Environmental management systems in the US and Thailand: A case comparison

The implementation of an environmental management system (EMS) is a highly discretionary decision process: even for businesses using the common template of the ISO 14001 international voluntary standard, EMSs may differ in their scope, priorities, substance and stringency of their objectives and targets, EMS design process, and other characteristics. These differences in turn may produce variations in environmental performance and other management outcomes. This paper compares the EMS implementation experiences of four industrial facilities in the United States and Thailand, to illustrate the range of variation among EMSs and similarities and differences in environmental and other outcomes that may result. Significant differences among the four facilities' EMSs suggest that the fact that a facility has an ISO-equivalent or even an ISO-certified EMS may not have any common substantive meaning, despite their common framework and procedure. It is the content of the EMS objectives and targets and the actual results of their implementation that matter, not the introduction or even certification of an EMS per se. However, the consistency with which all four facilities reported eco-efficiency improvements, employee awareness benefits and community goodwill as primary benefits of EMS adoption strongly suggests that these changes, rather than major improvements in environmental performance, are the most likely outcomes that should be expected from EMS introduction.

Duke Scholars

Author Deborah Gallagher Environmental Social Systems