EHS auditing is a dynamic process that requires stakeholder input for success. Speakers emphasized this point during a breakout session at the 19th Annual NAEM Forum, which focused on the innovative practices that several companies are using to deliver maximum effectiveness and efficiency.
The speakers presented highlights from the recent International Audit Protocol Consortium’s survey on EHS audit practices: roughly 60 percent of respondents indicated a high rating for detecting regulatory non-compliance; 50 percent for management system conformance; 50 percent for benefit of audit results to the audited operation; and less than 50 percent for benefit to external stakeholders.
These findings reveal that even though EHS audit practices are mature, there is much room for improvement on the value they deliver. Future EHS audit trends indicated in the survey include:
- expansion in EHS audit scope, to cover PSM, GHG, sustainability, and reputation risk
- integration with other internal company audits
- information management systems will expand and help
- more risk-based focus
- greater attention on auditor competency and independence
- more focus on site contractor performance
These trends are consistent with my view that EHS auditing—and departments in general—can make a tremendous contribution to overall organizational risk management efforts.
Key points raised by speakers and participants included [with my comments in italics]:
- EHS management system maturity models are used to measure overall EHS performance. Development of such models vary, but can cascade down nicely from audit protocols.
- Use of quantitative scoring schemes are replacing ISO-based qualitative findings as drivers in characterizing EHS performance. Use of five-point scales is common. There are divergent views on which approach is better. Proponents of ISO-based audit approaches voice concern about the lack of “show stoppers” in quantitative scoring schemes.
- Small locations should not be categorically removed from an audit schedule—there could still be significant EHS risks.
- There is tremendous leverage gained by including stakeholders in the development of the EHS audit program.
- Alternative labels and terms are being used to describe an EHS audit process, including “performance assessment” and “risk analysis.”
- One speaker discussed a shift in the EHS audit program context, from focusing on failure to focusing on movement toward goals. I’ve been speaking and writing about this issue for some time, in terms of reactive versus generative EHS auditing and summative versus formative EHS audits—using a program evaluation perspective. An EHS audit provides a tremendously valuable learning opportunity when framed in the right context.
The maturity models presented reflect components and concepts echoed in Redinger’s EHS 360 EHS/S Check-Up Though the applications are different—the 360 EHS/S Check-Up is a high-level diagnostic to assess the overall EHS/S program, while the programs presented were for plant-level assessment—they do share similarities: assessing the risk assessment process, the audit process itself, and the management system, culture, and strategy.
© Redinger EHS, Inc. (2010)