Search:
Computing and Library Services - delivering an inspiring information environment

Protecting the environment: the role of environmental management systems

Watson, Michael (2006) Protecting the environment: the role of environmental management systems. Journal of the Royal Society for the promotion of health, 126 (6). pp. 280-284. ISSN 1466-4240

[img] PDF
Restricted to Registered users only

Download (520kB)

    Abstract

    Environmental management and auditing systems are increasingly important. They have
    significant roles to play in relation to environmental protection, workplace safety and public
    health. Businesses and non-commercial organisations adopt such systems for a variety of
    reasons. The extent to which they are used varies very considerably between developed
    countries. The effectiveness of national regulatory systems seems to be a major factor. In the
    United Kingdom environmental regulators have traditionally sought the voluntary compliance
    of businesses. This strategy is closely associated with the near absence of administrative
    penalties. It seems that a wide range of environmental administrative penalties will be
    introduced in the near future. This may greatly encourage more firms to introduce
    environmental management and auditing systems.

    Item Type: Article
    Additional Information: © 2006 Royal Society for the Promotion of Health.
    Uncontrolled Keywords: Administrative penalties; EMAS; environmental management systems; environmental regulation;
    Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GF Human ecology. Anthropogeography
    G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
    Schools: The Business School
    References:

    1. Palmisano J. Environmental auditing: past,
    present and future. Environmental Auditor
    1989; 1(1): 7–20.
    2. Morrow D, and Rondinelli D,
    Adopting corporate environmental
    management systems: motivation and results of
    ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. European
    Management Journal 2002, 20(2): 159–171.
    3. EMAS 2 opens for business. Report 316,
    Environmental Data Services (ENDS), London,
    2001, 6.
    Freimann J and Walther M. The impacts of
    corporate environmental management systems:
    a comparison of EMAS and ISO 14001. Greener
    Management International, 2001; 36: 91–103.
    4. Jiang R.J and Bansal P. Seeing the Need for ISO
    14001. Journal of Management Studies 2003;
    40(4): 1047–1067, at 1048.
    5. ISO (2004), Survey of ISO 9001 and
    ISO 14001 certificates 2003, 6–27; available
    online:
    http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-
    14000/pdf/survey2003.pdf (accessed 20
    February 2005).
    6. European Union, EU register of EMAS
    organisations; available online:
    http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
    emas/about/participate/sites_en.htm (accessed
    25 February 2005).
    7. Glachant M, Schucht S, Bültmann A and
    Wätzold F. Companies’ participation in EMAS:
    the influence of the public regulator. Business
    Strategy and the Environment, 2002; 11:
    254–266; Kollman, K and Prakash, A. EMSbased
    environmental regimes as club goods:
    examining variations in firm-level adoption of
    ISO 14001 and EMAS in UK, US and Germany.
    Policy Sciences 2002; 35: 43–67;Watson, M. and
    Emery, ART Law, economics and the
    environment: a comparative study of
    environmental management systems.
    Managerial Auditing Journal, 2004; 19(6):
    760–773.
    8. Wurzel RKW, Jordan A, Zito AR and
    Bruckner L. From high regulatory state to social
    and ecological market economy? New
    environmental policy instruments in Germany,
    Environmental Politics, 2003; 12(1): 115–136,
    at 132.
    9. Civil penalties are generally determined by
    regulatory bodies (which have considerable
    discretion).Administrative penalties usually
    take the form of fixed fines (such as those
    currently available to punish individuals who
    cause excessive noise).Ogus A and Abbot C.
    Sanctions for pollution; do we have the right
    regime?. Journal of Environmental Law, 2002,
    13(3): 283–298;Woods M and and Macrory R,
    Environmental Civil Penalties: A More
    Proportionate Response to Regulatory Breach:
    Centre for Law and the Environment,
    University College London, 2003, 4.5-4.12;
    Malek T,Heinelt H, Taeger J and Töller AE. The
    implementation of EMAS in Germany. In
    Heinelt H,Malek T, Smith R and Töller A.E.,
    editors, European Union Policy and New Forms
    of Governance.Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. pp.
    107–118.
    10. House of Commons Environmental Audit
    Committee, Environmental Crime and the
    Courts, HC 126. Sixth Report, 2004; House of
    Commons Environmental Audit Committee
    (2005), Second Report, Corporate
    Environmental Crime, HC 136. Second
    Report, 2005.
    11. Pollution fears follow Buncefield fuel depot
    fire, Report 371, Environmental Data Services
    (ENDS), London, 2005, 6–7; Sample, I. Toxic
    legacy poses giant problem. Guardian 2001, 7
    February.
    12. ‘French disaster opens new chapter in EU major
    hazards policy’, Report 321, Environmental Data
    Services (ENDS), London, 2001, 47.
    13. In addition to causing accidents and
    respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, smoke
    and smog blocked sunlight – especially in
    winter. See Clapp BW. An Environmental
    History of Britain since the Industrial
    Revolution. First edition. London: Pearson,
    1994, 43–69.
    14. Researchers find new link between air
    pollution and heart disease. Report 361,
    Environmental Data Services (ENDS),
    London, 2005, 10–11.
    15. SMEs’ “head in the sand” attitude to
    environment. Report 336, Environmental
    Data Services (ENDS), London, 2003, 6.
    16. Hutter, BM, editor, A Reader in Environmental
    Law. First edition. Oxford; Oxford University
    Press, 1999, 5.
    17. Watson M. The enforcement of environmental
    law: civil or criminal penalties? Environmental
    Law and Management, 2005; 7(1): 12–16.
    18. Abbot C. Friend or foe? Strict liability in
    English environmental licensing regimes.
    Environmental Law and Management, 2004;
    16(2): 67–76.
    19. De Prez P. Excuses, excuses: the ritual
    trivialisation of environmental prosecutions.
    Journal of Environmental Law, 2000; 12:
    65–77.
    20. Finemen S. Enforcing the environment:
    regulatory realities. Business Strategy and the
    Environment, 2000; 9(1): 62–72, at 67.
    21. Hutter BM, The Reasonable Arm of the Law:
    The Law Enforcement Procedures of
    Environmental Health Officers. First edition.
    Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, 55, 63.
    22. Ibid., 72.
    23. Woods and Macrory, note 9 above, 7.4–7.5.
    24. Dupont C and Zakkour P. Trends in
    Environmental Sentencing in England and
    Wales, Environmental Resources Management
    (ERM) Ltd, 2003.
    25. Malcolm J. Prosecuting for environmental
    crime: does crime pay? Environmental Law
    and Management, 2002; 14(5): 289–295;
    Watson M. Offences against the environment:
    the economics of crime and punishment.
    Environmental Law and Management, 2004;
    16(4): 200–204.
    26. Woods and Macrory, note 9 above,
    Appendix B.
    27. Harvey F. Environment criminals face tougher
    fines, Financial Times, 2004, 29 November.
    See also Clover C. ‘Pledge to decriminalise
    environmental offences’, Daily Telegraph, 2004,
    29 November.
    28. ‘Post-election agenda on environmental
    justice takes shape’, Report 359,
    Environmental Data Services (ENDS),
    London, 2004, 27–31, at 28–30.
    29. ‘Review seeks alternatives to criminal
    prosecutions’, Report 372, Environmental
    Data Services (ENDS), London, 2006.
    30. Cane P.Are Environmental Harms Special?,
    Journal of Environmental Law, 13(1): 3–20, at 7.
    31. The availability of resources is another matter.
    See Squeeze on Agency funds could jeopardise
    civil penalties regime, Report 361,
    Environmental Data Services (ENDS),
    London, 2005, 37.
    32. There is perhaps a need for an ‘evidentiary
    privilege’ that would give forms limited
    legal protection if they acknowledged
    environmental shortcomings in published
    reports. This is an important issue in litigious
    societies such as the U.S.A. See Bhur, N and
    Freedman M. Culture, institutional factors
    and differences in environmental disclosure
    between Canada and the United States.
    Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2001;
    12: 293–322; Koven L, The environmental
    self-audit evidentiary privilege, UCLA Law
    Review, 1998; 45(5): 1166–2000.

    Depositing User: Sara Taylor
    Date Deposited: 22 Mar 2007
    Last Modified: 12 Jan 2011 11:18
    URI: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/155

    Document Downloads

    Downloader Countries

    More statistics for this item...

    Item control for Repository Staff only:

    View Item

    University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Copyright and Disclaimer All rights reserved ©