In late 1999 a group of North Carolina's environmental leaders participated in a focus group to discuss voluntary environmental programs and, in particular, environmental management systems (EMS). The purpose of this meeting was to enable the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to hear the opinions of environmentalists in the state and identify opportunities for citizen education and involvement in EMS. 4
The focus group yielded key insights into attitudes toward voluntary environmental programs, especially those offering regulatory flexibility, and the concerns that participants have about the implementation of such programs. This report provides a detailed analysis of the focus group discussion, organized by major themes, and recommends actions to the DPPEA that will facilitate communication with environmental and community organizations and may foster greater involvement in EMS projects.
|
An environmental management system (EMS, also referred to as voluntary EMS in this report) is a tool that enables an organization to achieve and systematically control the level of environmental performance that it sets itself. The five basic elements of an EMS are an environmental policy, planning, implementation and operation, checking and corrective action, and management review. The implementation of an EMS is intended to result in improved environmental performance, and an organization will periodically review and evaluate its EMS to identify opportunities for continual improvement. However, the establishment and operation of an EMS may not result in an immediate reduction of environmental impact. Incentive-based EMS refers to a program that offers incentives in exchange for EMS implementation. Incentives vary; options range from promotional incentives such as public recognition to regulatory flexibility incentives such as reduced inspections/monitoring. |
The NC DENR, with the DPPEA as the lead agency, is conducting a pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness of an EMS in improving environmental performance/compliance and pollution prevention. Through this pilot program, DENR hopes to better understand EMS implementation, particularly the ISO 14001 model. 5
Since 1996, DPPEA, along with officials of nearly a dozen other states and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has participated in a national dialogue on EMS and public policy convened by the Multi-State Working Group (MSWG). The MSWG is a voluntary group of participants from state, federal, non-governmental, business, and higher education organizations interested in the effectiveness of EMS. The group was formed to 1) develop a common set of ground rules and data collection protocols for pilot programs with organizations that were implementing EMS and 2) pool the data on environmental and economic results into a national publicly-accessible database. NC DENR was a founding member and serves on the coordinating committee of the MSWG.
Currently six organizations are participating in NC DENR's pilot program: the City of Burlington's Wastewater Treatment Plant, the City of Gastonia's Wastewater Treatment Plant, Duke Power/Salisbury, Konica Manufacturing USA, Marine Corps Base/Camp Lejeune, and Novo Nordisk Biochem/North America. The NC DENR's interest in the pilot program is to:
The pilot program is being supported by a grant from the EPA's Office of Water, and data are being compiled into a national database maintained by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH).
ENGO Outreach in DENR's Pilot Program
As part of the pilot program, DPPEA has organized quarterly roundtable meetings with industry and local government participants. During these meetings and in other forums, in North Carolina and nationally, the role of stakeholder involvement in EMS has been debated. DPPEA realized the need to engage a wider audience in its program, particularly environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). The agency's efforts to involve ENGOs in the pilot program and the broader EMS discussions have included:
Despite this outreach, DPPEA staff felt it had not heard from North Carolina ENGOs and wanted to enhance its efforts with this audience. In the winter of 1999, the DPPEA contracted with the UNC-CH Environmental Resource Program (ERP) to research ENGO perceptions of voluntary programs and EMS. 6
The objectives of the project were to (1) understand the views of environmental leaders in North Carolina with respect to EMS and (2) identify opportunities for citizen education and involvement. Ultimately, the results of this research will assist DPPEA in designing programs that could better engage ENGOs in the EMS process.
A focus group was selected as the research method because it would provide an opportunity to hear and understand the participants' attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that affect their behavior and choices regarding voluntary environmental programs and EMS in particular.
Focus group results cannot be projected onto the population at large, because the small, non-random nature of the sample precludes generalization. While these individuals' opinions provide rich material for analysis, they cannot be considered representative of a larger sample. Inconsistencies in respondents' views should be considered as valid data. While the participants may be misinformed or simply wrong in their knowledge or judgment, these findings still provide useful information about their level of understanding. Lastly, this study cannot be considered reliable or valid in the statistical sense.
The focus group was held on December 1, 1999 and involved eight participants representing seven regional and statewide environmental organizations and a variety of environmental issues. Two representatives of statewide environmental organizations were interviewed separately because they could not participate in the meeting. See Appendix A for a list of participants, interviewees and observers.
The participants had varying levels of familiarity with EMS: three people were actively involved in discussions of potential legislation, which was not enacted, in North Carolina, and at least one was familiar with ISO 14001. Others read the materials provided by ERP and DPPEA, which prompted them to review DENR's Web site and other related sites prior to the focus group.
Participants received two documents pertaining to EMS. One was a two-page description created by DPPEA and mailed prior to the focus group. The other was a one-paragraph description, provided during the focus group, designed to give participants a common basis for discussion. See Appendix B for copies of these documents.
The focus group lasted for two hours and was taped and led by a professional facilitator, who asked questions and used a topic guide to steer the discussion. Observers did not participate except to ask limited questions at the end. Following the focus group, a transcript of the discussion was created and the ERP analyzed the transcript, identifying key messages and themes that emerged from the discussion. Two phone interviews were also conducted, using the focus group topic guide as the basis for questions. The messages and themes from the interviews were incorporated into the focus group findings.
The following sections of this report
summarize the findings of the focus group and interviews, present the key messages,
and recommend specific actions that DPPEA could take to address the issues/concerns
raised by the participants.
4. The DPPEA is a non-regulatory, technical assistance division of DENR and, as such, provides information and tools that organizations can use to come into, maintain or go beyond compliance.
5. ISO 14001 is an international standard, created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which specifies requirements for environmental management systems.
6. The ERP is an
outreach unit, jointly funded by the UNC-CH School of Public Health and the
UNC-CH Carolina Environmental Program, focusing on applied research, environmental
education and community service.
Table of Contents | Executive Summary | Introduction | Findings | Conclusion | Appendices