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 (532kB)


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: Huddersfield Business School

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
14000/pdf/survey2003.pdf (accessed 20
February 2005).
6. European Union, EU register of EMAS
organisations; available online:
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):
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.
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
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:
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: 10 Dec 2016 17:50


Downloads per month over past year

Repository Staff Only: item control page

View Item View Item

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