- Email: [email protected]
Improving cleaner production by integration into the management of quality, environment and working conditions
r~UTTERWORTH ~]UE
I N
E M
A
N
N
0959-6526(95)00046-1
J. Cleaner Prod., Vol. 3, No. 1-2, pp. 61-66, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All fights reserved 0959--6526/95 $10.00 + 0.00
Improving Cleaner Production by integration into the management of quality, environment and working conditions Gerard I.J.M. Zwetsloot Dutch Institute for The Working Environment, NIA, PO Box 75665, NL-1070 AR Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Cleaner Production Programs are in themselves no guarantee of continuity in environmental progress. Cleaner Production should therefore be integrated into systemic environmental management or an integral management approach. Lessons learned from quality management and the management of working conditions can be valuable for environmental management and vice versa. Research carried out in front runner firms shows that this offers opportunities for win-win situations (there are three types of synergies). It can increase effectiveness and acceptance of environmental management, while reducing costs. As a consequence, several front runner firms develop integral approaches of environmental management and the management of quality and working conditions. It is very important to manage relevant organizational learning processes in order to facilitate continuous improvement; this has the character of 'learning to learn', Nevertheless these organizational learning processes can be managed systematically. Like Cleaner Production Programs, standardization of management systems (environment, quality, safety and health) should have the aim of continuous improvement as their starting point. Standards should also favour synergy between the three management systems (quality, environment and working conditions) and learning processes necessary for proactive approaches. Recent developments in standardization are discussed in this respect.
Keywords: Cleaner Production; integrated management; synergy
Introduction Many companies are not only being confronted with the necessity to improve their environmental performance, but also to improve their performances in quality and health and safety (working conditions). The improvement of performance in these three areas is not only a direct stake for the companies themselves (it generates competitive advantages), but is also of great interest for society. Consequently, three areas of management are being developed that have many analogies, interact easily, and have very close relationships 1. Environmental management focuses on reducing emissions and wastes, decreasing energy use, and improving chain control and the environmental properties of products. Quality management focuses primarily on improving the quality of products and services and on increasing customer satisfaction. The management of working conditions is aimed at increasing occupational safety, improving health and well-being at work, and reducing absence due to sickness.
Cleaner Production Programs are in themselves no guarantee of continuity in environmental progress. To make these activities continuous an important tool is that of management systems, where systems theory is used to systematize and structure the management activities. The current definitions of management systems for the three aspects of environment, quality and working conditions2-4, however, differ substantially, even though there are many similar elements (e.g. planning, determination of responsibilities and power, measuring, administration, etc.). Until now the managements of environment, quality and working conditions, have usually been regarded as more or less independent, and consequently management was directed to the optimization of the individual areas. Paradoxically, for each area it is generally accepted that its activities should be integrated as far as possible into the general management of the organization. However, the ultimate consequence of integration into general management is also the mutual integration of these three domains. Because it is easy to show that management activities in these three
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
61
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
areas often influence each other, the optimization of separated systems actually means suboptimization both from an organizational and a societal perspective. Moreover, because of the many similarities it is likely that many lessons learned in one specific area can also be used in the other areas. From the perspective of Cleaner Production Programs this means that they could benefit not only from experiences with environmental management but also from experiences with the management of quality and working conditions. From another point of view, the strategic meaning of Cleaner Production Programs will increase when they generate benefits in the management of quality and working conditions. The challenge is therefore to eliminate the existing suboptimization by identifying and using opportunities for positive interactions (synergy) and managing organizational learning processes that favour Cleaner Production and the development of the three management systems. How can this be realized?
Lessons learned by front runner firms Explorative research was carried out that focused on the interactions between the three management areas 1,5. This research is based on an assessment of lessons learned by five companies that were considered, in 1991, as front runners regarding the joint management of working conditions, environment and quality because they had already combined their management activities in two or three of these areas for a certain time. These five companies differ greatly in technology, the nature of their dominant work processes, markets, process-inherent risks, sectors and, to a lesser degree, size.
Method of description and analysis A first essential step was to develop a method to describe the management systems systematically and consistently. Because each management system should be integrated in the general organization, an organizational model, the Leiden Octahedron 6 is used for this purpose. This model distinguishes six clusters of variables (objectives, strategy, structure, technology, culture and people). In this way the data were structured in systematic descriptions per firm and these were verified by the respective firms. In every firm report the five central objects (the organization, the three management systems and the organizational environment) were described and special attention was paid to the interactions between the three management areas; finally a section was dedicated to notable findings. In the analysis, the lessons learned were categorized using a simplified version of Kolb's model for experimental learning 7, distinguishing concrete lessons learned (i.e. doing and reflective observation) and abstract lessons (i.e. conceptualizing and decisionmaking).
62
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
It was regarded as important to understand the dynamics of each management aspect before drawing conclusions about their interactions. This has resulted in a description of these developments and an analysis of the relevant stimuli. It is apparent that each of the management areas is developing rather quickly, and that external stimuli are very important, especially for environmental and quality management.
Opportunities for synergies The analysis was focused on three types of interactions that have to do, respectively, with common aspects, similar organizational principles (both at the system and the element level) and the relationship with general management. In each of these three dimensions synergy is possible, and in this research these three types of synergy are called respectively common aspect synergy, management system synergy and organizational synergy. It is established that though there are many opportunties for synergy, even these front runner firms did not yet use them systematically; for many of the interviewees it was quite a new idea to link experiences in the three areas. This implies a great potential to improve environmental management and Cleaner Production Programs.
Common aspect synergy This is based on the phenomenon that an aspect may be relevant in more than one area. For instance, working carefully and safely with hazardous materials is relevant for the environment and the working conditions; the environmental impact of products is a vital aspect not only of environmental management but also of quality management; 'good housekeeping' is important for all three areas. Through such common aspects, the activities influence each other. If a problem turns up the question arises: is this an environmental problem or a problem with safety, health or quality, or a problem which has several aspects? This may lead to confusion about how the problem should be solved and who is responsible. Common aspect synergy results in better definitions of opportunities and problems, a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of potential solutions, and clearly defined responsibilities. An integral approach of common aspects discourages 'added-on' solutions (which can easily be counterproductive in one of the other areas) and favours prevention at source. The management activities in these three areas as a whole can become much more effective (sometimes they may double or triple in effectiveness) and be much more productive (effective at lower cost).
Management system synergy This stems from the conscious use of the same or similar organizational principles and instruments. It implies using such similarities to achieve positive
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
interactions, (e.g. the experiences with a management system can be used for the improvement of another system, and vice versa). The key is the exchange of lessons learned, or rather the joint managment of collective learning processes. A set of factors influences the actual creation of management system synergy. External requirements. Coordinated external requirements (e.g. an objective requirement by the authorities in an area with much overlapping (working conditions-environment) and the attitude of customers (who may, for example, demand environmental properties as part of the general quality requirements of products (environment--quality) stimulate synergy. Governmental bodies that operate separately (all three areas, relevant to each firm) and the mean requirements of authorities (especially environmental authorities) have the opposite impact. Audits by external bodies on separated areas (e.g. for quality certification) have a similar impact: all separated external requirements impeded the creation of synergy. Involvement of top managers. Top managers will often ask themselves whether coordination in the organization can be improved. That implicates a stimulus to cooperation between the people involved in the respective management systems and so to the creation of opportunities for management system synergy. The need for an overview and a joint approach. The introduction of environmental management as a third area of management has in many cases increased the demand for better coordination and the need for an increased overview of what is going on. Contradiction of subaspects are as frequently found within each area as between the three systems. That can raise the need for a holistic approach which stimulates the creation of management system synergy. On the other hand, the emphasis on taking action on concrete problems in the respective areas impedes the creation of management system synergy. Internal cost. Management system synergy makes things simpler to realize and reduces the internal cost of the management effort. If the overall productivity of the three management systems is monitored, it stimulates the creation of synergy. Participation. At the lower strata of the organization people usually think less abstractly. But if people are supposed to regulate things for themselves they have to make choices. Choices with respect to the three areas require that they can oversee them, and an integral approach is strongly desired. Related or distinct systems. Integrated expert services (e.g. one department for safety, health and environment) or other forms of close cooperation between staff services often lead to joint initiatives.
Expert services that have expertise only in one area, or compete for resources (finances, time and attention of the managers) impede the creation of management system synergy. Integral educational programmes. Broadly defined educational programmes will reduce the distinction between systems in the minds of the staff, and so stimulate integral approaches. Changing existing habits requires the re-education of those involved; especially when behavioural changes are aimed at, or common aspects are important, an integrated educational program will achieve the best results. Examples of these firms are the careful handling of hazardous materials (working conditions and environment), improving the skills needed for cooperation (each area), and analysing and solving problems (each of the three areas). Positive approach Putting the emphasis on the positive aspects (opportunities instead of threats) makes organizations more alert in assessing the potential benefits of the win-win situations that can be achieved (sometimes in the long run) via the creation of opportunities for synergy. Experiences with synergy Experiences with the creation and use of synergy are currently positive, due to their win-win characteristics. Experiences also increase the awareness of the concept of synergy or of the strategies for their realization. Experiences with synergy therefore reinforce the attention to management systems synergy. Emphasis on prevention or correction Especially in the development or design stage of new technical systems and work places, relatively minor investment can generate improvements in several areas, at least when these aspects are an integral part of the development or design process. Tuning of the workplace and job content for the workers (ergonomics) is another relevant example of prevention at source. The emphasis on prevention always stimulates the creation of opportunities for management system synergy. The opposite is true of focusing on correction. There are two general strategies for achieving management system synergy: using analogies in similar situations, or integration (Table 1). These strategies can be used for instruments (i.e. for system elements), or on the systems level. Organizations tend to be very pragmatic in the selection of their strategy: usually they determine their strategy per element. The choice for one of the strategies is influenced by a number of factors. Integrated expert services or other forms of close cooperation will encourage the choice of the integration
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
63
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
Table 1 Characteristicsof the two strategies for the realization of management system synergy16 Using analogies
Integration
Increased cooperation between people most involved; each system is responsible for itself Beneficial principle Sharing relevant experiences, mutual use of lessons learned, increased acceptance of new measures Main advantages Applicable to each situation even at different stages of development, and with substantial time constraints High flexibility; identifiabilityof each aspect; easier certification Main disadvantages Cooperation is not assured, conflicting items can easily lead to competition
Cooperation of people most involved; joint responsibilityfor instrument or system
strategy. Expert services that have only expertise in one area encourage the choice of the analogy strategy. Substantial differences in power between the staff experts seems to impede their cooperation. If common aspects are important this clearly encourages the choice of the integration strategy. Emphasising prevention at source implicates consciously assessing undesired potential future effects. Undesired effects in the three areas are then easily taken into account and an integral approach is possible. Operational practice demands a uniform approach; this is why it is attractive to integrate elements that strongly influence operational activities. This is not necessarily true to the same degree for management activities. If the firm already has integral jobs and/ or semi-autonomous task groups, this implies many advantages for an integrated approach to the three areas of management. Joint external requirements stimulate the choice of the integration strategy. Separated partial requirements (which are usually more important) stimulate the choice of the anaology strategy. Time constraints stimulate the choice of the analogy strategy. The integration strategy makes things more complex and the aspects less identifiable. Substantial differences in stages of development favour the analogy strategy. This is because a system that needs great progress requires special attention and specific recognition, but also because a mature system is balanced in itself and could easily be disturbed by new developments that are not fully reliable. As a result of the further development of all three managerial systems, separated systems will become decreasingly attractive in the future and integration will be increasingly favoured. Eventually, the three areas of management could develop to become just aspects of integral management. A general conclusion is that management system synergy can speed things up substantially (increased effectiveness) with less organizational constraints and at lower costs (increased productivity and efficiency).
64
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
Kill two or three birds with one stone Prevents operational problems most effectively Especially attractive in cases of important common aspects and comparable stages of development Higher complexity, the respective aspects are not always assured by the involvement of agents with a specificinterest or expertise
Organizational synergy This refers to positive interactions between the general management and the three management systems. Some characteristics of the organizations may stimulate or impede the development of management systems (e.g. the culture or the style of leadership, the structure). Management systems, on the other hand, influence some developments in the organization (e.g. it may become clear that the organization has to become more flexible, or that the development of a long-term strategy will be vital). These interactions may enhance each other. Organizational synergy increases the innovative capability, the problem-solving capability and the ability to learn with respect to general organization and management and the management systems. This results (in the longer run) in greater effectiveness, productivity and efficiency, that is, in greater competitiveness. An overview of the three types of synergy is given in Table 2.
Proactivity Searching for opportunities for synergy can be understood as an example of proactive management. Proactivity can be characterized as generating change, as opposed to simply reacting to problems. Proactive management seems in the long run (continuity) the most promising, and offers the best conditions for the integration of the management of working conditions, environment and quality in general management. However, in every day practice, reactive approaches often seem more concrete than proactive approaches, because problems are easier to acknowledge than opportunities. The development of positive visions of the three areas and their relationships will be of great importance to the further development of their joint management. A good understanding of the concept prevention is one of the keys. A narrow definition of the concept
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
Table2 Overviewof the characteristics of the three synergies16
Origin of interaction
Common aspect synergy
Management system synergy
Organizational synergy
Multi-aspect issues (opportunities as well as problems) and overlapping management domains
Organizational similaritiesoffer opportunities for common learning processes
The developmentof the organization and the management systemsoffers opportunities for mutual reinforcement
Two strategies: (both on the system and the element level) using analogies and integration Main benefits
Improved assessment of opportunities and problems; more integral definitionsthereof; improved cooperation; better defined responsibilities
of prevention (limiting the concept to system improvement and the prevention of the repetition of problems) is essential.
The importance of organizational learning processes The implementation and development of management systems can be regarded as organizational learning processes that form the basis for the development of all three management aspects, both singly and in combination. In one of the five front runner firms the implementation of management systems was explicitly regarded as an organizational learning process, and the concept of the learning organization was used as a tool to manage these learning processes. The organizational culture is shown to be very important for such learning processes. More generally, Senge 8 shows that organizational learning processes and system approaches are complementary. In fact, fundamental learning processes are needed to prevent defects in the design, or redesign, of systems. The elimination of system defects (the realization of system improvement) is in itself not enough to guarantee the absence of system defects in the new system. On the contrary, it is rather likely that a set of system defects will be reproduced. Therefore the management of such organizational learning processes has been explored by analysing five other cases 9. The first focus was on system improvements; the acknowledgement of concrete problems as symptoms of more chronic problems is essential here, and has to go together with the determination of the system defects that cause these chronic problems. As a consequence Cleaner Production Programs should pay a lot of attention to such underlying problems. The second focus was on success factors for the management of organizational learning processes. It comprises three aspects: team learning (including the relationships between individual and collective
Use of successful approaches in other areas resulting in better tuning to corporate culture and acceptance; time-saving (improved effectiveness)and reduction of cost (increased productivity)
Rapid development of the organization and management systems, greater effectiveness Contribution to the organization's continuity
learning), the assessment of factors that had a negative influence on the organizational learning capability (learning disabilities), and the determination of successful strategies to increase the learning capability. When these factors are part of the environment of integral management system this will increase the impact of Cleaner Production Programs. From the third point of view the management of organizational learning processes has the character of learning to learn 8,1°. This process of 'learning to learn' requires active management and the awareness of learning. This awareness implies the possibility of evaluating process and results (from the point of view of a variety of stakeholders!), and of adapting the learning process. In order to continue the learning process, a structural educational policy is essential, as are the supply of information and internal communication. In the longer run, periodic audits or assessments contribute to the continuity of the organizational learning process. It remains important to involve all stakeholders in the learning process, and to encourage the development of initiatives. Finally, organizations have to be willing and able to learn from external developments, even when they seem not (yet) very relevant (e.g. the technological development of new advanced materials, and the consequent growing use in products and production processes). The response of companies to such a development can be regarded once more as an organizational learning process.
The role of standardization There are two items that are very relevant for Cleaner Production and that play an important role in the discussions about standardization of management systems: (1) the balance between improvement and assurance and (2) the future tuning of standards in the three areas.
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
65
Integration of CP into management: G.LJ.M. Zwetsloot The paradox o f i m p r o v e m e n t and assurance
There is a certain conflict between aiming at improvement on the one hand and aiming at control and assurance on the other. The creativity of people is vital for improvements, and improvement also requires experiments (which are carefully evaluated). Absolute control does not permit creativity and experiments, and in this way it restricts the organizational learning capability. This contradiction is, of course, not absolute because system improvement should include the assurance of already-achieved performances 11, while optimum control can often only be realized by improvement of the system. The challenge is to find the right balance between these two approaches. Companies can make choices in this respect. The five front runner firms, for example, were primarily aiming at continuous improvement, and their 'do culture' in which creativity was encouraged was dominant over the control and assurance-directed culture of many other organizations. The same paradox is a central point in the discussion about the revision of the ISO 9000 series of standards for Quality Management. In the present ISO 9001/2 Standards the emphasis is put on assurance. As a result they do not help companies to improve their performances. The present ISO Guideline 9004-4 for improvement of quality systems 12 focuses on learning from problems and taking adequate corrective measures; this is far from proactive management. This can also be said for the BS 7750 Standard on Environmental Management 13 and the draft ISO Standard 14000 for Environmental Management 14. For the further development of Cleaner Production it will therefore be extremely important to develop models and standards that strongly favour improvement processes and proactive approaches; these could probably elaborate on models of the learning organization.
approach will lead to one or several interesting guidelines with a comparable status to the ISO 9004 guidelines, but not to a standard for assurance. In the Netherlands there is now a Dutch Coordination Committee for Management Systems in which the three standardization committees (for respectively environment, quality, and working conditions) are represented, but also the three Ministries that are most involved 16. This committee aims at the tuning of future standards and legislation. In this perspective the Dutch Standardization Institute (NNI) has developed a draft common framework for the three types of standards 17. The main objective is to favour the creation of synergy in companies by using the same definitions, but also by having a common standard design (using the same chapters and paragraphs). This may lead to a common 'psychological map', an absolute precondition for mutual learning TM and greatly enhances the compatibility of the three management systems. This may benefit the integration of the three management systems, which seems an important precondition for the continuous development of Cleaner Production.
References 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 The future tuning o f standards f o r the three m a n a g e m e n t systems
The Strategic Advisory Group Environment within the ISO has proposed to develop a standard for a generic management system that could coordinate the partial standards for quality management, environmental management, safety management, etc. 15. It is, however, not very likely that the Generic Management System (GMS) approach will be successful. Any present management system, whether it concerns quality, environmental protection or health and safety, has a concrete output (measured in performance indicators) which is relevant to the evaluation of the system. But a GMS can barely have any concrete output. This is why some draft standards for GMS are very interesting from a general management point of view, but are rather disappointing in their potential to evaluate such a system objectively, which is, of course, essential for assurance and certification. Another drawback is that the dominant approach is to 'generalize' the ISO 9001 approach with its strong emphasis on control. It seems likely that the GMS
66
J, Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18
Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. Joint Management of Working Conditions, Environment and Quality; in search of synergyand organizational learning. Thesis, NIA, Amsterdam, 1994 VROM.Notitie Bedriffsinterne Milieuzorg, Tweede Kamer Vergaderjaar 1988-89, 20 633 nr 2-3 ISO. International Standard 9001, Quality Systems. Model for Quality Assurance in design/development,production, installation and servicing, ISO, Geneva, 1987 SZW.Nota Arbozorg en systeemgericht handhaven, Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment,Den Haag 1993 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. and Sprengers, P.P.M. Op zoek naar Synergie, VUGA, Den Haag, 1992 Demenint, M.I., van der Vlist, R. and Allegro, J.T. Organisaties in een dynamischewereld (In: Organiseren en Veranderen in een Dynamische Wereld, J.J. Boonstra, M.I. Demenint, H.O. Steensma, Eds), Lemma, Culemborg, 1989 Kolb,D.A. Experiental Learning-Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1984 Senge,P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline; the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, London, 1990 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. Joint Management of Working Conditions, Environment and Quality; in search of synergyand organizational learning. Thesis, NIA, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 149-248 Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. Op Weg naar een Lerende Organisatie, Wolters Noordhoff, Groningen, 1990 Imai, M. Kai Zen, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986 ISO. International Standard 9004-4, Guidelines for Quality Improvement, ISO, Geneva, 1993 BSI. British Standard 7750, Environmental Management systems, BSI, London, 1992 ISO/DIS. Draft ISO Standard 14001 for Environmental Management Systems, ISO, Geneva, 1994 ISO/SAGE.Strategic Advisory Group Environment (ISO/ IEC), Subgroup EnvironmentalManagement Systems, Position Paper September 1992, documentISO/IEC/SAGE SG1 46, London/Geneva,1992 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. The synergy between the ISO 9000, safety and environmental requirements. In Proc. ISO 9000 Forum. Brussels, 19-20 April 1994 Van Hezik, H.J.P.M. and Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. Afstemming van eisen aan Zorgsystemen voor Kwaliteit, Arbeidsomstandigheden en Milieu, NNI, Delft, 1994 Argyris,C. and SchOn D.A. Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, 1979
I N
E M
A
N
N
0959-6526(95)00046-1
J. Cleaner Prod., Vol. 3, No. 1-2, pp. 61-66, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All fights reserved 0959--6526/95 $10.00 + 0.00
Improving Cleaner Production by integration into the management of quality, environment and working conditions Gerard I.J.M. Zwetsloot Dutch Institute for The Working Environment, NIA, PO Box 75665, NL-1070 AR Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Cleaner Production Programs are in themselves no guarantee of continuity in environmental progress. Cleaner Production should therefore be integrated into systemic environmental management or an integral management approach. Lessons learned from quality management and the management of working conditions can be valuable for environmental management and vice versa. Research carried out in front runner firms shows that this offers opportunities for win-win situations (there are three types of synergies). It can increase effectiveness and acceptance of environmental management, while reducing costs. As a consequence, several front runner firms develop integral approaches of environmental management and the management of quality and working conditions. It is very important to manage relevant organizational learning processes in order to facilitate continuous improvement; this has the character of 'learning to learn', Nevertheless these organizational learning processes can be managed systematically. Like Cleaner Production Programs, standardization of management systems (environment, quality, safety and health) should have the aim of continuous improvement as their starting point. Standards should also favour synergy between the three management systems (quality, environment and working conditions) and learning processes necessary for proactive approaches. Recent developments in standardization are discussed in this respect.
Keywords: Cleaner Production; integrated management; synergy
Introduction Many companies are not only being confronted with the necessity to improve their environmental performance, but also to improve their performances in quality and health and safety (working conditions). The improvement of performance in these three areas is not only a direct stake for the companies themselves (it generates competitive advantages), but is also of great interest for society. Consequently, three areas of management are being developed that have many analogies, interact easily, and have very close relationships 1. Environmental management focuses on reducing emissions and wastes, decreasing energy use, and improving chain control and the environmental properties of products. Quality management focuses primarily on improving the quality of products and services and on increasing customer satisfaction. The management of working conditions is aimed at increasing occupational safety, improving health and well-being at work, and reducing absence due to sickness.
Cleaner Production Programs are in themselves no guarantee of continuity in environmental progress. To make these activities continuous an important tool is that of management systems, where systems theory is used to systematize and structure the management activities. The current definitions of management systems for the three aspects of environment, quality and working conditions2-4, however, differ substantially, even though there are many similar elements (e.g. planning, determination of responsibilities and power, measuring, administration, etc.). Until now the managements of environment, quality and working conditions, have usually been regarded as more or less independent, and consequently management was directed to the optimization of the individual areas. Paradoxically, for each area it is generally accepted that its activities should be integrated as far as possible into the general management of the organization. However, the ultimate consequence of integration into general management is also the mutual integration of these three domains. Because it is easy to show that management activities in these three
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
61
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
areas often influence each other, the optimization of separated systems actually means suboptimization both from an organizational and a societal perspective. Moreover, because of the many similarities it is likely that many lessons learned in one specific area can also be used in the other areas. From the perspective of Cleaner Production Programs this means that they could benefit not only from experiences with environmental management but also from experiences with the management of quality and working conditions. From another point of view, the strategic meaning of Cleaner Production Programs will increase when they generate benefits in the management of quality and working conditions. The challenge is therefore to eliminate the existing suboptimization by identifying and using opportunities for positive interactions (synergy) and managing organizational learning processes that favour Cleaner Production and the development of the three management systems. How can this be realized?
Lessons learned by front runner firms Explorative research was carried out that focused on the interactions between the three management areas 1,5. This research is based on an assessment of lessons learned by five companies that were considered, in 1991, as front runners regarding the joint management of working conditions, environment and quality because they had already combined their management activities in two or three of these areas for a certain time. These five companies differ greatly in technology, the nature of their dominant work processes, markets, process-inherent risks, sectors and, to a lesser degree, size.
Method of description and analysis A first essential step was to develop a method to describe the management systems systematically and consistently. Because each management system should be integrated in the general organization, an organizational model, the Leiden Octahedron 6 is used for this purpose. This model distinguishes six clusters of variables (objectives, strategy, structure, technology, culture and people). In this way the data were structured in systematic descriptions per firm and these were verified by the respective firms. In every firm report the five central objects (the organization, the three management systems and the organizational environment) were described and special attention was paid to the interactions between the three management areas; finally a section was dedicated to notable findings. In the analysis, the lessons learned were categorized using a simplified version of Kolb's model for experimental learning 7, distinguishing concrete lessons learned (i.e. doing and reflective observation) and abstract lessons (i.e. conceptualizing and decisionmaking).
62
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
It was regarded as important to understand the dynamics of each management aspect before drawing conclusions about their interactions. This has resulted in a description of these developments and an analysis of the relevant stimuli. It is apparent that each of the management areas is developing rather quickly, and that external stimuli are very important, especially for environmental and quality management.
Opportunities for synergies The analysis was focused on three types of interactions that have to do, respectively, with common aspects, similar organizational principles (both at the system and the element level) and the relationship with general management. In each of these three dimensions synergy is possible, and in this research these three types of synergy are called respectively common aspect synergy, management system synergy and organizational synergy. It is established that though there are many opportunties for synergy, even these front runner firms did not yet use them systematically; for many of the interviewees it was quite a new idea to link experiences in the three areas. This implies a great potential to improve environmental management and Cleaner Production Programs.
Common aspect synergy This is based on the phenomenon that an aspect may be relevant in more than one area. For instance, working carefully and safely with hazardous materials is relevant for the environment and the working conditions; the environmental impact of products is a vital aspect not only of environmental management but also of quality management; 'good housekeeping' is important for all three areas. Through such common aspects, the activities influence each other. If a problem turns up the question arises: is this an environmental problem or a problem with safety, health or quality, or a problem which has several aspects? This may lead to confusion about how the problem should be solved and who is responsible. Common aspect synergy results in better definitions of opportunities and problems, a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of potential solutions, and clearly defined responsibilities. An integral approach of common aspects discourages 'added-on' solutions (which can easily be counterproductive in one of the other areas) and favours prevention at source. The management activities in these three areas as a whole can become much more effective (sometimes they may double or triple in effectiveness) and be much more productive (effective at lower cost).
Management system synergy This stems from the conscious use of the same or similar organizational principles and instruments. It implies using such similarities to achieve positive
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
interactions, (e.g. the experiences with a management system can be used for the improvement of another system, and vice versa). The key is the exchange of lessons learned, or rather the joint managment of collective learning processes. A set of factors influences the actual creation of management system synergy. External requirements. Coordinated external requirements (e.g. an objective requirement by the authorities in an area with much overlapping (working conditions-environment) and the attitude of customers (who may, for example, demand environmental properties as part of the general quality requirements of products (environment--quality) stimulate synergy. Governmental bodies that operate separately (all three areas, relevant to each firm) and the mean requirements of authorities (especially environmental authorities) have the opposite impact. Audits by external bodies on separated areas (e.g. for quality certification) have a similar impact: all separated external requirements impeded the creation of synergy. Involvement of top managers. Top managers will often ask themselves whether coordination in the organization can be improved. That implicates a stimulus to cooperation between the people involved in the respective management systems and so to the creation of opportunities for management system synergy. The need for an overview and a joint approach. The introduction of environmental management as a third area of management has in many cases increased the demand for better coordination and the need for an increased overview of what is going on. Contradiction of subaspects are as frequently found within each area as between the three systems. That can raise the need for a holistic approach which stimulates the creation of management system synergy. On the other hand, the emphasis on taking action on concrete problems in the respective areas impedes the creation of management system synergy. Internal cost. Management system synergy makes things simpler to realize and reduces the internal cost of the management effort. If the overall productivity of the three management systems is monitored, it stimulates the creation of synergy. Participation. At the lower strata of the organization people usually think less abstractly. But if people are supposed to regulate things for themselves they have to make choices. Choices with respect to the three areas require that they can oversee them, and an integral approach is strongly desired. Related or distinct systems. Integrated expert services (e.g. one department for safety, health and environment) or other forms of close cooperation between staff services often lead to joint initiatives.
Expert services that have expertise only in one area, or compete for resources (finances, time and attention of the managers) impede the creation of management system synergy. Integral educational programmes. Broadly defined educational programmes will reduce the distinction between systems in the minds of the staff, and so stimulate integral approaches. Changing existing habits requires the re-education of those involved; especially when behavioural changes are aimed at, or common aspects are important, an integrated educational program will achieve the best results. Examples of these firms are the careful handling of hazardous materials (working conditions and environment), improving the skills needed for cooperation (each area), and analysing and solving problems (each of the three areas). Positive approach Putting the emphasis on the positive aspects (opportunities instead of threats) makes organizations more alert in assessing the potential benefits of the win-win situations that can be achieved (sometimes in the long run) via the creation of opportunities for synergy. Experiences with synergy Experiences with the creation and use of synergy are currently positive, due to their win-win characteristics. Experiences also increase the awareness of the concept of synergy or of the strategies for their realization. Experiences with synergy therefore reinforce the attention to management systems synergy. Emphasis on prevention or correction Especially in the development or design stage of new technical systems and work places, relatively minor investment can generate improvements in several areas, at least when these aspects are an integral part of the development or design process. Tuning of the workplace and job content for the workers (ergonomics) is another relevant example of prevention at source. The emphasis on prevention always stimulates the creation of opportunities for management system synergy. The opposite is true of focusing on correction. There are two general strategies for achieving management system synergy: using analogies in similar situations, or integration (Table 1). These strategies can be used for instruments (i.e. for system elements), or on the systems level. Organizations tend to be very pragmatic in the selection of their strategy: usually they determine their strategy per element. The choice for one of the strategies is influenced by a number of factors. Integrated expert services or other forms of close cooperation will encourage the choice of the integration
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
63
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
Table 1 Characteristicsof the two strategies for the realization of management system synergy16 Using analogies
Integration
Increased cooperation between people most involved; each system is responsible for itself Beneficial principle Sharing relevant experiences, mutual use of lessons learned, increased acceptance of new measures Main advantages Applicable to each situation even at different stages of development, and with substantial time constraints High flexibility; identifiabilityof each aspect; easier certification Main disadvantages Cooperation is not assured, conflicting items can easily lead to competition
Cooperation of people most involved; joint responsibilityfor instrument or system
strategy. Expert services that have only expertise in one area encourage the choice of the analogy strategy. Substantial differences in power between the staff experts seems to impede their cooperation. If common aspects are important this clearly encourages the choice of the integration strategy. Emphasising prevention at source implicates consciously assessing undesired potential future effects. Undesired effects in the three areas are then easily taken into account and an integral approach is possible. Operational practice demands a uniform approach; this is why it is attractive to integrate elements that strongly influence operational activities. This is not necessarily true to the same degree for management activities. If the firm already has integral jobs and/ or semi-autonomous task groups, this implies many advantages for an integrated approach to the three areas of management. Joint external requirements stimulate the choice of the integration strategy. Separated partial requirements (which are usually more important) stimulate the choice of the anaology strategy. Time constraints stimulate the choice of the analogy strategy. The integration strategy makes things more complex and the aspects less identifiable. Substantial differences in stages of development favour the analogy strategy. This is because a system that needs great progress requires special attention and specific recognition, but also because a mature system is balanced in itself and could easily be disturbed by new developments that are not fully reliable. As a result of the further development of all three managerial systems, separated systems will become decreasingly attractive in the future and integration will be increasingly favoured. Eventually, the three areas of management could develop to become just aspects of integral management. A general conclusion is that management system synergy can speed things up substantially (increased effectiveness) with less organizational constraints and at lower costs (increased productivity and efficiency).
64
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
Kill two or three birds with one stone Prevents operational problems most effectively Especially attractive in cases of important common aspects and comparable stages of development Higher complexity, the respective aspects are not always assured by the involvement of agents with a specificinterest or expertise
Organizational synergy This refers to positive interactions between the general management and the three management systems. Some characteristics of the organizations may stimulate or impede the development of management systems (e.g. the culture or the style of leadership, the structure). Management systems, on the other hand, influence some developments in the organization (e.g. it may become clear that the organization has to become more flexible, or that the development of a long-term strategy will be vital). These interactions may enhance each other. Organizational synergy increases the innovative capability, the problem-solving capability and the ability to learn with respect to general organization and management and the management systems. This results (in the longer run) in greater effectiveness, productivity and efficiency, that is, in greater competitiveness. An overview of the three types of synergy is given in Table 2.
Proactivity Searching for opportunities for synergy can be understood as an example of proactive management. Proactivity can be characterized as generating change, as opposed to simply reacting to problems. Proactive management seems in the long run (continuity) the most promising, and offers the best conditions for the integration of the management of working conditions, environment and quality in general management. However, in every day practice, reactive approaches often seem more concrete than proactive approaches, because problems are easier to acknowledge than opportunities. The development of positive visions of the three areas and their relationships will be of great importance to the further development of their joint management. A good understanding of the concept prevention is one of the keys. A narrow definition of the concept
Integration of CP into management: G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
Table2 Overviewof the characteristics of the three synergies16
Origin of interaction
Common aspect synergy
Management system synergy
Organizational synergy
Multi-aspect issues (opportunities as well as problems) and overlapping management domains
Organizational similaritiesoffer opportunities for common learning processes
The developmentof the organization and the management systemsoffers opportunities for mutual reinforcement
Two strategies: (both on the system and the element level) using analogies and integration Main benefits
Improved assessment of opportunities and problems; more integral definitionsthereof; improved cooperation; better defined responsibilities
of prevention (limiting the concept to system improvement and the prevention of the repetition of problems) is essential.
The importance of organizational learning processes The implementation and development of management systems can be regarded as organizational learning processes that form the basis for the development of all three management aspects, both singly and in combination. In one of the five front runner firms the implementation of management systems was explicitly regarded as an organizational learning process, and the concept of the learning organization was used as a tool to manage these learning processes. The organizational culture is shown to be very important for such learning processes. More generally, Senge 8 shows that organizational learning processes and system approaches are complementary. In fact, fundamental learning processes are needed to prevent defects in the design, or redesign, of systems. The elimination of system defects (the realization of system improvement) is in itself not enough to guarantee the absence of system defects in the new system. On the contrary, it is rather likely that a set of system defects will be reproduced. Therefore the management of such organizational learning processes has been explored by analysing five other cases 9. The first focus was on system improvements; the acknowledgement of concrete problems as symptoms of more chronic problems is essential here, and has to go together with the determination of the system defects that cause these chronic problems. As a consequence Cleaner Production Programs should pay a lot of attention to such underlying problems. The second focus was on success factors for the management of organizational learning processes. It comprises three aspects: team learning (including the relationships between individual and collective
Use of successful approaches in other areas resulting in better tuning to corporate culture and acceptance; time-saving (improved effectiveness)and reduction of cost (increased productivity)
Rapid development of the organization and management systems, greater effectiveness Contribution to the organization's continuity
learning), the assessment of factors that had a negative influence on the organizational learning capability (learning disabilities), and the determination of successful strategies to increase the learning capability. When these factors are part of the environment of integral management system this will increase the impact of Cleaner Production Programs. From the third point of view the management of organizational learning processes has the character of learning to learn 8,1°. This process of 'learning to learn' requires active management and the awareness of learning. This awareness implies the possibility of evaluating process and results (from the point of view of a variety of stakeholders!), and of adapting the learning process. In order to continue the learning process, a structural educational policy is essential, as are the supply of information and internal communication. In the longer run, periodic audits or assessments contribute to the continuity of the organizational learning process. It remains important to involve all stakeholders in the learning process, and to encourage the development of initiatives. Finally, organizations have to be willing and able to learn from external developments, even when they seem not (yet) very relevant (e.g. the technological development of new advanced materials, and the consequent growing use in products and production processes). The response of companies to such a development can be regarded once more as an organizational learning process.
The role of standardization There are two items that are very relevant for Cleaner Production and that play an important role in the discussions about standardization of management systems: (1) the balance between improvement and assurance and (2) the future tuning of standards in the three areas.
J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
65
Integration of CP into management: G.LJ.M. Zwetsloot The paradox o f i m p r o v e m e n t and assurance
There is a certain conflict between aiming at improvement on the one hand and aiming at control and assurance on the other. The creativity of people is vital for improvements, and improvement also requires experiments (which are carefully evaluated). Absolute control does not permit creativity and experiments, and in this way it restricts the organizational learning capability. This contradiction is, of course, not absolute because system improvement should include the assurance of already-achieved performances 11, while optimum control can often only be realized by improvement of the system. The challenge is to find the right balance between these two approaches. Companies can make choices in this respect. The five front runner firms, for example, were primarily aiming at continuous improvement, and their 'do culture' in which creativity was encouraged was dominant over the control and assurance-directed culture of many other organizations. The same paradox is a central point in the discussion about the revision of the ISO 9000 series of standards for Quality Management. In the present ISO 9001/2 Standards the emphasis is put on assurance. As a result they do not help companies to improve their performances. The present ISO Guideline 9004-4 for improvement of quality systems 12 focuses on learning from problems and taking adequate corrective measures; this is far from proactive management. This can also be said for the BS 7750 Standard on Environmental Management 13 and the draft ISO Standard 14000 for Environmental Management 14. For the further development of Cleaner Production it will therefore be extremely important to develop models and standards that strongly favour improvement processes and proactive approaches; these could probably elaborate on models of the learning organization.
approach will lead to one or several interesting guidelines with a comparable status to the ISO 9004 guidelines, but not to a standard for assurance. In the Netherlands there is now a Dutch Coordination Committee for Management Systems in which the three standardization committees (for respectively environment, quality, and working conditions) are represented, but also the three Ministries that are most involved 16. This committee aims at the tuning of future standards and legislation. In this perspective the Dutch Standardization Institute (NNI) has developed a draft common framework for the three types of standards 17. The main objective is to favour the creation of synergy in companies by using the same definitions, but also by having a common standard design (using the same chapters and paragraphs). This may lead to a common 'psychological map', an absolute precondition for mutual learning TM and greatly enhances the compatibility of the three management systems. This may benefit the integration of the three management systems, which seems an important precondition for the continuous development of Cleaner Production.
References 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 The future tuning o f standards f o r the three m a n a g e m e n t systems
The Strategic Advisory Group Environment within the ISO has proposed to develop a standard for a generic management system that could coordinate the partial standards for quality management, environmental management, safety management, etc. 15. It is, however, not very likely that the Generic Management System (GMS) approach will be successful. Any present management system, whether it concerns quality, environmental protection or health and safety, has a concrete output (measured in performance indicators) which is relevant to the evaluation of the system. But a GMS can barely have any concrete output. This is why some draft standards for GMS are very interesting from a general management point of view, but are rather disappointing in their potential to evaluate such a system objectively, which is, of course, essential for assurance and certification. Another drawback is that the dominant approach is to 'generalize' the ISO 9001 approach with its strong emphasis on control. It seems likely that the GMS
66
J, Cleaner Prod. Volume 3 Number 1-2
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18
Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. Joint Management of Working Conditions, Environment and Quality; in search of synergyand organizational learning. Thesis, NIA, Amsterdam, 1994 VROM.Notitie Bedriffsinterne Milieuzorg, Tweede Kamer Vergaderjaar 1988-89, 20 633 nr 2-3 ISO. International Standard 9001, Quality Systems. Model for Quality Assurance in design/development,production, installation and servicing, ISO, Geneva, 1987 SZW.Nota Arbozorg en systeemgericht handhaven, Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment,Den Haag 1993 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. and Sprengers, P.P.M. Op zoek naar Synergie, VUGA, Den Haag, 1992 Demenint, M.I., van der Vlist, R. and Allegro, J.T. Organisaties in een dynamischewereld (In: Organiseren en Veranderen in een Dynamische Wereld, J.J. Boonstra, M.I. Demenint, H.O. Steensma, Eds), Lemma, Culemborg, 1989 Kolb,D.A. Experiental Learning-Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1984 Senge,P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline; the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, London, 1990 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. Joint Management of Working Conditions, Environment and Quality; in search of synergyand organizational learning. Thesis, NIA, Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 149-248 Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A.F.M. Op Weg naar een Lerende Organisatie, Wolters Noordhoff, Groningen, 1990 Imai, M. Kai Zen, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986 ISO. International Standard 9004-4, Guidelines for Quality Improvement, ISO, Geneva, 1993 BSI. British Standard 7750, Environmental Management systems, BSI, London, 1992 ISO/DIS. Draft ISO Standard 14001 for Environmental Management Systems, ISO, Geneva, 1994 ISO/SAGE.Strategic Advisory Group Environment (ISO/ IEC), Subgroup EnvironmentalManagement Systems, Position Paper September 1992, documentISO/IEC/SAGE SG1 46, London/Geneva,1992 Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M. The synergy between the ISO 9000, safety and environmental requirements. In Proc. ISO 9000 Forum. Brussels, 19-20 April 1994 Van Hezik, H.J.P.M. and Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. Afstemming van eisen aan Zorgsystemen voor Kwaliteit, Arbeidsomstandigheden en Milieu, NNI, Delft, 1994 Argyris,C. and SchOn D.A. Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, 1979