In the first of three articles, Garry Warhurst assesses the initial approach to sustainability auditing and compliance
ESG (environmental, social, governance) and PDCA (plan, do, check, act) are acronyms that we are all familiar with, but how much do we focus on the ‘G’ and the ‘C’ in them? With countries, cities, companies and individuals being held ever-more accountable for their impact on the environment, how can we be sure that there is no greenwashing or greenhushing taking place?
When we consider how we govern and check our sustainability credentials, we tend to think of long, expensive, stressful audits or meetings, which are a necessary evil and may or may not add value. Does the phrase ‘What was the point of that?’ ring any bells?
There are several key reasons why we can think like this, and these are:
• The auditor’s approach
• Mindset going into the audit/meeting
• Personalities clashing
• Previous outcomes and experiences
• Business culture.
What if I told you that there is another way to approach and think of audits and governance, which ensures that value is added and results are achieved?
Opportunities to improve
Governance and verification processes are the bedrock of any good system. Without them, the foundations become rocky over time and eventually collapse. They need to be looked after to support whatever we are trying to do and to ensure that we can justify any claims that are made.
If audits are seen to only find fault, then the experience will be negative. However, if we flip this and say that they are there to provide opportunities for continual improvement (which, after all, is the whole point of the PDCA cycle), we are already approaching them with a more open mindset that welcomes the process.
Audits are not to be feared, and the results of audits should not be linked to performance. Let’s think about this for a moment. Passing the audit is what everyone is after, right? Yes, of course it is. However, is this only about the highest grade or is this about the process, highlighting any gaps in the system, learning different approaches and continual improvement? If we remove the fear of failure, then people are more open around auditors, and this brings in growth to any business.
"Without [governance and verification processes], the foundations become rocky and eventually collapse"
Are directors, owners, the chief executive, chief operating officer and chief finance officer involved with the process of governance and auditing, or is it left to the sustainability team to manage? The culture of the business drives performance, and culture comes from the top. They do not need to be involved in every step of the process, but they do need to show that the sustainability team are not on their own – for example, by attending the opening and closing meetings of audits, supporting the process by ensuring that enough resources are available for the duration of the audit, and supporting the individuals involved with training.
All in it together
An audit is not just the responsibility of one person or one team, as all departments in any business can affect the results of the audit. Emissions data could come from engineering departments, invoices through accounts, waste transfer notes through environmental managers, etc. Having the business working on this as one whole team and breaking down silos between departments makes the audit process less daunting and more efficient.
Equally, having an audit-ready mindset every day of every year makes the audit process easier. After all, if everything is done correctly and as per procedure, then the audit will look after itself. This ensures that the preparation of the audit has already been completed, leaving just a few finishing touches to check prior to the big day. Remember, if we fail to prepare, we must be prepared to fail.
Highly skilled auditors
The people who are carrying out governance and verification processes need to be the right type of people for the task. This is not just about training and qualifications but whether they have the right approach and mindset to carry them out. Being audited should not be seen as an additional job or a burden – it is a key part of their job and, as such, time needs to be built in to the day to complete this. If not, resentment can build and the negative approach creeps in.
External auditors are experts in their field with not only the training but the experience to match – be that in ISO 14001, carbon accounting, PAS 2060 or ISO 50001 certification. Wherever possible, embrace their knowledge, because in their roles they will see the same thing being completed in many different ways.
What about your internal auditors? Are they treated in the same way as external auditors, or are they just completing a tick-box exercise for clause 9.2 of the ISO standards? Internal audits need to challenge the system just as much as external audits, if not more so. Why? To ensure that the company can improve and maintain compliance throughout the year and not just when there’s an external audit.
Internal auditors need to have the same training as external auditors, with auditing built into their roles, and time and resources allocated to complete the job.
And finally…
By having the right mindset towards auditing and governance, embracing the process rather than fearing it, providing the appropriate resources and doing things correctly throughout the year, we can ensure that businesses learn, comply with all requirements and achieve the strong foundations that every quality management system needs.
Join me next time for part two of the series, where I will be reviewing different types of audits and compliance standards.
Garry Warhurst AIEMA is the founder of Warhurst Associates, a consultancy supporting businesses on their compliance journeys
