Sustainability is on every corporate radar. The strength of the signal and distance from action vary. In some cases, internal task groups have been formed, sustainability risk assessments have been performed, and actions incorporated into operations and products and services. In other cases, none or some of these activities have been started, or actions have not gotten beyond PR drivers.
In the current MIT Sloan Management Review, Christopher Lueneburger and Daniel Goleman make a valuable contribution with a presentation of a sustainability implementation model and identification of different competencies needed at different phases of implementation. They also identify differences between traditional implementation techniques and practices in large corporate initiatives from those needed in a sustainability initiative. Lueneburger and Goleman say that a common mistake is approaching the implementation of a sustainability initiative with the same tools and mindset used in the past, stating that sustainability is “not your father’s corporate initiative.” Read More
As a living system, a company’s risk profile is continually shifting. The growing attention on sustainability and corporate responsibility (CSR) has stretched companies as they wrestle with ways to characterize and manage their sustainability and CSR risks.
It is common knowledge that sustainability is a big deal. It is a multidimensional issue that impacts all sectors of society. Companies wrestle with how they are going to respond beyond the obvious of energy conservation and waste reduction, when sustainability begins to blur with corporate social responsibility (CSR).
“What gets measured, gets done” is a popular saying in performance improvement circles. There is more though. Yes, true as this is, measurement – and I’ll go a step further here and say auditing – is just part of the “gets done” piece. When crafted within a context of breakthrough performance, EHS auditing and the audit function in an EHS department can be a catalyst for accelerated performance improvement and EHS integration. EHS auditing is commonly viewed as a necessary evil or burden to satisfy regulatory and legal requirements. Within this context, the results are predictable. There is little if any enthusiasm; there is a struggle; and there can be challenges with inter-rater reliability.
With roots in regulatory compliance, it is no wonder that the internal view for EHS professionals is not always rosy. At times even being called or thought of as a cop. There are numerous evolving concepts that impact EHS effectiveness well beyond regulatory compliance. Some of these include the use of EHS management systems and six-sigma. Another area is how EHS audits are conducted and findings used. Still another is the role EHS professionals can play when their context (you can also say “mental models”) shift from one that is compliance-based (cop-on-the-beat) to one of advising and coaching.
Organizational culture is complex and according to many experts, not well understood. EHS professionals often think about culture in terms of a “safety culture.” While safety is clearly important, the topic of culture is all-encompassing.
EHS Functions are often described in terms of levels of maturity. These can also be called stages of development, levels of development, and so on. It’s common to describe these levels or stages with numerical ranks, such as from 1 to 3 or 5, where level or stage 1 represents lowest level of maturity or development and the highest level represents a high degree of maturity.
A recent publication from the 
