Quality & environment: 2 standards - 1 system
the environmentalist reports on how BMT Group developed its unique sustainability management system
BMT Group, an international design, engineering and risk management consultancy, has pioneered the accreditation of a single sustainability management system (SuMS). Its SuMS meets the requirements of both ISO 9001 and 14001.
BMT Group says that this is the first truly combined sustainability management system and is therefore a single response to the requirements of the two internationally recognised standards.
Why a single system?
Before embarking on its journey to develop a single sustainability management system, BMT Group cast around for early implementers of such an approach but could find none. The development process also involved, in the initial stages at least, undertaking a complex and resource-intensive project. So why was the organisation so determined to pursue a single accreditation route?
One of the main drivers was to avoid the potential pitfalls of operating two or more discrete systems, as Jacque Reynolds, head of operational risk management, explains: “From experience I know that two separate management systems can produce either a wide gulf between the two or contradictions and conflict for users when considering which standard to apply in any given situation.
“This can cause a divergence in how employees work, and costs can spiral as more investment is thrown at trying to make the systems function properly.”
Del Redvers, head of sustainability, agrees. Often, he says, companies are responding to external drivers, for example client pressure, when deciding to implement management standards such as an environmental management system.
This starting point means they do not always consider how the system will fundamentally help steer the business towards a future that has sustainability objectives at its core, which was the aim for BMT Group.
“A major problem with having distinct management systems is that the quality system typically ends up being the central one with the environment as the poor relation and a bolt-on. We wanted a fully integrated approach to sustainability management, with accreditation being but a milestone on the journey towards achieving an authentically sustainable business,” says Redvers.
A sustainable future
Prior to the implementation of SuMS, BMT Group did not have accreditation for either quality or the environment so in one sense it was starting from the position of a clean slate. According to Reynolds, most departments did own and operate various quality and environmental procedures but these were not accredited or pulled together as a whole.
Although there was an environmental policy in place, Redvers says that the approach to environmental management had not really been formalised. This started to change a few years ago, when the company made a conscious decision to develop targets and guidance in this area. Redvers was recruited in 2008 to help take forward the organisation’s goals for corporate sustainability.
There is strong leadership at BMT Group on sustainability issues and a desire to change the culture of the business. This vision is encapsulated in the “Sustainability Overview”, which sits at the front of the company’s new SuMS.
It states that: “To be more than a simple composite of existing environmental and quality management standards, this SuMS approach takes a systems approach to the assessment and management of impacts. Indeed it is how the issues identified in the aspects register interact that will defi ne and shape the basis of sustainability management.”
Planning and implementation
SuMS was developed and implemented by an in-house team and was launched in July 2009. Accreditation followed in February 2010 when external assessment body LRQA awarded BMT Group a single certificate accrediting both standards.
Redvers and Reynolds led the in-house team charged with implementing and gaining accreditation for SuMS. It also included an expert in standalone environmental management systems from one of BMT’s subsidiary companies and a consultant from Ingenium Quality Solutions, an external consultancy.
The team began work in January 2009 and by July that year had started to implement the SuMS across the company. Six months after the system went “live”, in December 2009, the external assessment body LRQA undertook an external audit and approved the single system approach; the stage 2 audit and accreditation was successfully completed in February 2010.
The LRQA auditor was impressed with BMT Group’s single accreditation route, and when the assessment body returned in August 2010 to undertake the usual six-month post-accreditation review there were no recommendations for improvement made at all.
Reynolds says that careful planning has been the cornerstone of BMT Group’s smooth transition to its truly integrated management system. As she comments: “Developing a single system does demand more work in the planning stages as the architecture is more complex; and every company activity and procedure has to be thought through in relation to the requirements of both standards. But for end-users the simplification achievable from operating a single system means that it is much easier to apply on a day-to-day basis.”
Asked if implementing the new system required a step change on the part of the organisation, Reynolds says that’s exactly what you don’t want.
“The day you flick the switch you don’t want a big change in how people are working because SuMS has been built from the bottom up and is not about imposing new working practices on people,” she says. “Much of the system is merely documenting what people are already doing to meet sustainability requirements, with some gap filling along the way.”
A collaborative approach
From the outset, employee involvement and ownership of SuMS was a core principle for its implementation. Internal champions representing each of the main departments at BMT Group were put in place at an early stage to help guide the development of the system. The months between January and July 2009 were spent working in close collaboration with each section of the business, such as HR, accounts and IT.
Regular one-to-one meetings were held between members of the project team and key personnel in order to sit down and painstakingly review the procedures that already existed for quality and the environment. Where there were gaps, new procedures were written jointly for inclusion in the SuMS.
“We knew that the system would only work if every employee was behind it 100%, so it was vital that ownership of the procedures rested with them,” says Reynolds.
“We could easily have shortened the process by having the project team write the procedures, but this would have defeated the purpose. We didn’t want to rewrite history or impose new ways of working on people.”
Redvers concurs: “If people feel they own the procedures, then they will engage with the system; employee involvement and consultation is part of the cultural piece about building an authentically sustainable business.”
Writing the procedures was the most timeconsuming element of developing the SuMS. It also involved a process of streamlining diff erent departments’ quality- and environment-related procedures. There are around 100 within the SuMS, covering 15 diff erent departments; this means that on average there are fewer than seven procedures per department.
“This is where the simplicity comes in,” says Redvers. “By working collaboratively we were able to distil departments’ activities and processes relating to quality and the environment into just a few overarching procedures. For example, the area I am responsible for, corporate sustainability, has just three procedures within the SuMS, while HR has 12 flowcharts representing its procedures.”
The company’s commitment to employee involvement and engagement continues, with regular briefings, training sessions and a continuous improvement approach to sustainability management. The project team has received very positive feedback from employees on SuMS and there is feedback from users on various changes needed on an ongoing basis.
“We are constantly reviewing the system and people are encouraged to make suggestions and come up with ideas for improving it,” adds Reynolds. “We would not be able to achieve the same level of innovation or continuous improvement if the system existed merely for compliance reasons.”
Online and user-friendly
A key starting point for the SuMS project team was that the system should be paper-free. BMT Group’s SuMS is therefore web-based and is part of “Navigator”, the company’s intranet. “The electronic format means we can update the SuMS and anyone can access it all over the world at any time,” says Redvers.
The SuMS comprises all the elements expected to be present in either a quality- or environmental-management system – the key difference is that the two requirements for both are integral to every stage of the single system. There is one overarching policy covering quality and the environment and one set of objectives and targets relating to both areas.
This twin thread runs through each step of the SuMS, so the register of aspects, for example, identifies the particular features of a service, activity or product that both interacts with the environment and has quality implications. The same goes for the 100-plus procedures.
Whereas some procedures are department-specific, others, such as the waste management procedure, are generic and can potentially be used by the whole organisation. It is presented, as are all the others, graphically, as a flowchart to show the actions employees need to take at every stage of managing their waste.
The “purpose” of each procedure, or flowchart, spells out which 9001 and 14001 clauses the procedure is satisfying. A standalone box also sets out any associated documents or procedures users need to be aware of, as well as the relevant roles and responsibilities and records.
The flowchart itself takes the user through a simple step-by-step process with the stages satisfying environmental requirements – such as “check with Environment Agency regarding waste carrier’s legal compliance” – and quality requirements, for example engaging with waste carriers at appropriate points. Some boxes of the flowchart enable the user to click through to other relevant sections of the online SuMS.
Leading by example
Reynolds and Redvers are confident that the project team made a good job of implementing the SuMS. “It’s not that the challenges weren’t there, but in most cases we pre-empted them because we made a huge investment at the planning stages,” Reynolds explains.
“One positive lesson we learned is not to try and achieve accreditation in isolation – use a project team with a good spread of experience, so collectively the team has people with the vision, the hands-on environmental and quality experience, and project managers. And don’t be afraid to use external experts when you need them; it may seem like an expense but having the right expertise at the right time is invaluable.”
Redvers has this advice for organisations thinking about developing a single sustainability management system: “It may seem obvious but it is vital that the organisation and project team really understands the purpose of the project at the very beginning – if cost efficiency is the key driver the project will take a very different form to what we set out to achieve.
“For us, the project was driven internally by a desire to place corporate sustainability at the heart of our business. Achieving accreditation was therefore an opportunity to encourage cultural change and that goal influenced how we managed the project from start to finish.”
The benefits of applying a single sustainability system are now being realised by BMT Group and reinforced on a daily basis, and the company is embarking on a wider roll-out across its subsidiaries.
“The two obvious advantages are consistency and control – not top-down control but how this system gives control back to the individual. It’s simpler to use and employees appreciate the benefits to them, their clients and other stakeholders,” comments Reynolds.
“There are practical benefits as well, such as cost saving,” adds Redvers. “The synergies achievable from setting up and operating a single system have translated into efficiencies such as the cost of one project team and one accreditation, for example. And, crucially, the SuMS gets us one step closer to embedding the environment and corporate sustainability into the core of the business.”
Want to know more?
BMT is planning to run a free workshop in May to enable readers of the environmentalist to learn more about its sustainability management system. There are a limited number of places available. To register your interest, please email the editor at [email protected].