory flexibility or
financial incentives, they should carefully consider the design of the EMS participants
will be required to adopt.
While the ISO 14001 standard has proven to be a useful internal tool for businesses
and other organizations, the system lacks two elements that should be part of an EMS
endorsed by a state program, if that program is to offer substantive incentives. The
ISO system requires only that the organization conform to the ISO standards of effi-
ciency, not that it actually improve environmental performance and requires no pub-
lic involvement in EMS development or public disclosure about performance. A state
leadership program that offers substantive incentives like regulatory flexibility,
reduced environmental fees or reduced inspections should require that substantive
commitments be made, including the documentation of actual environmental
improvements and public disclosure of the EMS plan and performance results.
EMSs are being used in a wide variety of applications, from industry to agriculture,
forestry, governmental operations, and public lands management. There is a great deal
of overlap between EMSs and pollution prevention activities and those efforts are
being increasingly coordinated at the state level.
19
Environmental Management Systems
36. What should you consider when designing an
Environmental Leadership Program?
What states must consider first and foremost during these lean budget times is the
cost of developing a program to encourage EMS use and whether the benefits are
worth the cost. Times of crisis often spur ingenuity and innovation. The current state
budget crisis might actually help states motivate their staff and the private sector to
think more creatively about achieving environmental protection and may create a cli-
mate in which change is more acceptable.
The efforts by states to encourage environmental innovation have come to be known
as Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs). These efforts are defined more specifi-
cally as voluntary programs in which a regulatory agency offers recognition, assistance, or
financial and regulatory incentives, for organizations to engage in activities that are
intended to meet legal requirements, improve environmental performance and, in some
cases, achieve “beyond compliance” environmental performance.1
(See Appendix A for a
table of state programs and Appendix B for a state by state profile of each program.) Most
ELPs incorporate EMSs or EMS-like activities. This is most likely because EMSs have
become so prevalent and accepted in the corporate manufacturing world over the last
decade. Consequently, the EMS concept has become widely recognized. As discussed in
Chapter I, most ELPs require pollution prevention activities and there is considerable
overlap between state pollution prevention programs and state programs that encourage
the voluntary adoption of EMSs.2
What initial policy needs to be put in place?
The importance of emphasizing leadership in an ELP policy cannot be overstated.
By helping develop leadership skills in the regulated community, government officials
can create benefits far beyond the specific environmental improvements required as
part of a state program. Fostering the ethic of leadership can transform the culture of
organizations and entire business sectors. The leadership ethic is at the heart of envi-
ronmental innovation because it creates the commitment to long-term sustainability
and the incentive to reach for ever-higher goals in environmental performance. When
government helps create that spark of creativity within a member of the regulated
community, the effects may spread to the member’s trade group or competitors. Like
ripples that extend outward from the impact of a pebble, the decision by one business
entity to adopt a policy of environmental leadership can have a real impact on others
in the private sector. This has proven true in the automotive industry, where most of
the major automakers have implemented ISO 14001 EMSs and at least two require
all their suppliers to be ISO certified. Many individual businesses have shown com-
mendable performance in implementing systematic approaches like EMSs, but only
some of those efforts rise to the level of environmental leadership. While individual
efforts by businesses are important and should always be encouraged, states may also
want to set a goal of fostering this more ambitious leadership ethic that seeks to influ-
ence and motivate an entire business sector.
23
Environmental Management Systems
1
Michael Crow,“Beyond Experiments,” Environmental Forum, (May/June 2000)
2
Crow, page 20.
37. What legislative and regulatory changes need to be considered?
Many states have enacted legislation or revised regulations to allow development of
a program that encourages the adoption of EMSs. (See Appendix A for references to
legislation and regulations adopted by states.) Other states, such as Massachusetts,
have launched an initiative by executive order. The need for new legislation or changes
to a state’s current regulatory scheme will depend on the incentives to be offered by
the proposed program. If the incentives will involve flexibility in administrative
requirements like reporting or inspections, reductions in “polluter pays” fees such as
hazardous waste generator fees, or limitations on the state’s right to pursue an enforce-
ment action for violations, it is likely legislative and/or regulatory changes will be
required. If the state program will offer recognition and assistance only, it is very
unlikely legislative or regulatory changes will be needed.
What are states doing?
A number of states have developed ELPs to encourage the adoption of EMSs and
other innovative practices. The key benefits of these programs are participants’ will-
ingness and engagement and the ability to harness the knowledge of facility managers
about their own operations to target where and how improvements can be made.
States have developed a variety of programs to spur efforts at innovation, from recog-
nition and assistance to ambitious incentive programs, ISO 14001 training courses,
and pilot projects that test the EMS concept in a variety of applications.
Model State Policies and Programs—
Best Practices you can use in your state
This guide highlights seven model programs to help draw brighter distinctions
between different types of approaches tried by states. This will help state officials
determine which approach best suits their state’s particular environmental problems,
political landscape, financial condition and other relevant factors. These models rep-
resent “best practices” that can serve as a starting point for innovative action.
There are three basic frameworks in which most state programs fall—recognition
and assistance, menu-based, and negotiation-based.3
These models differ in several
general ways:
Recognition and assistance programs often have the least stringent requirements for
participation of the three types of programs and tend to attract the widest participation.
These programs are generally aimed at helping businesses and other organizations take
their first steps toward innovative environmental management by encouraging them to
adopt an EMS, or begin the process of developing one, and establish a goal of continual
improvement.
Menu-based programs allow agencies to implement proven programs and strate-
gies by offering a standardized set of benefits for prescribed commitments. These pro-
grams often require more ambitious commitments than a recognition and assistance
24
State Official’s Guide
3
Crow, page 28.
38. program, but reach a wider audience than negotiation-based programs. These programs
tend to have a wider impact for two reasons. The requirements for qualifying are less
stringent and fewer state agency resources have to be committed to each participant so
more organizations can become involved. This type of standardized program also allows
businesses to assess upfront the costs and benefits of participating in an ELP.
Negotiation-based programs tend to attract the most sophisticated companies
that have become environmental leaders, as defined earlier in this chapter, and that
help inform the environmental innovation process. These companies are the trend-
setters that commit money and personnel to develop new, innovative strategies for
dealing with the environmental impacts of their operations. Through one-on-one
negotiations with facility owners and managers, this kind of program offers incentives
and rewards that are tailored to a particular facility, builds relationships between reg-
ulators and facility managers, and is likely to require community involvement.4
Recognition and assistance models
New Mexico’s Green Zia Pollution Prevention Partnership
The Green Zia program offers three levels of recognition and assistance to New
Mexico businesses, organizations and communities. The program does not have stan-
dardized, prescriptive requirements. Instead, it advocates the basic principle of con-
tinuous improvement through an integrated EMS that incorporates business and
environmental goals. Participants can qualify for one of the following three levels:
Commitment Recognition is available to organizations that develop a framework
for an EMS containing significant pollution prevention elements.
Achievement Recognition is available to organizations that implement a compre-
hensive, prevention-based EMS and can show documented environmental
improvements.
Environmental Excellence is available to organizations that can demonstrate full
integration of an effective, prevention-based EMS, substantial documentation of
results related to continuous improvement, as well as internalization of the
Program’s core values.
Green Zia program managers say their program “raises the bar” for environmental
commitments, saying the Environmental Excellence level requires greater commit-
ments from participants than any other state ELP in the country. Green Zia does not
offer any regulatory rewards, but does offer assistance by providing training and writ-
ten guidance.
Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program
Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program is another
example of the recognition and assistance model for encouraging the voluntary adop-
tion of EMSs and pollution prevention activities. Louisiana facilities that join the pro-
25
Environmental Management Systems
4
Ibid.
Louisiana oil refinery becomes
first in nation to be ISO-certi-
fied with encouragement of
state ELP
Marathon-Ashland Oil (Marath-
on) was one of eight facilities to win
Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership
Pollution Prevention Program
(LaELP) award in 2001. The awards
recognize companies that commit to
implementing a comprehensive pol-
lution prevention program, including
an EMS.
According to Terry Persaud,
environmental coordinator for
Marathon’s Garyville, La. refinery,
the company had begun imple-
menting a pollution prevention ini-
tiative several years before it
enrolled in the LaELP program, but
wanted to coordinate all its P2, per-
formance enhancement, conserva-
tion, and risk reduction efforts
under the comprehensive frame-
work of an EMS.
Marathon developed and imple-
mented a 14001-certified EMS in
1999.As a result, Marathon was able
to reduce its production of
Potassium Hydroxide from 3,005
tons to 1,239 tons annually, a reduc-
tion in 1,766 tons of this toxic chem-
ical. The company reduced the
amount of wastewater it discharged
each year from 3,672 tons to 1,636,
a reduction of 2,036 tons of waste-
water that otherwise would have
been discharged into the Mississippi.
On the conservation front,
Marathon was able to reduce the
refinery’s consumption of water by
almost 2.6 million gallons each year,
from 2.75 million gallons of water
annually to only .15 million gallons.
This reduction was achieved
through the installation of new tech-
nology in the refinery’s cooling
tower that reduced water evapora-
tion. Improvements to infrastructure
around the facility helped reduce the
Continued on page 26
39. gram are recognized as companies “committed to maintaining and improving the quali-
ty of [Louisiana’s] environment” in a letter and certificate from the Department of
Environmental Quality.5
Technical assistance is provided through periodic meetings,
conferences and seminars sponsored by the program that explore pollution prevention,
EMSs, and other environmental management tools and issues. The program does not
offer on-site technical assistance, although small businesses can receive that kind of help
from the Small Business Assistance Program. Participants also are eligible to take part in
the annual Governor’s Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention, a
highly publicized ceremony in which program participants are recognized.
Requirements for enrolling in the Louisiana program include committing to the fol-
lowing guiding principles:
Minimization of the facility’s impact on human health and the environment
becomes a top priority in regulatory and business decisions.
Using an internal EMS to encourage continuous improvement in environmental
performance.
Using the waste management hierarchy (source reduction, recycling, treatment, and
disposal) as guidance for managing environmental issues and for optimizing pro-
duction processes.
Being proactive in communicating with facility neighbors and the larger communi-
ty about environmental matters.
Within two months of program enrollment, participants must submit a plan to the
Department of Environmental Quality describing waste reduction goals. An annual
update must be provided to enable DEQ to track the facility’s progress towards goals
outlined in its plan.
This program is an example of an initiative that can be launched with little or no des-
ignated funding. While the commitments required for inclusion in this program are not
as stringent as some other state environmental leadership initiatives, there appears to be
a trade off at work here—less stringency for greater participation. Louisiana’s program
has one of the highest participation rates of any program in the country.
It is important to note that this program does not offer regulatory or financial
rewards and, yet, it exposes a significant number of Louisiana facilities to new ideas
and training in environmental management. As a result, some degree of overall envi-
ronmental improvement may be produced without the risks associated with changing
the minimum statutory and regulatory requirements those facilities must meet. What
remains to be seen is whether this kind of program results in “beyond compliance” per-
formance by facilities on a significant scale, or even produces greater compliance
among businesses with compliance problems.
A menu-based model
Georgia Pollution Prevention Partners
Georgia’s Pollution Prevention Partners (P3) program, administered by the state
Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, is a successful example of a menu-based ELP.
26
State Official’s Guide
5
See Louisiana’s Environmental Leadership Pollution Prevention Program website at <http://www.deq.
state.la.us/assistance/elp>
Continued from page 25
risk of a major oil spill that would
directly impact the Mississippi River.
In November 2001, Marathon
became the first oil refinery in the
United States with a certified, ISO
14001-equivalent EMS.
40. The three-tiered program is offered to Georgia industries that first document full com-
pliance with applicable environmental statutes and regulations. Although the program
does not explicitly require an EMS, industry-applicants must commit to continual
improvement, a central element of the EMS concept, and must adopt pollution pre-
vention practices. Applicants receive increasing levels of incentives and rewards with
increasing commitments to improvement in environmental performance as follows:
The Entry Level recognizes facilities that demonstrate a commitment to developing
a successful pollution prevention program. Participants at this level are eligible for
a free, non-regulatory, on-site pollution prevention assessment; assistance in quali-
fying for the program from the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division staff; and
recognition in division publications.
The Achievement Level recognizes facilities that have established a pollution preven-
tion program and are making progress toward meeting reduction goals. Facilities that
apply for the Achievement Level are eligible for all the incentives and rewards avail-
able to the entry level, plus up to a 10 percent reduction in Hazardous Waste Trust
Fund and Toxic Release Inventory fees paid to the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division for one year. Facilities that continue to show progress may receive up to a
10 percent reduction for two additional years. The savings from these reduced fees
must be used for pollution prevention activities at the facility.
The Model Level recognizes facilities judged to be industry leaders in pollution pre-
vention on the basis of the facility’s substantial progress toward meeting pollution
prevention goals and its incorporation of pollution prevention into daily business
activities. Facilities that apply for the Model Level are eligible for all the incentives
and rewards available to the entry level, plus up to a 25 percent reduction in
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund and Toxic Release Inventory fees paid to the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division for one year. Facilities that continue to show
progress may receive up to a 25 percent reduction for two additional years. As with
the Achievement Level, the savings from these reduced fees must be used for pollu-
tion prevention activities at the facility.
The Georgia program is distinctive for two reasons. First, it is one of the only state
ELPs that offers a financial reward to participants. By offering participants a direct
financial benefit, but requiring the savings to be spent on pollution prevention activi-
ties, the program provides Georgia industries a tangible economic incentive to become
good environmental stewards. Money that would be used by state government to
address the impacts of pollution after the fact is directed instead into efforts by the pri-
vate sector to prevent pollution in the first place.
Second, Georgia’s program requires that quantifiable goals be established in partici-
pants’ pollution prevention plans. This distinction is crucial because state decision-
makers can judge the success of EMSs, pollution prevention and other activities
encouraged by ELPs only if participants are required to document concrete environ-
mental improvements, or “beyond compliance” performance, in exchange for the
rewards offered. By documenting this kind of improvement in the environmental per-
formance of participating facilities, states can justify committing money and resources
to a program that encourages environmental innovation.
27
Environmental Management Systems
Company finds that EMSs
make good business sense
Mount Vernon Mills has been
recognized in Georgia as an envi-
ronmental leader by instituting
measures that have helped the
company achieve environmental
performance well beyond the regu-
latory minimum. The textile manu-
facturing company has earned a
place in the highest tier of Georgia’s
environmental recognition pro-
gram, Pollution Prevention Partners
(P3) by adopting a comprehensive
EMS for its operations. Mount
Vernon’s efforts to improve its
environmental performance began
in the early 1990s, when the
American Textile Manufacturers
Institute (ATMI) adopted a set of
guidelines similar to the current
ISO 14001 standards.
As a result of EMS implementa-
tion, Mount Vernon has experi-
enced a 26 percent reduction in
water usage, a 67 percent reduc-
tion in regulated air emissions from
processes, and a 55% reduction in
solid waste at its largest operation
inTrion, Georgia. The company has
implemented the same EMS stan-
dards at all 18 of its facilities.
Ron Beegle, director of corpo-
rate affairs for Mount Vernon, says
his company implemented an EMS
at its facilities because “it makes
good business sense” and is “anoth-
er way of providing good customer
service.”
41. Negotiation-based models
Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen Program
Michigan’s Clean Corporate Citizen Program (C3) is an example of a successful
negotiation-based program. This single-tiered program, authorized by changes to the
state’s administrative code, allows regulated establishments that have “demonstrated
environmental stewardship and a strong environmental ethic through their operations
in Michigan” to be recognized as Clean Corporate Citizens.
To enroll, program participants must be in compliance with applicable statutes and
regulations and must have an established EMS and pollution prevention program
with documented environmental performance improvements. In return, participants
receive public recognition and are eligible to negotiate certain regulatory benefits,
including expedited permits and reduced monitoring and reporting in the areas of air
permitting, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharges to surface or
groundwater.
Michigan Administrative Rules R324.1501-1511 set out minimum requirements
businesses must meet before they can enroll in the program and commitments that
must be met to remain a member. For instance, a business that wishes to become a
Clean Corporate Citizen cannot have been convicted of a criminal violation of envi-
ronmental laws in the previous ten years or assessed a civil penalty above a certain level
in the previous three years.
The administrative rules set out specific criteria that must be met in developing a
qualified EMS and pollution prevention plan and requires those plans to be integrat-
ed into the facility’s overall management structure. An ISO 14001-certified EMS may
qualify if approved by the director of the Department of Environmental Quality.
The administrative rules require a 30-day public review and comment period
before an application is submitted to the C3 program. The applicant must provide for
public review by posting a notice in the local newspaper; making the application and
all related documentation available at a local public library or other public building;
and soliciting comments for at least 30 days. To remain a Clean Corporate Citizen,
participants must request renewal and file an annual report documenting that the cri-
teria set out in the program are being met.
The C3 program has 52 participants, more than any other program of this type in
the nation, and is actively recruiting new members. Another significant aspect of the
Michigan program is its focus on small- to medium-sized businesses, a sector often
underrepresented in environmental innovation efforts. The C3 program focused its
recruitment efforts on businesses of this size because many of its large corporate resi-
dents, like the Detroit automakers, have adopted ISO 14001 EMSs and are seeking
environmental improvements through that voluntary system of certification.
Another important feature of the C3 program is the source of its funding. The pro-
gram is fully funded through a waste reduction fee paid to the state and it is not depend-
ent on the allocation of state general funds. In a time when state budgets across the coun-
try are being cut, this funding structure helps ensure the stability of the program.
Finally, C3 seeks to attract a diverse range of participants. The program is open to
any regulated operation, including manufacturing, power generation, natural gas trans-
missions, paper production, office management, research and development and others.
28
State Official’s Guide
