S

1
Södras views of EMAS and verifiers

• Elisabeth Carlsson, Environmental engineer,
  Södra, Sweden

2
Södra group

• Economic association owned by 34 000 forest
  owners in southern Sweden
• Overall objective promoting members financial
  interests
• Aims to be the leading processor of forest raw
  materials into products which generate sales
  value for the customers and increased value for
  our owners.
• Member services and forestry operation
  Comprehensive wood trading, advisory service,
  felling assignments, forest conservation
• Industrial operations Pulp mills, sawmills,
  interior wood production, bio fuel
• Net sales 12 billion SEK (1.3 billion EU)

3
Södra and the Environment

Environment and Nature
Conservation
policies
Ecocyclical principle

Overall
view
of
environmental impact

Environment management system

Forest
certification

Environment
report

4
Organisation operations
5
EMAS registrations or ISO 14001 certificates
6
Benefits from EMS

• Competitive advantage at first, today a matter of
  credibility
• Credibility towards customers, authorities and
  society
• Openness and transparency important from
  international perspective where impact may be a
  competitive advantage
• Increased engagement in environmental matters
  throughout the entire organisation
• Improvements are made where they are of greatest
  value
• Orderliness within the organisation
• An advantage in contacts with suppliers

7
Group verifying experience

• First EMAS registration 1996
• Internal audits on an every year basis. Internal
  auditors for each organisation are employed by
  another organisation within the group.
• 7 different verifying companies engaged within
  the group during 1996-2003.
• How often external verifying takes place varies
  from 6 months to 3 years depending on standard,
  size and type of organisation and time since the
  Certificate was obtained.

8
Verifiers at their best

• Have a good knowledge of the business
• Focus on environmental aspects with significant
  impact
• Help the organisation to identify both good and
  bad
• Have a pragmatic viewpoint and uses a supporting
  dialogue Are able to communicate with different
  levels within the organisation. Creates good
  atmosphere and confidence
• Are able to verify more than one type of
  management system. (Environment, Quality, Health
  and security, PEFC etc.)
• Gives a written report before leaving the site

9
Bad experiences about verifiers

• A too complicated process of planning
• Verifying companies create internal praxis, when
  interpreting standards, which later turns into
  demands.
• Differences in rules and regulations between
  EU-countries causes misunderstandings and
  confusions.
• Chemicals and small details are sometimes given
  too big proportions for small organisations.
• Late report and certificate. Factual errors in
  the audit report
• Big variation in costs and days required for
  auditing.
• Changing verifier may be a difficult process,
  because the Certificate is tied up with the audit
  agreement

10
We recommend .

• Keep cost and time required for audit relevant to
  size and complexity of organisation.
• Do not underestimate the need for an effective
  and simple system
• Focus on relevant impacts and improvements
• Do not push a single question too far

11
Conclusions

• Environmental management systems lead to
  improvements
• Third party verifying is essential for
  credibility of EMS
• Cost and competence are major factors when
  choosing verifier