This taxi driver isn’t wearing his seat belt. Watch what happens when he falls asleep at the wheel and drives into a retaining wall!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhfdt6nFmCM&feature=player_detailpage

Related Articles in the EHS Journal

• Distracted Driving Overview
• Distracted Driving: States that Restrict Cell Phone Use and Text Messaging. This article includes helpful maps showing mobile telephone and text messaging restrictions.
• Winter Driving Tips
• Ban on Mobile Phone Use While Driving Called for in the U.S
• Vehicle Safety Video – Keep Your Eyes on the Road!

Photograph: Mellow Cherries 1 by Michaela Kobyakov, Linz, Upper Austria, Austria

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

On December 30, 2011, an article titled The World’s Largest Environmental Consulting Firms was posted in the EHS Journal. The article highlighted the “Global 12,” the 12 largest environmental consulting firms. These are firms that have many offices located, in most cases, around the world, and they offer a wide breadth of environmental, health, and safety (EHS) services. For many large client companies, the Global 12 are a strong source of comprehensive, multi-sector EHS assistance.

However, for many companies, small consulting firms — even solo practitioners — can offer a competitive alternative to the Global 12. Because of the economic recession, many highly experienced EHS and energy professionals have been released from their former positions and have founded their own consulting firms; these small firms provide client companies with a viable alternative for procuring consulting services. Depending on the project, these small professional firms can provide services that are equal to or superior in performance yet lower in cost than services provided by the Global 12 and other large consulting firms.

Advantages of Small Consulting Firms

I have worked for a Global 12 firm and now have my own EHS and energy consulting firm. Here are six advantages of using a small EHS consulting firm:

1. Personalized service.  At most small firms, the owner serves the client, and work is conducted by the owner or by a trusted senior staff member. With this arrangement, the client speaks directly with “the boss” and does not have to go through channels, as is required at a large consulting firm.
2. Expert service.  With a small firm, the client gets the direct benefit of the owner’s or the senior person’s many years of experience. The small consulting firm’s owner or experienced practitioner has direct involvement in the project from start to finish.
3. Passion.  Most small firms are thrilled to have a client’s business as even one project can form a significant portion of the company’s workload. This differs from the situation with a very large firm, where a client’s project is likely to be one of many. Small firms can take the time to build close personal relationships with their clients. Not that large firms take their clients for granted, but small firms generally are quite appreciative of their clients’ business and make that extra effort to please because their level of service is a direct reflection of the owner and the firm.
4. Flexibility.  Of course, a major disadvantage of using a small firm is the limited depth of experience of their personnel compared with that of a very large firm. No one person can know everything; however, there is a growing tendency among small companies to create teams to expand the breadth of their expertise. For example, I was recently involved in a teaming arrangement with three other firms representing other specialties that were needed to deliver detailed greenhouse gas reporting services. One Fortune 100 company compared our team with one of the Global 12, and we won based on merit. That Global 12 firm (and others) did not have expertise in the four areas that our team of four had. Furthermore, the evaluation did not even consider that our cost was lower than the big firm’s cost.
5. Lower overhead.  Of course, small firms have lower overhead costs (e.g., reduced office expenses and fewer or no nontechnical employees, such as human resources and marketing professionals) than large firms. Also, project labor costs tend to be lower because there is less duplication of services (a second or third person reviewing the work of somebody else at a large firm). Therefore, in most cases, smaller firms can perform the same work at a lower cost.
6. Local know-how.  Many small firms have an intimate knowledge of the regulations and even the unwritten procedures in the states where they practice. At many large firms, professionals have to handle projects in many locales and may not have the depth of experience in a single jurisdiction. The practitioner’s experience in the local market is important.

Companies seeking EHS and energy consulting services should consider both small and large consulting firms when assessing their needs. While some situations may be better suited to a Global 12 firm, others can be solved just as well, if not better, by the right small firm.

About the Author

Marc Karell, P.E., CEM, is the owner of Climate Change & Environmental Services, LLC, a small consulting firm specializing in air pollution, climate change, sustainability, and energy services for a wide variety of industrial and corporate clients.

Photograph: The End by T. Al Nakib, London, England.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

It’s clear that when it comes to safety, what leaders say and do matters. What I’ve found is that the difference in behavior between good leaders and great leaders can be very minor, but the difference in terms of outcome can be huge.

How leaders approach “learning from incidents” (LFIs) is one example where small tweaks in behavior can have significantly different consequences. In many companies, information learned as a result of an incident is communicated via an e-mail or a safety bulletin. The intent of these notices is to build awareness of the circumstances surrounding the incident and prevent that incident from happening elsewhere. Unfortunately, pride gets in the way of communicating these messages and having leaders act upon them.  

Here’s what typically happens.  The LFI notice is written and circulated within the organization.  The description focuses on the technical causes of the incident and provides an explanation of the potential root cause.  Usually, these LFIs are written in such a way that an advanced level of education is required to read and understand the memorandum.

Leaders who receive the LFIs generally discuss the incident at their morning safety meeting.  The description is circulated, and the staff read the description.  Then the inevitable question is asked.  It goes something like this:

“So, corporate sent out an LFI last night. I’ve made a copy of it for everyone to read. It’s really a tragedy that this happened at our sister facility. I’d like to ask you guys if this can happen here. What do you think?”

 The discussion focuses on the technical causes of the incident, and the leadership team quickly identifies what went wrong at the other site.  That’s when the defenses go up.

“This can’t happen here. We have a process to prevent exactly that type of occurrence, and our people know better than to do that.”

At this point, the discussion ends, with the leader confident that the job has been taken care of:  the LFI has been discussed, and the leader has been convinced that the incident can’t happen at that facility.

Imagine a slightly different turn of events, as demonstrated by the following example.  I was coaching a terrific and well-intentioned leader in the Canadian oil fields. He had been sharing LFIs religiously and was an absolute safety advocate.  He was confident that the LFIs he shared were being discussed adequately—until he had a repeat incident.

He was clearly upset by the recurrence after he had been assured that the incident couldn’t happen again. I asked a simple question:

“What would happen if you changed one word in your question? Instead of asking, ‘Could this happen here?’ ask ‘How could this happen here?’.”

The simple addition of the word “how” changes the focus of the discussion. Instead of generating the reflexive response “this couldn’t happen here,” the conversation shifts to the rigor of the controls that exist at the facility, the completeness of practices, and the strength of barriers.  When this leader heard my suggestion, the light bulb went on. The leader changed his behavior, and his next LFI discussion identified four possible ways a corrosion incident could happen in his areas of accountability, which resulted in changes to processes and procedures.

Imagine the power of a front-line leader’s introducing the single word “how” during tailgate or toolbox meetings.  Suddenly, the conversation changes from a monologue to an engaging discussion on weaknesses in training, documentation, and procedures. In addition, if the leader is paying attention, he or she can act on suggestions and improve safety, engagement, and trust.

 Not bad for changing one single word!

 The next time you get an LFI:

• Circulate a simple LFI description, written at the 8^th grade level or below.
• Use simple pictures (as advocated by authors Larkin & Larkin) to illustrate the incident.
• Ask “How could this happen here?”.
• Solicit ideas on how to make your operations and controls safer.
• Act on those ideas!

About the Author

Laurence Pearlman is a Director with Corven, Inc. in Lisle, Illinois, U.S.A. He advises energy and natural resource clients on safety performance improvement and change management. Laurence specializes in engaging employees and leaders to drive ownership and sustainability of safety processes. Previously, Laurence worked for Amoco, BP, Exxon, and Pfizer. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. He was part of the team that assessed the culture of BP Refining after the Texas City incident and identified leadership and cultural interventions to reduce risk. He holds degrees from the University of Illinois and the University of Iowa.

Other Articles by Laurence Pearlman in the EHS Journal

• Does Operational Discipline Replace Strong Safety Leadership?

Photograph: Water Lily by Claudia Meyer, Paris, France.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

My cell phone is 5 years old. It has a tiny screen, an awkward keyboard, and no applications at all, but I stubbornly refuse to trade it in for a new one. It still functions, and for the work I do, it’s really all I need.  Also, I know that if I exchange it, my old phone will become electronic waste (e-waste).  

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 2009 more than 2.37 million tons of e-waste was generated in the United States alone. That’s about four times the weight of the entire human population. E-waste includes televisions, computers, printers, phones, and other electronics that have outlived their useful lives. It can be almost anything plugged into a wall, and in our increasingly digital society, it is a significant environmental problem.

Why Is E-Waste a Growing Problem?

The most urgent issue today is that approximately 80 percent of unwanted electronics are improperly disposed of.  E-waste is either discarded or exported to emerging nations, where open-air burning and acid baths are used to reclaim precious metals and other elements.  According to a 2010 U. S. Congressional Research Service report, the lack of environmental controls in these nations has resulted in elevated lead levels in children and in heavy metal contamination of soil and water.

The situation is exacerbated by the rapid turnover of electronic devices. Because of the fast pace at which technology is evolving, most electronics have only a 2- to 3- year useful life. Apple sells more than 300,000 new phones every day. In this same time frame, more than 150,000 new Blackberries are sold and 700,000 new Android phones are activated.  That’s 1.15 million new phones each and every day. Most of the phones that are replaced by these new devices end up in a drawer or in municipal landfills. Today’s paradigm is one of disposable electronics, and as a result we now stand at the forefront of a growing environmental catastrophe.

A Lifecycle Approach

In an effort to solve the most pressing problem of e-waste disposal, many countries are enacting laws designed to hold manufacturers accountable for end-of-life electronics. In the United States, 36 states have proposed or implemented “take back” laws that are similar to the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive, which makes manufacturers either financially or physically responsible for e-waste. In addition, new certification standards such as e-Stewards and R2 provide guidance for responsible e-waste disposal to the burgeoning electronics recycling industry.

Beyond the immediate solution, though, is a more holistic approach that considers the environmental implications of electronics design, operation, and obsolescence. The U.S. Interagency Task Force referred to this approach as “electronics stewardship” in their 2011 product lifecycle strategy document. The strategy set forth a series of initiatives intended to “prevent environmental harm, conserve valuable resources, save money, create jobs, and invest in our economic development.”  

In designing this strategy, the task force chose to leverage the government’s purchasing power as the largest U.S. consumer to build a sustainable approach to electronics stewardship. The strategy establishes a series of initiatives that, among other things, promotes design innovation of “greener” (multipurpose, reusable, and less toxic) electronics, requires manufacturer responsibility for e-waste disposal, and extends the lifecycle of all federally purchased electronics by encouraging interagency re-use.

Consumer Responsibility

The U.S. government is acting as a responsible consumer, but are the rest of us following suit? Today, there is little focus on consumer responsibility for e-waste beyond encouraging recycling and awareness of human rights issues. We are part of the problem, so shouldn’t we also be part of the solution?  Consumers have the ability to “vote with their wallet” and encourage more responsible behavior. Wal-Mart’s transformational journey toward sustainability is just one example of a positive response to consumer pressure.  We can solve this environmental crisis by pressuring electronics manufacturers to produce less-toxic, longer-life products.  It sounds simple, but the reality is that it’s difficult to ignore the siren’s call of new technology.

Microsoft isn’t waiting for consumers to determine the future of electronics. The company has created a Vision of 2020 that neutralizes the appeal of physical devices, relegating them to the background.  In doing so, Microsoft has created a future where very little e-waste is generated because the devices serve simply to facilitate our engagement in the world around us. It’s an inspiring vision. Until it comes to fruition, I’ll hold on to my Blackberry and hope we get there in time.

About the Author

Maureen O’Donnell is a sustainability professional in the aerospace and defense industry. She has more than fifteen years of IT experience, including nine years in strategic and emerging technology planning. Over the past six years, Maureen has been working across her company to develop and implement Green IT and sustainable business strategies.

Other EHS Journal Articles by Maureen O’Donnell

• Newsweek’s 2011 Green Rankings
• Green IT: Sustainability and Cost Savings

Photograph: Abstract by Ilco, Izmir, Turkey.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

Welcome to the EHS Journal. This international online magazine was designed for and by environmental, health and safety professionals for the purpose of sharing knowledge and facilitating discussion within our profession. Since our launch in January 2010, we have published articles and images from more than 100 contributors in 30 countries.

We are actively seeking new articles! See the Submission Guidelines for more information and submit your articles and comments to the EHS Journal today.

Photograph: Enlightened Praise by Bill Davenport, Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

On March 26, 2012 the United States Federal Register published the final rule on the Hazard Communication Standard/Globally Harmonized System. This final rule will become effective 60 days after the date of publication. The changes will bring the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard, which was first adopted in 1983, in line with the international Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).

The new rule will provide all employees with easily understandable information on appropriate handling and safe use of hazardous chemicals. The final rule

• Provides specific criteria for classification of health and physical hazards, as well as classification of mixtures.
• Requires chemical manufacturers and importers to provide a label that includes a harmonized signal word, pictogram, and hazard statement for each hazard class and category. Precautionary statements must also be provided.
• Implements a specified 16-section format for safety data sheets (SDSs).

The following dates have been established for implementation of the GHS rule.

*This date coincides with the European Union implementation date for classification of mixtures.

Additional information, including a listing of Frequently Asked Questions, can be found at http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html.

About the Author

Crista Bozogan, CPEA, REM, is a senior project manager in the Boston, U.S.A. office of Environmental Resources Management (ERM) where she specializes in environmental, health and safety management systems and compliance programs. Crista manages several large global audit programs for her clients and also serves as the lead auditor on more than 10 compliance audits per year.

Image: Blood Flowers by Thomas Boulvin, Binche, Hainaut, Belgium.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

Welcome to the EHS Journal. This international online magazine was designed for and by environmental, health and safety professionals for the purpose of sharing knowledge and facilitating discussion within our profession. Since our launch in January 2010, we have published articles and images from more than 100 contributors in 30 countries.

We are actively seeking new articles! See the Submission Guidelines for more information and submit your articles and comments to the EHS Journal today.

Photograph: Umbrellas in the Street by Jesús Manuel Nieto Bobadilla, Alicante, Spain.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

Many organizations have been conducting environmental, health, and safety (EHS) audits for decades now, and as auditors revisit sites on a 2- or 3-year cycle, one of the most frustrating aspects of the audit outcomes is that many of the same or similar findings of noncompliance seem to arise time and time again.  This situation is obviously troubling because it implies that site managers are not addressing the findings in a way that (1) results in permanent fixes and (2) truly changes the culture of the organization.

Hence, in order to minimize or even eliminate the occurrence of repeat findings, corporate management often puts in place a program of punitive measures or sanctions that are directed at site managers.  This approach can be problematic for any number of reasons:

• It can change the tone of an audit program from independent and supportive to confrontational and combative.  Site managers are never comfortable with repeat findings when a penalty might be incurred.  The only possible exception is when the problem has persisted because of a lack of corporate or business unit funding for the necessary capital improvements. 
• Perhaps more importantly, not everyone has the same idea about what is or is not a repeat finding.  No consensus definition has been developed to help classify a finding as a repeat, which can cause serious disputes between site managers and the audit team.  Moreover, where definitions have been developed, they are often not considered satisfactory to all concerned stakeholders.  For example, in some audit programs, a repeat finding classification is given solely if the identical regulatory citation applies, regardless of whether the actual deficiency is precisely the same.  In other audit programs, the technical deficiency must be almost identical to the one identified on the previous audit.  In still other programs, classifying a finding as a repeat is basically at the auditor’s discretion. 

This brief article focuses on the issue of defining repeat findings. (For more information on the role of repeat findings in evaluating audit program performance, please see Lawrence Cahill’s article Measuring the Success of an EHS Audit Program.) A “repeat finding” classification must be defined for an EHS audit program so that everyone is working from the same rule book.  This will increase understanding across the board and hopefully minimize disputes.

Repeat findings are typically considered to be serious and justifiably receive significant management attention.  However, before labeling something a “repeat,” auditors must focus on what actually caused the finding to occur. The question really is, did a breakdown in a management or control system cause this failure, or was it simply an isolated case of a similar nature? In other words—is this a repeat finding or a recurring finding?

What Is a Repeat Finding?

A repeat finding can be defined as one of the following: 

• A finding that was identified in the previous independent audit for which a corrective action has not been completed as planned
• A finding that is substantially similar in nature to one that was identified in the previous independent audit

An example of an environmental audit finding that would clearly be considered a repeat would be the case of a site that on an initial audit is determined to be operating without a required air or wastewater permit and on the follow-up or subsequent audit still does not have the required permit.  One factor that might color the repeat classification would be if the site had applied for a permit promptly but the issuing agency had not yet responded.  The auditor would then have to decide whether the site’s follow-up efforts with the agency, over a 3-year period, were earnest and substantial (e.g., face-to-face meetings).  If they were not, then there is a strong implication that the corrective actions were insufficient to correct the deficiency, and this could legitimately be called a repeat finding.

An example of a repeat safety finding would be a case such as the following: On the initial audit, a guard that protected workers from coming into contact with a high-speed belt was observed to have been removed from a major piece of rotating equipment. Operators claimed that the guard “got in the way.”  After the audit, the site reported in its corrective action plan that the guard had been reinstalled.  Three years later, on the next audit, the guard was once again found to have been removed.  Another repeat finding.

What Is a Recurring Finding?

A finding that would probably not be considered a repeat finding is seen in the following example of an environmental audit of a wastewater treatment plant.  Assume that 10 parameters (e.g., pH, BOD, and TSS) with daily effluent limits are listed in the discharge permit and that the audit review period is 3 years.  This means that roughly 10,000 data points must be evaluated.  Now assume that, on an initial audit, a small number of minor excursions of pH or BOD occurred over the 3-year audit period.  Next, assume that on the subsequent audit 3 years later, it was determined that a small number of minor excursions of pH or BOD had occurred as well.  Should the second set of excursions constitute a repeat finding if the management of the wastewater plant is otherwise found to be fundamentally sound?  This is probably not a repeat finding, since wastewater treatment plants rarely operate in compliance with the permit limits 100 percent of the time.

A second example of a finding that might not be considered a repeat could be found on a fire safety audit at a large manufacturing site.  Auditors, if they look long and hard enough, can almost always find an issue with inspections and maintenance of portable fire extinguishers.  Should a missing tag on one fire extinguisher out of a universe of several hundred constitute a repeat finding if another extinguisher was without a tag on the previous audit?  Again, if the management system is otherwise sound, the answer is “probably not.” 

Similar situations can occur in other compliance areas where the universe of events or items to be audited is also quite large (e.g., material safety data sheets, hazardous waste manifests) and the likelihood of isolated failures is high.  Auditors should think of these as recurring findings instead of repeat findings.

Conclusion

Identifying true repeat findings is a critical component of any EHS audit program,  especially given that repeats can be interpreted as “willful and knowing” violations by regulatory agencies.  However, there is a difference between “repeat” and “recurring” findings: repeat findings result from the breakdown of a management system or control, whereas recurring findings are mostly isolated occurrences that can happen in the best of programs.  It is important for auditors to understand the difference between the two and ensure that sites are not punished or sanctioned by the repeat classification when the controlling system is otherwise fully implemented and effective.

Related Articles by Lawrence Cahill and Robert Costello

• Environmental Audits Versus Health and Safety Audits (Cahill and Costell0)
• Using Risk Factors to Determine EHS Audit Frequency (Cahill)
• Measuring the Success of an EHS Audit Program (Cahill)
• EHS Audits – Have We Lost Our Way? (Cahill)
• Statistically Representative Sampling on EH&S Audits: Expectations Established by Third Parties (Cahill)
• Outsourcing EHS Audits: Does it Make Sense? (Cahill)
• EHS Audits – Have We Lost Our Way? A Sequel (Cahill and Costello)

About the Authors

Lawrence B. Cahill, CPEA (Master Certification), is a Technical Director at Environmental Resources Management in Exton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.  He has more than 30 years of professional EHS experience with industry and consulting.  He is the editor and principal author of the widely used text Environmental, Health and Safety Audits, which is published by Government Institutes, Inc. and is now in its ninth edition.  He has published more than 60 articles and has been quoted in numerous publications, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.  Mr. Cahill has worked in more than 25 countries during his career.  He holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Northeastern University, an M.S. in Environmental Health Engineering from Northwestern University, and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Robert J. Costello, PE, Esq., CPEA, is a Principal Consultant at Environmental Resources Management inExton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.  He has more than 17 years of professional environmental resource management and consulting experience.  Mr. Costello manages global regulatory compliance, management systems, and sustainability assurance programs and typically participates on-site in 30 or more audits and assessments per year.  He holds a B.S. in Environmental Engineering from Wilkes University, an M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Syracuse University, and a J.D. from Syracuse University.  Mr. Costello is admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania, is a licensed professional engineer in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and is a Certified Professional Environmental Auditor. 

Photograph: Spices 2 by Zsuzsanna Kilian, Budapest, Hungary.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

According to the Third Annual Sustainability Global Executive Survey,[1] more organizations than ever before are putting sustainability on their business agendas, and businesses recognize the need to do so in order to remain competitive. Many companies that successfully incorporate sustainability principles into their business report increased profits as an outcome. However, the survey also revealed that most companies are struggling to define sustainability in a way that is relevant to their business.[2] Other research indicates that sustainability is still often addressed in a peripheral way, with a focus on “green” initiatives that are separate from core business strategies.[3],[4]

What is becoming clear is that firms that are reaping benefits from their sustainability initiatives have generally taken a holistic approach to incorporating sustainability throughout the organization.[5],[6]  This approach requires extensive changes not only in the way the business is organized and sets its strategic goals but also in the corporate culture and the attitudes and mindsets of organizational leaders, employees, and other stakeholders.

The Art and Science of Transformation

Like other major organizational transformations, the successful adoption of a sustainable approach to business requires the right balance of “art” and “science.” The case for applying both art and science in transforming a business is based on evidence that business transformations in general are subject to a high rate of failure. In particular, the people-related aspects of change, such as overcoming weak leadership or altering employee attitudes, are the most difficult to achieve, which often leads to project failure.[7], [8], [9] 

The art of transforming an organization consists of two types of ability: the softer skills relating to human behavior and interactions (e.g., leadership, communications, and adaptability) and the personal attributes that are often defined as “acumen” or “intuition.”  In contrast, the science of transforming a business comprises the skills and knowledge required to use formal processes, techniques, and tools in planning, implementing, and managing organizational change. This category includes tasks such as requirements analysis, risk identification, financial planning, and performance measurement. The distinction between art and science can also be conceptualized in terms of the thinking of the “right brain” and “left brain,” respectively, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Right Brain Versus Left Brain Thinking

In any transformation initiative, it is essential to achieve the right balance of art skills and science skills (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Balancing Art and Science in Business Transformation

Art and Science Applied to Sustainability

Science skills are especially important in the early stages of planning a sustainability initiative, when the business needs to review all functional areas and their interrelationships systematically, identify suitable sustainability goals and performance metrics, and develop implementation plans.  While all these steps lay the groundwork for sustainability, the successful execution of the initiative also requires an extensive range of art skills. For example, art skills are useful for effectively communicating the rationale for and objectives of the program to all stakeholders, as well as for securing and maintaining stakeholders’ commitment and contributions to achieving the desired outcomes.

The need for art skills in sustainability goes further than this, however: becoming a sustainability-driven organization requires a shift in balance from left-brain to right-brain thinking, particularly in the setting of business objectives and performance measures.  This shift is necessary in order to expand the organizational focus from traditional financial indicators of business success to wider definitions of costs and value that incorporate social and environmental dimensions, as well as the more intangible business benefits of sustainability such as improved public attitudes to the brand or increased employee engagement.  This change creates challenges for traditional science-based accounting and performance measurement systems and calls for more creative or qualitative approaches to measuring business performance. Achieving this often requires a significant change in organizational culture and mindset, as well as an investment in organizational learning and knowledge accumulation about social and environmental issues.  Having roles dedicated to the promotion of sustainability can be an important driver of culture change: sustainability “champions” can educate other employees and stakeholders through organizational communications and help ensure that sustainability stays firmly on the business agenda. 

The use of art and science is also crucial in promoting sustainability in the supply chain, because a company’s sustainability program can be severely undermined if its external suppliers are found to be using unsustainable or unethical work practices. Analysis techniques such as stakeholder mapping and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis provide the structures and methods for documenting supply chain–related risks and opportunities, but people-related skills are often needed for properly understanding the nature of these and how best to engage and secure the commitment of external stakeholders in improving sustainability in their own businesses.

To conclude, incorporating sustainability in a business as an add-on or a peripheral “green” program is a risky approach that is likely to represent a business cost. A holistic program in which sustainability is integrated into all organizational functions and stakeholder groups, on the other hand, can be an effective driver of business growth as well as environmental and social benefits. Implementing this type of program requires a transformational approach based on the application of art and science, to ensure that sustainability becomes embedded into the structure and culture of the organization. 

About the Author

Harold Schroeder is the President of Schroeder & Schroeder Inc., a firm of experienced professional program and project managers, management consultants, and corporate managers focused on providing transformation management consulting services to private and public sector organizations. Headquartered in Toronto, Canada, Schroeder & Schroeder focuses on helping organizations reduce the risk and uncertainty in launching, accelerating, and maintaining successful transformation initiatives using the “art and science of transformation.”

Mr. Schroeder is an experienced strategic program adviser, project manager, and management consultant with more than a quarter century of experience consulting to boards of directors, executives, and senior management. He has extensive experience in both the public and private sector. Mr. Schroeder is a Fellow Certified Management Consultant (FCMC), a Project Management Professional (PMP), a Certified Health Executive (CHE), and a Certified Human Resources Professional (CHRP). 

Photograph: Water Tank by David Ritter, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Return to the EHS Journal Home Page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC7mA3tvHZg&feature=player_embedded

Photograph: Protection Helmet by Davide Guglielmo, Albignasego, PD, Italy.