Tag Archives: EHS

Results from the Auditor QuickQuiz

Our auditor quiz is now closed after a month. The questions were based on existing international non-financial auditing standards, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) fraud identification/examination techniques and US Government Auditing Standards for non-financial audits. There were fewer respondents than we had hoped so we can’t extrapolate beyond our dataset. Even so, some notable trends did emerge.

Of those who responded, 47% were EHS auditors and 27% were CSR auditors. We had hoped more CSR auditors would have participated. Other information about the respondents’ backgrounds:

  • 60% had no certification or “other”
  • 50% have 10 years or less auditing experience
  • 50% have 50 or fewer audits
  • 13% have participated in more than 500 audits during their career
  • 63% spend at least 75% of their time conducting audits

There were only 2 “passing” scores – i.e., greater than 70%. The average score was 49% – far lower than was expected.

Knowledge of standard terminology seems to be lacking, further reflected in poor scores for questions that embedded the terminology within them. For instance, only 30% correctly defined “audit criteria” as meaning the audit protocol. This likely led to 53% of respondents incorrectly answering that QA/QC reviews should include assessing the correctness of the “audit criteria used by the auditor.” QA/QC reviews of auditor working papers should look at how an auditor applied the audit criteria, not the inherent accuracy of the criteria (or audit protocol) used by the auditor. Indeed, only 10% correctly identified that none of the answer options are appropriate for QA/QC reviews.

Only 3% considered interviews better than document reviews when asked directly what type of evidence is strongest. Yet when the question was placed in a practical setting, 73% indicated they would rely on interviews over documentation. Only 26% correctly identified the evidence hierarchy (from strongest to weakest).

On a more positive note, 83% answered that they would decline to develop a document that they audited, meaning 17% did not view this as a conflict of interest. Frankly, we were disappointed that there was not a perfect score in identifying this to be an independence issue.

In answering the question listing possible common evidence problems, just over half (53%) correctly indicated that all of the answer options are common evidence problems.

Finally, 2/3 incorrectly answered that initial determinations of significance/materiality should be made after assessing evidence. It is possible that respondents did not read the question carefully and pick up the word initial.

Certainly more responses would have provided a better representation, but we think there are some valuable take aways from our limited data.  Among them – the gap between EHS/CSR auditor knowledge and existing (and theoretically similar) non-financial audit standards may be larger than previously thought.  As the importance – and liabilities – of sustainability/CSR audits grow, increased auditor training and competence seems warranted.

New Advanced Auditor Training Program for HSE/CSR Auditors

Elm Sustainability Partners and Elm Consulting Group International have launched a new training module for senior-level and experienced health, safety, environmental and social auditors seeking to improve their auditing skills and get updates on timely topics related to non-financial auditing and technology.

It is also relevant to those buying HSE/CSR audit services who are looking to improve the quality of audits they receive.  After this course, buyers can identify specific areas of audit practice improvements to request of their providers.  Alternatively, these buyers may wish to require their external HSE/CSR auditor to complete this training themselves.

A partial list of what is covered includes detailed review and practicum concerning:

  • auditor independence standards and managing impairment threats
  • audit criteria requirements
  • audit and evidence limitations
  • evidence hierarchy, weighting and corroboration
  • fraud, forgery and tampering – including new concerns brought about by technology
  • interviewing skills including fraud examination and FBI techniques
  • discussions of US Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Compliance Program criteria (2017), the June 1, 2017 US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) auditor reporting standard on Critical Audit Matters and EU Non-financial reporting rule
  • audit QA/QC considerations

Each participant will take a pre-test to establish a knowledge baseline and identify specific areas for improvements.  Exercises are administered throughout and a post-test will conclude the session demonstrating the advanced competencies gained.  HSE/CSR regulatory and other technical topics will not be covered as this is not a regulatory update session.

Elm Principals are BEAC Certified Professional Environmental/Health/Safety Auditors (CPEA), have served on the Board of Directors of The Auditing Roundtable (recently merged into the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)) and BEAC, and have trained thousands of internal and external HSE auditors over the past three decades.

Contact us to learn how you and your team can take advantage of this unique program.

New Social Auditor Certification in the Works

We have been vocal in our concerns and criticisms concerning social/CSR auditing.  And we have ourselves been criticized for that. Fair enough.

The Association for Professional Social Compliance Auditors (APSCA) has released for public comment its draft Code of Conduct and Auditor Competency Standards – available here.

We support APSCA and its work towards improving the entire “ecosystem” of CSR auditing.  Anyone with a dog in this hunt should click on the link above and submit comments.  APSCA is keen to obtain input from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible to help become as credible as possible.  Given the breath of subject matter that is being demanded of CSR auditors by buyers of their services, there is a great deal of overlap in APSCA’s draft into environmental health, safety, transportation and other technical areas.

Sustainability is Stupid

Please read the entire article before sending me nasty notes. At the end of this piece, you may actually agree with me.

It’s a pretty inflammatory statement.

But I mean it. Just not in the way you may think.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does.  It is probably worth starting with the background on which my perspective is based. I have about thirty years professional experience cycling through the relevant environmental buzzwords of the times: environmental compliance in the mid-80s, environmental management and value in the 90s, environmental risk and sustainability after the turn of the century, and now corporate responsibility and supply chain sustainability for this decade.

In 1994 I was fortunate to obtain a pre-print copy of Michael Porter’s and Claas van der Linde’s seminal work Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship, (Journal of Economic Perspectives (1995), Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 97-118). The work was essentially reproduced in Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate (Harvard Business Review, September – October 1995). As cliché as this sounds, the article truly changed my career as I began seeking economic-environmental linkages with projects, clients and as in-house environmental staff at a Fortune 150 manufacturer.

I have read hundreds of research papers, articles, studies and analyses that, in a nutshell, attempted to link environmental or social responsibility performance to economic gains of some type. Others tied “intangibles” to financial benefits, defining/creating value, and valuing risk reduction. I have pored over texts on traditional cost reduction, cost accounting, marketing, strategy, etc., even completing executive education on these topics.

And yes, much of this has been put into practice (or at least attempted). I have been through a couple McKinsey exercises and a misguided and inappropriate implementation of Economic Value Added (EVA)1. I helped develop internal environmental performance metrics and reporting and attempted to create in-house sustainability initiatives. I served as a team member for sustainability and LCA tool development in GEMI, AIChE and on the US SubTAG to ISO for the Environmental Performance Evaluation standard.  For clients, I have developed and reviewed sustainability criteria, performance metrics and calculated the economic benefits; developed environmental risk assessment and valuation criteria leveraging traditional risk management/insurance models; and quantified the value of environmental risk avoidance investments/activities.

You get the idea.  My point is that I am fairly competent on the subject, if not a relative old-timer with an appropriately receding (or altogether non-existent) hairline. I don’t claim know every aspect of sustainability, but can speak credibly to the issue.

What’s Stupid About Sustainability?  Really, it isn’t sustainability that is stupid – it’s how sustainability is “sold” to business, including:

  • The lack of a consistent, reasonable and/or actionable definition
  • The flood of (mis)information, articles and studies about sustainability that are highly divergent in approach and results –  due in part to the lack of a consistent, reasonable and/or actionable definition
  • The inherent bias of sustainability media and practitioners that identify inappropriate or inconclusive linkages between economic value/financial returns to sustainability practices.
  • Ignoring customer perceptions of performance tradeoffs for sustainable products

Consistent Inconsistency.  About the only thing everyone can agree on about the word “sustainability” is that in its English form, it has six syllables. There are even disagreements about capitalization – should the “S” be capitalized to signify some importance of the word or not?

Readers can likely offer at least three different definitions of the word. I have no intention of listing various definitions here – it isn’t necessary. If you think about it, sustainability is not about doing more, it’s about doing less – spending less, wasting less, reducing resource use. Probably not everyone will agree on that either, but that is really the point – how can a company take on an initiative that can’t even be defined? And even if there is internal agreement, not all stakeholders will concur.

Buried Alive.  How do you go about establishing a definition from which to work? One answer is look to sustainability subject matter experts, studies, articles and white papers. This sounds straightforward (if not tedious), but the amount of available information is completely overwhelming, only increasing confusion. Just for fun, I did a simple test by doing an Internet search on the word “sustainability” and a few other very popular corporate buzzwords. The results speak for themselves.

sustainability table* Search conducted April 9, 2015

Think about this for a moment – some of the most popular (and ridiculed) Buzzword Bingo lingo rank significantly lower than sustainability in terms of Google results. I was actually surprised by this.

Clearly, this isn’t the answer.

Stupid Money.  As sustainability professionals, our knowledge creates biases that can turn into obstacles – forcing a sustainability solution where one may not exist, or may not be appropriate. This is where many sustainability professionals go wrong – and get stupid.   A major myth stemming from the sustainability bias is that sustainability performance is financially material. We wrote back in 2011 –

A myriad of studies completed dating back to the late 1980s attempt to demonstrate “environmental value”.  Most of these studies have shown rather tenuous linkages or used meaningless metrics. Interestingly, most of these studies link to equity markets – i.e., stock prices.  Maybe because stock prices grab headlines, are tied to compensation or are the target to which Boards and senior executive generally manage.

The thought is still on point2. More interesting, however, is the thought we expressed that sustainability value is more appropriately viewed in the context of bonds rather than equities (long term versus short term). Today, that is proving true as demonstrated by the global growth of clean energy financing through bonds which according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, rose 16% last year to a record $310 billion, boosted by commitments to sustainability investments from Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Barclays, Bank of American, Credit Agricole, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock.

As we said in 2011, “Given … the lackluster historical success of valuation of environmental/sustainability matters in the context of stock prices – perhaps it is time to redirect our efforts at finding relevant and credible metrics.”

Are Customers Stupid?  About twenty years ago I wrote a thought piece on sustainability and circulated it to a small group of colleagues. My basic premise was that sustainable products are a luxury for those able to afford the price differential or willing to accept certain trade-offs. For example, alternative fuel vehicles cost more than comparable gasoline powered cars, so alternative fuel vehicles were not likely to be economically successful in low-income populations. On the flip side, those able to pay more for the sustainability attributes of alternative fuel vehicles had to accept trade-offs in vehicle size, performance and selection.

This premise remains valid today, although the situation has improved. We now have more options for electric/hybrid vehicles and prices have come down for many makes/models, so trade-offs have been reduced in this instance. But other sustainable products still cost more, and the perception of performance trade offs still exists.

Four years ago, we wrote about a study undertaken by professors of marketing at William & Mary, Ohio State and the University of Texas. The study results were presented in The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference. Briefly, the authors’ study demonstrated that customers frequently feel that improving ethical aspects of a product reduces the ability of the product to fully perform its expected function. In addition, the authors demonstrated the impact of bias on the part of customers when they are being observed (such as in a survey scenario) versus when they aren’t observed (or don’t know it). Connect the dots – customers being observed as part of new product research aren’t likely to show their true concerns about sustainable products and may not buy them when they are available 3.

Going back to automobiles, Tesla has done a good job of battling perceptions of driving performance (such as creating an Insane driving mode that rivals traditional supercars in 0-60 times) and range limits. Few other companies or products seem to have attacked the trade-off perceptions in a similar manner.

To sum it up, you need to understand your customers’ key buying criteria, and how their perceptions of sustainability impact their decisions.

Don’t be Stupid.  Approach internal decision makers in their terms and you keep their attention with a higher likelihood of success. Or ignore that and emphasize ill-defined, unproven or irrelevant pie-in-the-sky sustainability concepts and see where that gets you.

To begin, you need to understand the company, how it operates and why it exists. Act as though you are the VP of Operations, Marketing, Communications, Supply Chain, Product Development and HR. Pretend you are working on a case study at Harvard Business School. Learn as much as you can, such as:

  • What does the company make or offer? What need does it fill? Why does that need exist in the first place?
  • What are key internal words, phrases, programs and initiatives?
  • What are the manufacturing processes involved?
  • What is the manufacturing capacity and efficiency?
  • How does the company make money?
  • What are the most critical aspects of revenue generation and profitability?
  • What are the direct and indirect cost drivers with the biggest impact?
  • Why are certain suppliers used? What are your company’s key buying criteria?
  • Why do customers buy from your company? What are your customers’ key buying criteria?
  • What is important in a new product? How is the market analyzed and demand predicted?
  • Who are the most important audiences for the company’s external communications?
  • Why do employees work at the company? What is important to them?
  • What are the different relevant compensation programs, metrics and triggers?

After learning “the business” you can then put on your other hat and identify where sustainability initiatives may make sense. Where you  find a potential project, your pitch should be about the relevant business benefits using the appropriate business words. The word “relevant” is emphasized.  Unless specifically prompted by management, don’t use the word sustainability until near the end of any conversation: “Oh, and we also get to highlight this as a sustainability success, too.”

What? Why de-emphasize the sustainability aspects? Your audience is likely to be focused on traditional drivers/metrics of the company’s financial performance. Capital is limited, revenues need to increase, costs need to decrease, the stock price is too low and competitors are gaining market share. Cynical management only needs one reason to pull the plug and divert attention/funding away from the sustainability initiative.  Remember your audience and what your ultimate goal is.

Conclusion.  I don’t actually believe sustainability is stupid – quite the contrary.  But I do think that the concept is too frequently portrayed in a stupid manner in publications, by service providers and around corporate conference room tables. Being smart about it is easy as long as you can temporarily disconnect your sustainability expertise/bias and focus on your company’s business fundamentals.

Of course there are exceptions to this; numerous companies have embedded sustainability into their corporate culture and don’t operate as I described. The wide-ranging definition of sustainability also creates a broad (perhaps overly broad) set of examples.  All of these will be waved under my nose as examples of how wrong I am. Yes, it is right that I am wrong in those instances, but those companies are very much in the minority. As sustainability professionals, we need to create opportunities for that silent majority so they can reap the real rewards of sustainability.

We just have to be smart about doing that.

________________

1 EVA is intended to evaluate capital expenditure opportunities, but in this instance, each staff member had to demonstrate our own personal economic value added by applying the methodology to our everyday activities. That is why I call it inappropriate and misguided.

2 In contrast, perhaps the best examples we have seen that in our view comes the closest in realistically linking sustainability and equities valuation are (a) the April 17, 2015 letter from Ceres to the SEC on climate disclosure. Technically, the letter is about disclosure of climate risk as material information to investors, discussing the matter in terms of asset risk, materiality of future pricing/demand scenarios and long-term capital expenditure plans/assumptions for oil and gas companies; and (b) a recent study from Harvard Business School Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality.  This paper isn’t necessarily easy to understand, but the authors performed a number of tests to validate their findings.  One possible weakness is that the authors relied on materiality guidance and data from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) for determining what sustainability matters are considered material, rather than independently confirming that assumption, or developing their own materiality benchmarks. We are not aware if SASB guidance and methodologies have been independently validated.

3 We recently brought these concepts forward to a major consumer products company who was looking to develop a marketing campaign based on sustainability attributes of a new product. After evaluating the matter further, the company put that campaign on hold.

Cyber Attack on Iron Furnace Controls Causes Physical Damage to Plant

A few years ago, we wrote about how the growth of cyber attacks should be considered when companies assess environmental risk of their operations.  As highlighted in that article, rogue code was discovered before harm was done.

But an iron foundry in Germany was not so lucky.  As reported in this  WSJ article,

The plant’s control systems were breached which “resulted in an incident where a furnace could not be shut down in the regular way and the furnace was in an undefined condition which resulted in massive damage to the whole system,”

This situation should cause concern to anyone responsible for HSE and sustainability matters.  Malicious control of production operations can result in all sorts of nightmare scenarios, especially where the manufacturing operation involves the use of chemicals.  In the most minor case, environmental permit violations and media coverage are probable.  The worst scenario could involve the intentional weaponization of manufacturing by hacking operational controls and intentionally creating another Bhopal or Chernobyl.

We continue to recommend that companies consider these issues when conducting environmental risk assessments of their operations.

Environmental Risk and Sustainability in World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2014

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has published its Ninth Global Risks Report.  We look forward to this report every year.  This year, a number of items caught our attention related to environmental management, sustainability, human rights and risk assessment methodologies.

  • Environmental management.  Man-made environmental catastrophes did not make the Top 10 risks, but it was noted.  In the Global Risk Landscape (Figure 1.1), man-made environmental catastrophes was rated slightly lower than average impact with slightly than higher likelihood.  At the same time, it was included in the Interconnections Map (Figure 1.4).  The map not only shows the perceived connectivity of the risks, but also weighted the strength of the identified linkages.  We find it interesting that man-made environmental catastrophes have:
    • Medium strength connectivity to climate change;
    • Medium strength connectivity to water crises; and
    • Weak connectivity to biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.
  • Sustainability.  WEF is working on a sustainability-adjusted Global Competitiveness Index (CGI) that “captures the extent to which prosperity is being generated in a sustainable way, taking into account environmental stewardship and social sustainability.” (Box 1.6). 
  • Human rights.  The Report does not list human rights or labor conditions at all.  There are weak implications in the report’s discussions of income inequalities, urban poor living conditions and social instability.
  • Risk assessment and management.  Risk management practitioners, including those in the EHS/sustainability realm, may find the discussions on risk assessment methodologies (Parts 2.5 and 3) particularly insightful.  Among the more important points is the potential for cognitive bias in the risk assessment process.  Box 2.5 presents a number of risk management solutions, with which EHS and sustainability professionals should already be familiar.

Do HSE Management Systems Audits Support Regulatory Compliance? Not So Much…

A recent survey in the UK continues to demonstrate the gap between technical regulatory compliance and HSE management systems conformance.

An article published in the June 2013 the environmentalist (the journal of the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, or iema) provided a short overview of research results that compared accredited certification bodies processes and “whether third-party audits of an environmental management system (EMS) could provide sufficient assurance of a firm’s legal compliance”.

The findings:

the competence of [EMS] auditors is generally limited to assessing the presence of procedures.

Clearly, assessing the mere presence of procedures is not the same as evaluating the content, adequacy, appropriate or effectiveness of those procedures. Not even close.

There was a notable divergence in opinions on the perceptions of how well EMS audits address regulatory compliance. Not surprisingly, 92% of the certification bodies were convinced their audits reflect regulator conclusions very well or quite well. Yet the regulators themselves hold a far different view with only 17% saying EMS audits address regulatory compliance very well or quite well.

We would call that a gap.

The article is also available online for iema members and subscribers.

 

We Haven’t Forgotten What We Do

Although Elm has invested much time and effort into our conflict minerals services over the past three years, we continue to provide our core services of HSE auditing and program development.

We gain new clients and engagements each year with much of that growth outside the US.

Those who have come to know us in the conflict minerals arena, we would be pleased to talk with you about how Elm can assist you with HSE audit program support.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions. We look forward to talking with you.

New Global Conflict Minerals Solutions Consortium Launched

In response to yesterday’s passage by the US Securities and Exchange Commission of the final conflict minerals regulation, today marks the official launch of an international consortium formed to provide comprehensive services globally for conflict minerals due diligence, traceability, auditing and disclosure for companies impacted by conflict minerals requirements.

The group, called the Conflict Minerals Solutions Consortium, was initiated by The Elm Consulting Group International LLC.  Lawrence Heim, Director of Elm, stated “We don’t believe that any single entity is able to provide similar comprehensive services due to the complexity of global supply chains and material flow. Our goal was to assemble a unique and highly qualified group to serve the wide range of companies and potential requirements.“

Heim continued, “We tried to assemble project team members who are not directly working in existing conflict minerals audit/traceability programs such as those under OECD or electronics industry groups.  We believe this independence will foster development of new solutions that may be more efficient and/or effective than those currently available.”

Members of the Consortium include recognized experts globally representing:

  • HSE/sustainability auditing
  • Management systems program development
  • RoHS/REACH/EPEAT program development
  • Mining industry auditing/traceability program development
  • Traceability software
  • CSR integration/reporting
  • Legal advisory (US and Africa)
  • PR/communications

To help guide the group, a panel of Executive Advisors is being assembled from key impacted industry segments including upstream, metal products and apparel.

The Consortium began initial formation stages last month in anticipation of a final regulation from SEC.  All invitees have expressed interest in joining, with most having formally accepted.  Over the coming weeks, additional news releases will be published announcing the names of the specific members and Executive Advisers as operating terms and parameters are finalized.  The website (www.ConflictMineralsSolutions.com) is currently under development.

For more information about the Consortium, contact us.

Voluntary Environmental Management Standard Turns Into Third Party Whistleblower

It is not uncommon for EHS auditors to be asked (or ask themselves) “If you find a noncompliance during your audit, do you report it to the regulators?”

The answer depends on the company and audit program, but a recent news item caught our attention due to a variation on the theme.

We have no information other than what is publicly available here, but it appears that an organization managing a voluntary electronic waste management certification program found alleged significant non-conformities at a specific company seeking certification.  As a result, the organization declined to issue its certification to that company.

So far, so good, but the story doesn’t end there…

In its declination letter to the company, the organization states:

Further, there is substantial reason to believe that such exports may violate Public Act 095-0959 (Electronic Products Recycling and Reuse Act, recycler requirements) of the State of Illinois, the Federal CRT Rule, (40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, 271; Cathode Ray Tubes; Final Rule) as well as the waste importation laws of Hong Kong/China. Further, while it is not our policy to disclose the results of certifying body audits, we can state that the audit only further substantiated all of our concerns.

In an apparent contradiction to the “policy” referred to in the above statement, the organization’s cc’d “Selected news media”, the Illinois State Environmental Protection Agency and the US Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement on its letter, which can be seen below the signature block.

It is certainly possible that the company themselves had made prior disclosure to the regulators on this issue.  But this event may cause companies pursuing voluntary programs/certifications to carefully consider how the company and auditor will manage regulatory non-compliances that are found or alleged in the course of related audit activities.

UPDATE:  Reports today indicate that the company is taking legal action against the certifying organization stating that the allegations on which the organization based its decision – as well as its disclosure to the press and regulators – are false.