Environmental Management System: Implementing ISO Standards In Agriculture

1. How can Cleaner Production practices contribute to meet ISO 14001 requirements? Critical analysis from a survey with industrial companies in Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

Article  by de Oliveira, José Augusto; Silva, Diogo Aparecido Lopes; Guardia, Mariana; do Nascimento Gambi, Lillian; de Oliveira, Otávio José; Ometto, Aldo Roberto  2017-8

2. Exploring the link between institutional pressures and environmental management systems effectiveness: An empirical study in Journal of Environmental Management

Article  by Daddi, Tiberio; Testa, Francesco; Frey, Marco; Iraldo, Fabio  2016-12

3.The limitations of environmental management systems in Australian agriculture in Journal of Environmental Management

Article  by Cary, John; Roberts, Anna  2011-03

4. Environmental life cycle assessment as a tool for identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) part 1: methodology in The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Article  by Lewandowska, Anna  2011

5. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges in Journal of cleaner production

Article  by Notarnicola, Bruno; Sala, Serenella; Anton, Assumpció; McLaren, Sarah J.; Saouter, Erwan; Sonesson, Ulf  1 January 2017

6. Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: What might uptake of farmer-preferred measures deliver for emissions to water and air? in Science of The Total Environment

Article  by Collins, A.L.; Zhang, Y.S.; Winter, M.; Inman, A.; Jones, J.I.; Johnes, P.J.; Cleasby, W.; Vrain, E.; Lovett, A.; Noble, L.  2016-03

7. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: a review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Article  by Leung, Dennis Y.C.; Yang, Yuan  2012

8. Energy recovery alternatives for the sustainable management of olive oil industry waste in Australia: life cycle assessment in Journal of Cleaner Production

Article

by El Hanandeh, Ali

2015-03

9. Modification of agricultural waste/by-products for enhanced phosphate removal and recovery: Potential and obstacles in Bioresource Technology

Article

by Nguyen, T.A.H.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.S.; Zhang, J.; Liang, S.; Lee, D.J.; Nguyen, P.D.; Bui, X.T.

2014-10

Benefits of EMS in Agriculture

The term “Environment management System” refers to the process of managing the environment of an organization in a more structured and systematic way. The framework incorporates analyzing the structure of the organization, structuring and planning the resources for the organizational development (Collins et al., 2016). In addition to this, the implementation and maintenance of the environmental policies is to be done. The environmental management system helps the organizations to monitor, identify and control the issues related to environment. The ISO management system can be incorporated in the process of controlling the environmental management system. The different ISO standards that have been framed are related to the occupational health and safety, quality management, and environmental management system.  Hence, all these frameworks can be related in order to implement the environmental management system in the sectors of agriculture.

In recent times it has been monitored the organizations as well as the government is more willing to take up the EMS set up in the both public and private sectors. Emphasis has been given more on the sectors of agriculture and food. In addition to this, the government has opted out from the traditional method of “command and control” and is keener on the fact that the organizations that can monitor and come up with their own solutions are operating with more efficiency (de Oliveira et al., 2017). The EMS also ensures the fact that the Australian agri-cultural environment will be highly benefitted by taking up the EMS framework. Along with the implementation of the EMS framework, the Australian government has also pointed out the benefits that can be achieved. In order to achieve efficacy and make the procedure more cost saving multiple environmental standards can be mixed and achieve the optimum result. In this regard, the ISO standards that ensure food safety and animal welfare should also be maintained (Nguyen et al., 2014). These frameworks are not only to be maintained by the agricultural sectors, but also to the different set ups and farms (Notarnicola et al., 2016). With the increasing awareness about food and safety, the organizations and firms that are implementing the EMS standards. These farms are accredited to the ISO 14001 certification and can only be benefited, as it is informing the buyers and the stakeholders about the fact that they are using the framework and abiding by the environmental rules and regulations mentioned by the certifications (Daddi et al., 2016). This can lead the organizations in gaining both financial and competitive advantages over other organizations. In addition to this, the implementation of the ISO standards can also be proved helpful for the farms and organizations that deal with the agricultural sectors. It can easily be analyzed that the organizations that re implementing the environmental management system are prone to demonstrating the conformity to the ‘statutory and regulatory requirements’ (Sayer et al., 2013). In addition to this, the organizations show aspects of engaging the employees and the involvement of the leadership qualities.

Challenges in EMS Implementation

In the context of the Australian agricultural and food sectors, it has been observed that the numbers of farms that are implementing the EMS set up are comparatively less in number (Dixon et al, 2013). To overcome this issue, the potential problems and factors that are hampering the usage of EMS framework, have to be identified. By analyzing the present scenario of the Australian food and agricultural sectors, several problems can be identified. It can be observed that the benefits of the ISO 14001 certification remain somewhat elusive to the organizations or the farms that are the bulk producers of food commodities (Leung & Yang, 2012). The bulk producers are far away from the final consumable product. This is lessening their chance to inform the consumers about their usage of the EMS system. However, the farms that are marketing the food products can successfully take up the certifications, rather than the producers.

However, Hillary, (2000) has countered this view in their research. They have pointed out that the elusive market can be changed into a more beneficial one. They have also pointed out that to strengthen the presently weak and elusive market, educating the farmers and the owners regarding the importance of EMS is highly important. As pointed out by Lewandowska, (2011), farmers and the owners are often confused regarding the difference of agricultural labeling and EMS. Hence, in order to achieve success by implementing the EMS, the government needs to take up initiatives to make the organizations aware of the different criteria for ISO 4001 certification. In addition to this, the government can boost the process of EMS implementation by providing various benefits and regulatory reliefs to the farmers. This will encourage them to take up and implement EMS in a broader way.

In addition to this, the implementation of EMS is hampered by several other factors as well. The availability of the farmers and proper infrastructure influence the procedure largely (Cary & Roberts, 2011). The EMS provides the farms the required set up and management system as well as the means of improving the overall environment that the organization deals with. Though the guideline provides detailed and defined norms and suggestions to maintain the environmental impact, more often it falters in providing site-specific suggestions. This results into the environmental information barrier to the agricultural sectors.

However, Doppelt, (2017) suggests that the issues related to proper knowledge can be dealt easily. In order to overcome the barrier of proper information, the EMS tools should be upgraded so that they can provide site specific and weather specific suggestions. The farmers should be able to access easily the information regarding the identification of the environmental risks. In addition to this, the tool should be upgraded so that industry specific updates can be available to the farmers. Moreover, (Charles, Schmidheiny & Watts, (2017) pointed out that the information that are available in the tool are largely generic, and hence the government need to ensure the proper application of those tools.

Role of Government Policies

As pointed out by El Hanandeh, (2015) the majority of the farms that operate in the agricultural sectors are micro enterprises. This creates a barrier in the process of EMS implementation. The cost of implementing the EMS setup is higher and the micro enterprises are not able to implement. Agricultural sectors are dominated by the farms that are being operated by the families. In contrast to that, Lehmann & Joseph, (2015) have pointed out that the larger farms have access to the greater economic set up. Hence, they have the access to implement the EMS framework with more ease.

In contrary to this argument, Welford, (2016) pointed out that the micro organizations lags behind in the process of implementing the EMS due to the lack of proper and sufficient skills. They argued that the economic factors are not the primary reason behind the failure of implementation. Schaltegger, Burritt & Petersen, (2017) opined that in order to reduce the cost of compliance, the role of the government is highly important. The government can help and support the farmers in the process of circulation of information related to the certification procedure of ISO 4001 (Ramos et al., 2015). Moreover, the government can help in the development of the system in a particular farm. This will be helpful in reducing their cost of implementation to some extent. In order to reduce the cost of implementation and encourage the government can also come with frameworks that will entitle the farmers to obtain subsidies if they implement EMS in their farms.

In addition to this, various processes of social change has been pointed out by Paterson, (2007). It has been noticed that the rural mass are increasingly migrating to the urban regions. As a result of this, the tendencies to involve into the agricultural activities are decreasing along with the passing time. In addition to this, the ‘rural change process’ that the agricultural organizations are taking up are by no means unique. This process has been implanted by several other developed countries earlier.

Contrary to the opinions that the Australian agriculture is facing problems in implementing the EMS, researches have also been down to find out the possible solutions. According to Thomas, (2005), overcoming the barriers will help the organizations in implementing the ISO regulations. This in turn will be helpful for the agricultural sectors.

To conclude it can be said that the successful implementation of environmental management system mostly depends on the farmers and the way they are embracing the system. In addition to this, the government plays a very significant role. In the present agricultural scenario of Australia, implementation of the ISO 4001 and ISO 4040 regulations will be of immense help. Moreover, in order to achieve the best outcomes of the environmental management system, the government should take up long-term and widespread policies. This will also ensure a robust agricultural system in future. Moreover, it has been monitored that the environmental management system has a positive influence on the farms. It not only ensures the fact that the farms are abiding by the proper regulatory standards, but also ensures economic growth. By achieving customer satisfaction, opportunities to grab greater market share can be obtained.

Conclusion

Reference:

Cary, J., & Roberts, A. (2011). The limitations of environmental management systems in Australian agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 878-885.

Charles Jr, O. H., Schmidheiny, S., & Watts, P. (2017). Walking the talk: The business case for sustainable development. Routledge.

Collins, A. L., Zhang, Y. S., Winter, M., Inman, A., Jones, J. I., Johnes, P. J., ... & Noble, L. (2016). Tackling agricultural diffuse pollution: What might uptake of farmer-preferred measures deliver for emissions to water and air?. Science of the Total Environment, 547, 269-281.

Daddi, T., Testa, F., Frey, M., & Iraldo, F. (2016). Exploring the link between institutional pressures and environmental management systems effectiveness: an empirical study. Journal of environmental management, 183, 647-656.

de Oliveira, J. A., Silva, D. A. L., Guardia, M., do Nascimento Gambi, L., de Oliveira, O. J., & Ometto, A. R. (2017). How can Cleaner Production practices contribute to meet ISO 14001 requirements? Critical analysis from a survey with industrial companies. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(6), 1761-1774.            

Dixon, J., Scura, L., Carpenter, R., & Sherman, P. (2013). Economic analysis of environmental impacts. Routledge.

Doppelt, B. (2017). Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Routledge.

El Hanandeh, A. (2015). Energy recovery alternatives for the sustainable management of olive oil industry waste in Australia: life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 78-88.

Hillary, R. (Ed.). (2000). ISO 14001: case studies and practical experiences. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2015). Biochar for environmental management: science, technology and implementation. Routledge.

Leung, D. Y., & Yang, Y. (2012). Wind energy development and its environmental impact: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 1031-1039.

Lewandowska, A. (2011). Environmental life cycle assessment as a tool for identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) part 1: methodology. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 16(2), 178-186.

Nguyen, T. A. H., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W. S., Zhang, J., Liang, S., Lee, D. J., ... & Bui, X. T. (2014). Modification of agricultural waste/by-products for enhanced phosphate removal and recovery: potential and obstacles. Bioresource technology, 169, 750-762.

Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Saouter, E., & Sonesson, U. (2016). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod, 140.

Paterson, M. (2007). The natural advantage of nations: Business opportunities, innovation and governance in the 21st century.

Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., Van Hoof, B., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., & Ceulemans, K. (2015). Experiences from the implementation of sustainable development in higher education institutions: Environmental management for sustainable universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 3-10.

Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., ... & van Oosten, C. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 110(21), 8349-8356.

Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., & Petersen, H. (2017). An introduction to corporate environmental management: Striving for sustainability. Routledge.

Thomas, I. G. (2005). Environmental management processes and practices for Australia. Federation Press.

Welford, R. (2016). Corporate environmental management 1: systems and strategies. Routledge.