Introduction

This checklist has been developed primarily for a college or university Environmental, Health and Safety (EH&S) professional to improve understanding of the elements of an Environmental Management System (EMS). This checklist can also be used by senior administrators, faculty and staff to raise awareness of an EMS approach. This checklist is based on the assumption that an institution benefits from the periodic review and evaluation of its EMS. This tool provides the framework for such a review.

It is designed to allow for a rapid self-assessment of a university or college (U/C) to determine how closely existing management practices and procedures correspond to the elements of an EMS. The EMS elements incorporated into this checklist have been drawn from a number of sources and tailored to the unique needs of U/C . We have organized these EMS elements in the format of a simple questionnaire with a four-part scoring system. In this format, even with limited knowledge of management systems, an individual or group completing this checklist can quickly review existing operations and programs to determine how the U/C measures up to the elements of a model EMS. This in turn can serve as the starting point for identifying management practices or system elements that might improve overall environmental performance at your school. Environmental performance includes compliance management as well as the minimization of environmental impacts, incorporation of environmental issues into U/C decision-making and integration of environmental values into education and research missions.

Why introduce an environmental management system?

Environmental compliance and campus "greening" activities have become important factors in the decision-making process of U/Cs. More aggressive enforcement of environmental laws and regulations is resulting in new standards for universities and colleges of all sizes. Environmental issues at U/C are complex and interconnected, however. The traditional way of addressing environmental issues – in a reactive, ad-hoc, end-of-pipe manner – is highly inefficient. Good environmental performance is not just a legal or moral obligation. It also makes good business sense. Reducing pollution means increasing efficiency and wasting fewer resources. Improved health and safety conditions result in a safer campus and a more productive workforce. An EMS can be an effective tool for communicating the value of an environmental program to a wide variety of audiences and servicing the needs of these diverse audiences in a manner that most effectively supports a U/C’s educational and research missions.

Because the risks posed by mismanaging environmental issues are complex and varied, an EMS is also a necessary risk management tool. Environmental risks include the obvious, such as real damage to the environment resulting from a spill or release. They can also include damage to a school’s reputation and a resulting loss of confidence among faculty, staff, students, and alumni. Poor management of environmental programs may also result in compliance violations resulting in fines or penalties.

Colleges and universities are unique places. A U/C serves multiple missions, including education, research and public service. There are long-term planning horizons and myriad constituencies and stakeholders. Operational challenges include high turnover, language barriers, variation of operations between organizational units, outsourcing of critical activities and inconsistent operational information (with the exception of financial information) across schools, departments or divisions. Management challenges include competition for research and students, varying levels of institutional or administrative support and speculative resources and budgets because of widely variable revenue projections.

In light of the risks and the "realities" of life at U/C, environmental management must be addressed in a proactive but flexible manner. Only a carefully designed and properly implemented management approach can provide the necessary measure of confidence that environmental compliance goals are met and environmental performance objectives achieved. An effective EMS at a U/C can ensure that risks are well-managed and financial, resource, and environmental improvement opportunities are seized.

Every U/C has some type of environmental management system in place. Some programs exist. There are some informal processes that may not rise to the level of a procedure. Some procedures are followed. Some are not. Some fundamental questions are: "Are all the elements of an EMS in place?" "Are the elements integrated?" "Do practices conform with the defined EMS?" And perhaps the most important: "If I left tomorrow, would the U/C environmental system continue to function effectively?"

Elements of an EMS

An environmental management system promotes continual improvement in environmental performance. These elements are connected in what is referred to as a "Plan, Do, Check, Act" cycle of continuous improvement. The core elements of an EMS are illustrated and defined more fully on the next page. While different groups may use different terms, we have kept with the standard and most frequently used environmental management terminology.

Environmental Policy: Establishment of an environmental policy by the President, Chancellor or other executive leaders that is documented and widely communicated. The policy should include a commitment to continual improvement, pollution prevention, regulatory compliance and a management framework.

Planning: A Planning phase that covers the identification of key environmental impacts associated with the U/C’s activities and operations, compliance with legal requirements, commitments in the form of objectives (e.g., goals), targets (e.g., timelines, specific reductions) and definition of programs to achieve the specified objectives and targets.

EMS Implementation and Operation: includes the definition and communication of roles and responsibilities, including authority and accountability, development and deployment of operating procedures and written programs, training of relevant faculty, staff and other personnel, and identification of operational controls and emergency response procedures to prevent and respond to environmental incidents.

Checking and Corrective Action: includes monitoring and measuring key environmental parameters to assess performance, conducting audits and assessments, corrective action procedures in the event that specified practices are not followed or in response to environmental incidents and procedures for auditing the performance of the EMS to support continued feedback and improvement.

Management Review: Periodic reviews by senior leadership to ensure the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS.

Environmental Performance Improvements

Although some improvement in environmental performance can be expected due to the adoption of a systematic approach, it should be understood that the EMS is a framework that enables the U/C to achieve and systematically control the level of environmental performance that it sets itself. The establishment of an EMS will not, in itself, necessarily result in an immediate reduction of adverse environmental impacts or "perfect" compliance. Indeed, care needs to be taken that the mere establishment of an EMS does not lull the U/C into a false sense of security. However, effectively used, an EMS should enable a school to improve its environmental performance and avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts over time. That said, some users may be frustrated that the tool does not directly address environmental impacts or "actual" environmental performance. Some of our initial assessors, however, have used this tool to evaluate university programs for recycling, energy conservation or water conservation and found that it is a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the programs.

A U/C has the freedom and flexibility to define the boundaries of its system and may choose to implement an EMS across the entire campus, or within specific operating units or activities of the organization . For example, the EMS may be designed and implemented for an Engineering School or the Chemistry Department. The EMS "concept" can apply at any level. If it is implemented for a specific operating unit or department, policies and procedures developed by other parts of the organization can be used to meet applicable requirements of an EMS.

The level of detail and complexity of the environmental management system will be dependent on the size of the U/C, its mission, resources and a host of other variables. Because U/C’s are so organizationally distinct from industry, and differ so dramatically in terms of mission, the building of an EMS at a U/C is likely to have different priorities than industry.

It is our belief that the heavy emphasis in ISO 14001 with respect to formal procedures, excessive documentation and recordkeeping may be misplaced at U/Cs. An EMS for a U/C needs to focus on management support, planning, system flexibility, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, effective training and communications and reasonably frequent feedback loops. Ultimately, each U/C will make its own judgments as to how best to manage its program priorities and continually improve its environmental performance.

How To Use This Checklist

The assessment tool consists of a series of questions to identify to what extent your environmental management system conforms to the generally agreed upon elements of a complete EMS. Representatives from the Environmental, Health and Safety Departments at more than a dozen colleges and universities have completed some or all of this self-assessment and their suggested edits, comments and revisions have been incorporated into this first version (Version 1.0). We welcome additional feedback based on your experience with this questionnaire and hope to issue a Version 2.0 this winter.

At the top of each page is a question that corresponds to a key element of the EMS. To facilitate answering the questions, there is a table beneath each question with four columns of examples. The column scores generally obey the following pattern.

0 = no process or program in place

1 = a process (e.g., an undocumented procedure) exists but because it is unwritten or limited in scope, it is not fully adequate or effective.

2 = the process generally works well or a procedure has been articulated, but is not comprehensive or integrated.

3 = an appropriately comprehensive and integrated procedure exists.

The examples in the final column represents the "ideal" end point by illustrating a situation in which the requirement appears to be completely fulfilled and a score of "3" applies.

How To Score

We recommend the following scoring method. Begin with the first column to determine if the situation described therein accurately reflects the situation at your C/U or operational unit. If not, then proceed to the second column and make the same decision. Eventually, move on to the third column and ask the same questions. In this way, you "build" progressively on your score and have the best understanding of what a "perfect" score of "3" means.

0	1	2	3
Verify whether one of the paragraphs or statements in this box is applicable to the situation in your organization. If this is the case, your score for this question will be "0" If this is not the case, proceed to the next column	Verify whether any of the statements in this box are applicable to the situation in your organization. If this is the case, your score for this question will be at least "1" Proceed to the next column, to verify whether your score is even better or to identify the areas where you could improve your EMS.	Verify whether any of the statements in this box are applicable to the situation in your organization. If this is the case, your score for this question will be at least "2" Proceed to the next column, to verify whether your score is even better or to identify the areas where you could improve your EMS.	Verify whether your organization conforms to all the paragraphs and statements in this box. If this is the case, your score for this question will be "3". Congratulations. If this is not the case, your score remains at "2". You have identified an area where your EMS can be improved.

Write your score in the space provided on the page, and note any comments or observations in the appropriate space (e.g., what information you used to answer the question, any actions to be taken to improve the situation or a score, challenges in developing a procedure to achieve the top score).

This checklist contains a total of 33 questions in five different sections. In the Appendix, a total score card is included. It is important to acknowledge that the scores are designed to be useful as tools not grades per se. Because there are an unequal number of questions in each "Section," the total score may be skewed by a strength or weakness in a particular section. In order to evaluate scores across the sections, some users may wish to "normalize" scores by assuming that each section is worth 20% of the total and developing a normalizing factor for each section.

A "perfect score" of "99" (i.e., every question received a score of 3) would, if responded to thoroughly and honestly, indicates that the organization has all of the requisite EMS elements and procedures for an effective "state of the art" EMS. More likely, you will find that scores vary substantially across and within sections.

A Note on Terminology and Vocabulary

While we have tried to develop this self-assessment for broad use by faculty, staff and students, there is likely to be new environmental management vocabulary. We have deliberately avoided including a glossary since all definitions are fraught with value judgments and a glossary can often be more of a distraction than a help. At the end of this booklet, we have included a questionnaire that asks, among other questions, whether you agree or whether you would benefit from having such terminology defined. We encourage you to complete the evaluation.

Additional Copies

The Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence encourages the use of this tool. This document is not copyrighted. However, we do request that the Consortium be given appropriate attribution for the self-assessment checklist. Additional copies of the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist can be obtained from our website at http://www.c2e2.org

Return to EMS Assessment Tool Table of Content