Technology: Report of the Expert Working Group Meeting on
Governments' Role in Promoting Environmental Management Accounting
Washington DC, 30-31 August 1999
REPORT OF THE MEETING
LIST
OF PARTICIPANTS
DISCUSSION
DOCUMENT
PUBLICATION
RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
EXPERT
WORKING GROUP MEETING S'
ROLE IN PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING
Washington DC, 30-31 August 1999
MEETING
REPORT
The Expert Working Group Meeting on Improving Governments' Role in Promoting
Environmental Managerial Accounting was organized for the exchange of
information among governments on how they could promote the use of
environmental managerial accounting (EMA) by business and industry.
The
Expert Working Group was organized as a follow-up to informal
discussions on the issue at the 1998 session of the United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in the context of
discussions on environmentally sound technologies.
Those discussions indicated that a number of governments were
involved in, or interested in, promoting EMA, but that there had been
little or no communication between the agencies concerned. In
particular, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
which had an active programme in this area, was interested in exchanging
information with agencies in other countries.
The
first meeting of the Expert Working Group was organized by the United
Nations Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) and the USEPA, and
hosted by the USEPA in Washington DC, on 30-31 August 1999.
The
participants in the Expert Working Group meeting were from national
environment agencies, intergovernmental organizations, industry,
accounting firms and academia. The
Group included participants from Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland,
Germany, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, the Slovak Republic, United
Kingdom and United States, as well as from the United Nations DSD, the
European Commission, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
A written contribution was also received from an expert from
China who was unable to attend the meeting.
The
Nature and Purpose of EMA
The
costs to industry of environmental protection, including pollution
reduction, waste management, monitoring, regulatory reporting, legal
fees and insurance, have increased rapidly in the past 20 years with
increasingly stringent environmental regulations.
Conventional management accounting systems attribute many of
those environmental costs to general overhead accounts, with the
consequence that product and production managers have no incentive to
reduce their environmental costs and executives are often unaware of the
extent of environmental costs.
There
is no consensus on the scope, content or procedures of EMA, and it would
probably not be useful to try to reach consensus or promote
standardization. EMA
systems should be adapted to the management needs and priorities of
specific enterprises, economic sectors and national systems for
accounting and reporting.
To
a large extent, EMA procedures that focus management attention on
environmental costs are more important than the particular system used
or results obtained.
While
most EMA approaches focus on actual costs to the enterprise (internal
costs), EMA can also take into account external environmental costs.
Assessment of such external costs is particularly useful for
long-term investment planning, considering that current external costs
may be internalized through future regulations.
EMA
systems that identify external costs can support supply-chain
environmental assessment and product life-cycle assessment, and can
benefit from recent work in those areas.
While the focus of EMA is generally on accounts in monetary
terms, accounts in physical terms (natural resource accounts) may also
be useful in some situations.
Environmental
costs can be categorized as follows:
Conventional
costs:
Hidden
costs:>
Contingent
costs (liabilities, risks)
Relationship/image
costs (consumer, community and NGO relations)
Societal
costs (environmental and social externalities).
The
Benefits of EMA
In
conventional management accounting, the aggregation of environmental and
non-environmental costs in overhead accounts results in their being
"hidden" from management.
There is substantial evidence that management tends to
underestimate the extent and growth of such costs.
By identifying, assessing and allocating environmental costs, EMA
allows management to identify opportunities for cost savings.
Prime examples from the EMA literature are the savings that can
result from replacement of toxic organic solvents by non-toxic
substitutes, thus eliminating the high and growing costs of regulatory
reporting, hazardous waste handling and other costs associated with the
use of toxic materials.
A
rule of thumb of environmental management is that 20 per cent of
production activities are responsible for 80 per cent of environmental
costs. When environmental
costs are allocated to overhead accounts shared by all product lines,
products with low environmental costs subsidize those with high costs.
This results in inefficient product pricing which reduces
profitability.
A
relatively simple application of EMA that may yield large benefits is to
waste management, as the costs of handling and disposing of waste are
relatively easy to define and to allocate to specific products.
Other environmental costs, including costs of regulatory
compliance, legal costs, damage to the corporate image, and
environmental liabilities and risks, are more difficult to assess.
Some
enterprises are now using EMA systems, most commonly large enterprises
that process natural resources and are subject to extensive
environmental regulations. The
USEPA Environment Accounting Project had developed forty-five case
studies of EMA applications and benefits in various industries.
Examples that were presented and discussed in the Working Group
meeting included DuPont in the United States and Siemens in Germany.
Environmental
regulations, consumer demands and public pressure concerning
environmental performance are constantly changing.
Companies with EMA systems can quickly determine the costs and
implications of responding to such changing regulatory and market
conditions and hence can gain a competitive advantage over other
enterprises.
Obstacles
to EMA
A
major obstacle to more widespread use of EMA by enterprises is the cost
and difficulty of implementing an EMA system.
This is in part due to the inherent complexity and cost of
collecting and analyzing more data, and in part due to the lack of
established, “off-the-shelf” EMA systems.
Each enterprise thus has to define, design and develop its own
EMA system, which is a costly process.
Even some large organizations, such as AT&T and the United
States Department of Defense, have initiated EMA systems and then
dropped them. Some
accounting and consulting firms that have tried to develop environmental
accounting services have abandoned the effort as unprofitable, although
others see it as a future growth area.
There
is, therefore, a need to assess the costs and benefits of various
approaches to EMA for enterprises of various sizes and activities.
It may be that detailed EMA systems are not cost-effective for
small enterprises with low environmental impacts.
There is a need to develop, demonstrate and make easily available
a range of EMA systems, including very simple systems for small
enterprises.
The
accounting profession has been slow to take up environmental issues,
perhaps due in part to a certain caution and conservatism in the
professional culture. Efforts
through professional associations, professional journals and education
institutions could help to overcome such obstacles.
Environmental
Management Tools Related to EMA
There
are important linkages between EMA and other environmental management
and accounting systems. EMA
systems and those other systems should be designed to be compatible and
mutually supportive. An
important means for governments and other organizations to promote EMA,
for which there are no official standards or regulations, is to develop
the standards and regulations for financial accounting and reporting,
and environmental management systems, in such a way as to make it
advantageous to enterprises to have EMA systems.
Environmental
Management Systems (EMS)
Most
directly related to EMA are environmental management systems (EMS).
International voluntary standards have been established for EMS
by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14000) and
the European Union Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS).
Under each of these systems, enterprises can seek certification
that an EMS that meets the established criteria has been established for
a particular site (not for the enterprise as a whole).
Such certification can be useful for public relations purposes
and is required by some organizations, both public and private, of their
suppliers. Both ISO 14000
and EMAS set standards for environmental management procedures and
institutional structures, rather than for environmental performance.
Neither
ISO 14000 nor EMAS includes EMA requirements, but an EMS and an EMA
system could be mutually supportive.
Both ISO 14000 and EMAS are subject to review and revision, and
could be revised to require, or more strongly promote, EMA.
The Working Group agreed that a priority for future work would be
a study of the actual and potential linkages between EMA and EMS.
EMAS
certification requires an environmental policy for a site, a public
statement of the environmental policy, an environmental assessment of
the site, an action plan, and a management structure and procedures for
system. Surveys of
enterprises indicate that public image improvement is the primary
incentive for EMAS certification, with cost reduction as a secondary
incentive.
The interest in
EMAS certification varies substantially from country to country, with
Germany having 1453 certified sites, Austria 141, Sweden 110, Denmark 76
and the United Kingdom 61. Many
enterprises with EMAS-certified sites also have ISO 14000
certifications.
In
Austria, the cost of establishing an EMAS system and obtaining
certification depends on the size of the operation and has been
estimated at roughly $500 per employee.
EMAS systems for medium-size sites have generated average cost
reductions of about $170,000, with a payback period of less than one
year.
Environmental
Reporting
Financial
accounting for required corporate public reporting is better developed
than managerial accounting for internal use.
Accounting education focuses largely on financial accounting, as
does the accounting literature. In
some respects, managerial accounting and financial accounting use the
same basic data, but organize, analyze and present them differently.
Financial
accounts include most environmental costs, but aggregated in a way that
does not identify the specifically environmental costs.
There is evidence, however, that some environmental liabilities
and risks that are in principle covered by reporting requirements, are
often not reported; for example, liabilities for cleaning up
contaminated land. A
comprehensive EMA system would promote more complete financial accounts
in such cases.
While
management accounting for internal use, including EMA, is not subject to
government requirements or standards, many developed countries have
requirements, standards or guidelines for mandatory or voluntary
environmental reporting. And
an increasing number of corporations are voluntarily publishing annual
environmental reports to accompany their annual financial reports.
Commonly, such environmental reporting is in physical terms, such
as tonnes of pollutants released or waste generated, rather than in the
monetary terms normally used in EMA.
Regulatory
provisions and requirements provide a major incentive for corporate EMA.
Regulations such as toxic release inventories, liability for
pollution damage, hazardous waste management and other requirements that
increase environmental costs increase the benefits of EMA.
EMA systems often focus specifically on the costs arising from
regulatory compliance. Increasingly
stringent environmental regulations will therefore further increase the
benefits of, and incentives for, EMA systems.
Internal
corporate EMA systems can support environmental reporting, and reporting
requirements or guidelines can encourage the development of internal EMA
systems.
The International
Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), whose members are national
professional accounting associations, promotes accounting standards for
financial reporting. The
Working Group agreed that another priority for future work would be a
study of the actual and potential linkages between EMA and corporate
environmental reporting.
National
Environmental Accounting (NEA)
There
are also linkages between national environmental accounts and EMA.
The United Nations Systems of Integrated Environmental and
Economic Accounts (SEEA) provides an accounting framework that can be
adapted for corporate EMA systems.
Corporate EMA can also generate information for use in national
environmental accounts through corporate reporting requirements.
Natural capital accounting, as promoted by the World Bank, has
been a focus of recent work in “green national accounts” and may
have interesting linkages with corporate EMA.
The Working Group agreed that future work should also consider
linkages between NEA and EMA.
Government
Promotion of EMA
By
promoting wider use of EMA in industry, government environment agencies
can achieve pollution reduction at minimal cost to government and with
minimal political resistance, in keeping with the current emphasis on
voluntary initiatives and use of market forces.
Wider use of EMA will tend to increase the effectiveness of new
environmental regulations and economic incentives, as enterprises will
be able to quickly calculate the costs of such policy measures and to
adapt production systems and pricing in accordance with the new
conditions at minimum cost. EMA
systems will also encourage management to plan new production systems
taking into account prospective new regulations and incentives designed
to internalize environmental costs that are now external.
International
mechanisms for coordination and standard setting, with the participation
of United Nations agencies, exist for corporate reporting, including
environmental reporting, and for national environmental accounting, both
of which are government responsibilities.
Corporate managerial accounting, however, is not subject to
government regulation and has therefore not been a subject for
inter-governmental discussions.
The
participants in the Working Group welcomed this first opportunity for
international exchange of information.
The
Working Group agreed that managerial accounting systems must be adapted
to the specific needs of enterprises and the economic and regulatory
system in which they operate. It
is, therefore, probably not desirable to try to standardize EMA systems,
but to offer enterprises a variety of flexible EMA tools and systems.
Similarly at the inter-governmental level, there is little need
for international harmonization of programmes for promoting EMA, but
agencies can gain by sharing experience and undertaking cooperative
projects.
There
is a need for guidelines and case studies on EMA, explaining concepts
and terms, describing a variety of tools and options, and discussing the
implementation and benefits of such systems.
Such information and publications would be valuable for many
potential users of EMA and for government agencies interested in
promoting its use.
In
countries where EMA systems are in use in a significant number of
enterprises, this could be done at the national level.
For other countries, international guidelines and case studies
would be valuable.
Some
enterprises in developed countries are now using EMA systems, most
commonly large enterprises that process natural resources and are
subject to extensive environmental regulations.
The experience of those enterprises can be used for the
preparation of guidelines on best practices in EMA at the sectoral and
national levels.
Use
of EMA systems can be promoted by governments through a variety of
measures, including dissemination of information, development and
dissemination of low-cost, off-the-shelf EMA software, cooperation with
industry associations in key sectors, consultant services, seed funding
of EMA projects, EMA development for public sector use, and introduction
of EMA into accounting education and practices.
EMA
systems should complement and be compatible with conventional accounting
systems, environmental management systems (EMS), and environmental
reporting standards. As
noted above, voluntary EMS standards (ISO 14000, EMAS) which do not
currently require EMA, could be revised in the future to do so.
Environmental reporting requirements could also be revised to
encourage EMA, in particular by requiring reporting in monetary terms as
well as physical terms. Environmental
taxes and incentives, emission trading schemes, and other environmental
policies could also be designed to encourage the use of EMA by affected
companies. Regulatory
procedures and permitting could also be made more flexible, while
maintaining overall performance standards, for enterprises with approved
EMA systems.
The
ECOMAC project (Eco-Management Accounting as a Tool of Environmental
Management), sponsored by the European Commission, conducted a survey of
84 enterprises in 4 European countries.
The survey indicated that reporting requirements can effectively
promote the use of EMA if they require accurate data rather than
accepting rough estimates.
It
also indicated that EMA generated the greatest benefits for large
companies with complex production processes, and was often not economic
for small companies. EMA
was used mostly for capital budgeting, bookkeeping, cost control, and
product pricing. Some 26
per cent of the enterprises surveyed were using activity-based costing,
providing the data necessary for EMA.
The survey revealed some sectoral differences in accounting
procedures relating to EMA, indicating for example, that sectors other
than utilities usually allocated hazardous waste management to overhead
accounts.
The survey also
indicated that energy costs are more often allocated to production units
in Europe than in the United States.
( ECOMAC ref. www.eim.nl/uk/nl/ecomac.html
)
To
promote voluntary use of EMA by enterprises, governments need a menu of
incentives. A Working Group
participant from industry noted that the incentives need to be
substantial, as corporate managers prefer not to change their procedures
and priorities unless there is strong reason for doing so.
Incentives should be used not only to induce changes in
practices, but also to reward enterprises that have pioneered the
development of new practices that go beyond compliance.
Possible incentives for the adoption of EMA might include faster
review of regulatory applications, simpler procedures for extending
permits, regulatory flexibility such as plant-wide emissions limits,
self-certification for permits, and reduced inspections for enterprises
with approved EMA systems.
Favorable
tax treatment would be attractive, but would require joint action by
environmental and tax authorities, which might be difficult.
To be attractive, incentive systems should not involve a
burdensome qualification process.
Governments
can also encourage insurance companies to assess environment-related
liabilities and risks in setting insurance rates.
The potential for lower insurance rates would be an incentive for
enterprises to use EMA to identify and reduce such liabilities and
risks.
Governments
can also work with industry associations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to support voluntary programmes to promote EMA.
While voluntary environmental programmes are often adopted by
enterprises primarily for their public relations effect, there is
evidence that policies adopted for external public relations purposes
gradually become internalized and put into practice.
Education
and training in EMA, for accountants and managers as well as students in
those fields, is central to promoting use of EMA.
Enterprises interested in EMA need accountants trained in EMA
techniques, and trained accountants and managers can take the initiative
in introducing EMA concepts and systems into corporate management.
Educational institutions and professional associations can both
play an important role in basic and continuing education.
Current
Programmes Relating to EMA
Participants
in the Working Group described programmes to promote EMA and related
programmes in their countries. The
following is a brief summary of the information presented.
The Working Group agreed that a more comprehensive and detailed
review and assessment of existing programmes for promoting EMA should be
prepared.
Norway
has instituted a competition and prize for EMA systems, conducted in
cooperation with a management school, with the prize awarded in a public
ceremony at the stock exchange. This
is part of a general effort to improve the environmental performance of
small and medium-size enterprises through environmental management
systems, product management with respect to environmental impacts, and
market-based environmental protection measures.
Norway has recently revised its corporate reporting law to
clarify the requirements for environmental reporting.
The revision does not involve quantitative reporting, but calls
for a broad and clear public statement of environmental policy.
Norway is also working with the banking industry to increase
attention to environmental risk assessment.
Norway,
Australia and the United Kingdom are promoting environmental accounting
by public authorities, both to improve the environmental performance of
the authorities and as an example to private companies.
In Norway, a 55-point environmental check-list and an internet
networking system have been developed for use by local authorities.
Norway also has a "Lighthouse" programme, with
consultant assistance, publicity and an eco-logo, that promotes
environmental accounting programmes in small businesses.
In
Australia, a project to promote the use of EMA by local authorities is
working with 178 local governments, using the UN System of Integrated
Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) for national accounts,
which includes accounts for environmental protection expenditures,
depletion of natural resources, and costs of environmental damage.
The accounts indicate that local authority spending on
environmental protection has amounted to between $40 and $250 per
capita, depending on the scope of the environmental expenditures
covered.
The project showed
that the SEEA approach was useful for EMA by local authorities, but that
it was generally incompatible with existing data management systems.
SEEA was considered more useful than the "ecological
footprint" or "material flow" approach.
In
the United Kingdom, the Environment Agency, which is funded by the
national government, by local authorities, and through corporate
charges, has undertaken an Environmental Accounting Initiative covering
its own activities, including management accounting, financial
accounting and environmental planning.
Specifying the criteria for inclusion of items in the
environmental accounts, defining the items to be included, and setting
standards for their assessment have proven difficult.
To date, the environmental costs, notably for energy and travel,
have been defined, and work is proceeding on environmental assets,
savings, liabilities and preventive expenditures.
In
the United States, an Environmental Accounting Project was established
in 1992 as part of the implementation of the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990, which emphasized voluntary and market-based programmes.
The Project has leveraged its limited resources through
cooperation with partner organizations, outreach efforts, and education
of other government departments.
As
part of the Project, EPA has undertaken a variety of activities in
cooperation with enterprises or other organizations, with various
objectives, including:
Definition
of concepts, terms and the roles of different organizations;
Development
of incentives;
Education,
training, guidance and outreach; and
Development
of analytical tools, methods and systems.
In
the E-COST project, the Environmental Accounting Project is working with
the Best!Ware computer software company to develop an EMA module for the
best-selling "Mind Your Own Business" (M.Y.O.B.) accounting
program for small businesses. Information
on this and other project activities and reports is available on the
USEPA Environmental Accounting Project web-site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/acctg/
.
A
number of states in the United States offer tax incentives to encourage
enterprises to undertake environmental protection measures beyond those
required by regulations. Currently
there are no tax incentives for EMA systems, but the existing incentives
may encourage analysis of environmental costs and consideration of
alternatives. Tax
incentives include accelerated depreciation of capital equipment for
environmental protection, favorable tax treatment of spending on
contamination remediation, corporate income and property tax credits for
environmental protection spending, and sales tax waivers for purchases
of environmental protection equipment.
Other financial incentives include low-interest loans and tax
exempt bonds for capital investments.
The
Green Ledgers Project of the Washington-based World Resources Institute
studied nine United States-based companies, including Amoco Oil,
Ciba-Geigy, Dow Chemical, DuPont and S.C. Johnson, showing how those
companies used environmental cost information to increase profitability
and reduce environmental risk. The
publication resulting from the project provides guidelines on practical
steps for integrating environmental accounting practices into business
systems.
Environment
Canada has produced an “Introductory Guide to Environmental
Accounting”, which covers financial and non-financial data and
qualitative information, as well as some external environmental costs.
The agency also organizes community-based “Enviro-Clubs” of
about 15 small businesses, which are supported for about 6 months with
consultant services on EMS, EMA and other aspects of pollution
prevention. Mutual support
among the members also makes an important contribution to benefits.
Participants pay $5000 to join, and are guaranteed their money
back through cost savings. For
a typical business, pollution prevention measures undertaken on the
basis of work in the Club produce savings of about $90,000 per year from
an investment of about $100,000.
Canada
is introducing requirements for corporate pollution prevention plans,
including cost-benefit analysis. The
government is also promoting voluntary environmental initiatives such as
the Responsible Care Programme initiated by the chemical industry in
Canada and subsequently expanded to 42 countries.
The
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) is a quasi-judicial
body that sets accounting standards in Canada, undertakes research and
disseminates information.
EMA
related work includes studies on environmental auditing (1992),
sustainable development (1993), accounting and reporting of
environmental costs and liabilities (1993), environmental performance
reporting (1994), waste management guidelines (1995), and full cost
accounting (1997). A study
is underway on accounting of externalities.
In
the province of Ontario, Canada, the provincial Ministry of Environment
has undertaken some case studies of corporate EMA, including Husky
Injection Molding and the Interface Canada carpet company.
The Ministry also works with industry to promote reduction of
harmful emissions on a voluntary basis through regulatory incentives
including reduced reporting requirements and flexibility on permitting.
The Ministry also published sectoral guidelines on eco-efficiency
and guidelines on ISO 14000 certification.
In
Germany, guidelines have been developed for assessing the cost of air
quality protection (VDI RL 3800).
Those
guidelines, prepared with the participation of industry, industrial
associations, government and academia, are currently being revised to
cover all environmental protection costs.
The revision process is addressing a number of cost assessment
questions including recycling, take-back and life-cycle costs, whether
costing should be by facility, process or product, and whether it should
cover worker safety, noise, product quality and economic factors.
The
Japan Environment Agency has produced a Draft Guideline for Evaluating
Environmental Costs and Publicly Disclosing Environmental Accounting
Information. The Guideline
specifies in detail how environmental costs are defined and calculated,
and provides forms for both internal cost accounting and public
reporting.
In
Sweden, most enterprises now include environmental issues in their
annual reports, and more and more companies are establishing
environmental management systems.
The
1999 Annual Accounts Act requires annual environmental reports,
including information on regulatory compliance.
More extensive information is required from enterprises with
major environmental impacts due to emissions, noise or waste, and
enterprises which require environmental permits.
Sweden does not yet have a programme to promote corporate EMA,
but is interested in the question.
In
Finland, a working group on environmental accounting has been
established with the participation of industry.
In 1999, Finland published Guidelines for Environmental
Reporting, including EMA, and organized a competition for corporate
environmental reports. Finland
also carried out a study of the external environmental costs of the
forest industry, concluding that, in the case of paper, external
environmental costs amounted to about 3-5 per cent of the price of the
product, with the largest cost attributed to climate change resulting
from energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
In
Europe, an Eco-Management Accounting Network (EMAN) has been established
with the participation of researchers, consultants, business people and
policy advisors.
The
purpose of the Network is to promote the understanding and use of EMA by
businesses, to stimulate research in the field, to promote education in
EMA, and to identify opportunities for government support for EMA.
Areas of research that have been identified as promising include
cost-benefit analysis of cleaner production, accounting and the
internalization of external costs, tools for supply-chain analysis, and
EMA for public sector organizations.
The Network organizes periodic conferences on EMA, with the next
conference to be held at the Wuppertal Institute in December 1999 on
"EMA: The role of information systems".
In
the Slovak Republic, the government and the National Cleaner Production
Centre are promoting environmental reporting and accounting.
The government, however, has very limited resources and little
leverage for enforcing or promoting environmental protection measures.
Environmental regulations exist, but if strictly enforced, they
would close a large portion of Slovak industry, which is politically and
economically unacceptable.
The
Mexican economy has a large informal sector, and economic development
takes priority over environmental protection.
As a result, government agencies are not very effective in
promoting environmental protection and have little leverage for directly
promoting EMA. Under such
conditions, an effective approach might be to train accountants and
consultants, who would have greater credibility in persuading businesses
of the productivity increases and cost savings to be achieved from
cleaner production. Simple
accounting software could also be useful.
In
Nepal, industry contributes about 10% to GDP and is estimated to
contribute about 8% of pollution. The
major environmental problems are dust and other air pollution from brick
and cement plants, and water pollution from iron and steel mills, carpet
making and sewage. There
are few environmental standards, and those that do exist are not
enforced.
FUTURE
WORK AND PRIORITIES FOR THE WORKING GROUP
Among
members of the Working Group, the most common EMA-related activity has
been learning about EMA, disseminating information by writing and
teaching, and trying to build support for EMA within their own
organizations. The Group
agreed that priority work for the near future was information, education
and training, including preparation of case studies, guidelines and tool
kits for using EMA. The
Working Group agreed that particular efforts should be made to
disseminate information on EMA through internet web-sites.
The
Working Group agreed that it should coordinate its work with groups
working on related issues, including the Eco-Management Accounting
Network (EMAN), the Greening of Industry Network, the Global
Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI), the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), the UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on
International Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR), and the
Financial and Management Accounting Committee of the International
Federation of Accountants.
The
Working Group agreed that it should continue to meet periodically for
exchange of information, coordination, and development of cooperative
activities, with the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development
as the secretariat. While
the primary function of the Group would be to bring together people from
government agencies and international organizations concerned with EMA,
it was agreed that participants from industry, the accounting
profession, and academia should also be invited to bring their
perspectives and expertise to the Group.
The
Group agreed that a priority for future work should be studies of
linkages between EMA and the related issues of financial and
environmental reporting, environmental management systems (EMS) and
national environmental accounts (NEA).
Studies were also needed of the feasibility and effectiveness of
various incentives for promoting EMA.
A number of national agencies indicated willingness to prepare
studies on such issues for consideration at the next meeting.
They will consult with the secretariat to coordinate the studies.
The
Working Group agreed that one of its goals should be to produce a report
on EMA for broad international distribution and submission to the
Commission on Sustainable Development at its 2001 session under the
theme “Information for Decision-Making”.
The report could include a description of EMA and its benefits
for business and society, consideration of the role of governments in
promoting EMA, a review of national and international activities for
promoting EMA, and recommendations or guidelines for government efforts
to promote EMA.
The next meeting of the group will be hosted by Austria in May 2000.
A planned meeting on environmental management tools organized by
the European Commission in Lisbon in March 2000 provided an interim
opportunity for exchange of information and review of preparations for
the next meeting.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
COUNTRY
|
REPRESENTATIVE
|
ORGANIZATION
|
I.
GOVERNMENT PARTICIPANTS:
|
AUSTRALIA
|
Mr.
David Pinch
Assistant Manager
|
Sustainable
Industry and Community Section
Environment Protection Group
ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA
CPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Tel: 61 2 6274 1459
Fax: 61 2 6274 1640
Email: david.pinch@ea.government.au
|
AUSTRIA
|
Mr.
Hans-Guenther Schwarz
|
Energy
and Environmental Technologies
FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR SCIENCE AND TRANSPORT
Rosengasse 2-6, A 1014 Vienna, Austria
Tel: 43 1 531 206 394
Fax: 43 1 531 206 480
Email: Hans-Guenther.Schwarz@bmwf.gv.at
|
CANADA
|
Mr.
Victor Shantora
Director General
|
Toxics,
Pollution Prevention Directorate
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
351 Saint Joseph Blvd., Hull, Quebec K1A OH3, Canada
Tel: 1 819 953
1114
Fax: 1 819 953 5371
Email: vic.shantora@ec.gc.ca
|
CANADA
|
Ms.
Lucie Desforges
Programme Coordinator
|
Pollution
Protection Section
ENVIRONMENT CANADA (Quebec Region)
105
McGill, 4th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 2E7
Tel:
1 514 283 7305
Fax: 1 514 283 5836
Email:
lucie.desforges@ec.gc.ca
|
CANADA
|
Mr.
Daniel Cayen
Director
|
Environmental
Partnership Branch
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
40 St. Clair Avenue, West - 14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5, Canada
Tel: 1 416 327 1457
Fax: 1 416 327 1261
Email: Cayenda@ene.gov ernment .on.ca
|
CHINA
|
Mr.
Ning Duan
Deputy President
|
THE
CHINESE RESEARCH ACADEMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
100012 Beijing, China
Tel: 86 10 6498 7130
Fax: 86 10 6498 7283
Email: ningduan@svr1-pek.unep.net
|
COLOMBIA
|
Ms.
Doris Polania
|
Direccion
General de Desarrollo Sostenible
MINISTERIO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE
Calle 37, Piso 1, Edificio Anexo,
Bogota, Colombia
Tel: 57 1 340 6920
Fax: 57 1 288 9892
Email: dpolania@hotmail.com
|
FINLAND
|
Mr.
Antero Honkasalo
Counsellor
|
MINISTRY
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
P. O. Box 380
00131 Helsinki, Finland
Tel: 358 9 1991 9345
Fax: 358 9 1991 9453
Email: antero.honkasalo@vyh.fi
|
GERMANY
|
Mr.
Reinhard Peglau.
|
Global
Environmental Issues
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY
Umweltbundesamt, Bismarckplatz 1
14193 Berlin, Germany
Tel: 49 30 8903 2730
Fax: 49 30 8903 2906
Email: reinhard.peglau@uba.de
|
JAPAN
|
Mr.
Tsuyoshi Kawakami
Deputy Director
|
Office
of Policy Planning and Research
Planning and Coordination Division
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 100-8975, Japan
Tel: 81 3 5521 8231
Fax: 81 3 3580 9568
Email: TSUYOSHI_KAWAKAMI@.EANET.GO.JP
|
MEXICO
|
Mr.
Carlos Munoz Villareal
Director de Regulacion Industrial
|
Direccion
General de Regulacion Ambiental
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ECOLOGIA
Av. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel, Mexico DF
Tel: 52 5 624 3483, 624 3491, 624 3477
Fax: 52 5 624 3583
Email:
cmunoz@ine.gob.mx
|
NEPAL
|
Mr.
Kalyan B. Pradhan
Joint Sectretary-Technical
|
MINISTRY
OF INDUSTRY
Singha Durbar
Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel: 977 1 229 202, 226 046, 226 686, 231 608
Fax: 977 1 220 319
Email: deepesh@wlink.com.np
or necc@wlink.com.np
|
NORWAY
|
Mr.
Martin Standley
Advisor
|
C/o
The GRIP Foundation for Sustainable Production and
Consumption
THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
Stromsveien 92, Oslo, Norway
P. O. Box 8100 dep, N-0032 Oslo, Norway
Tel: 47 22 241
718
Fax: 47 22 688 753
Email: martin.standley@grip.telemax.no
|
SLOVAKIA
|
Ms.
Viera Feckova
Director
|
SLOVAK
CLEANER PRODUCTION CENTRE
Pionierska 15, 83102 Bratislava, Slovakia
Tel: 421 7 4445 4328
Fax: 421 7 4425 9015
Email:
sccp@cpz.sk
|
SWEDEN
|
Ms.
Charlotte Af-Hallstrom
Environmental Economist
|
SWEDISH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Blekholms Krrassen 36
S 106 48 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel: 46 8 698 1443 / 1000
Fax: 46 8 698 1433
Email: cah@environ.se
|
UNITED
KINGDOM
|
Mr.
Howard Pearce
Head of Corporate Planning
|
ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION AGENCY
Rio House Bristol, BS32 4UD, United Kingdom
Tel: 44 1 454 624332
Fax: 44 1 454 624031
Email: HOWARD.PEARCE@environment-agency.gov ernment .uk
|
UNITED
KINGDOM
|
Ms.
Faith Ward
Business Analyst
|
ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION AGENCY
Rio
House Bristol, BS32 4UD, United Kingdom
Tel: 44 1
454 624 347
Fax: +44 1 454 624 031
Email: FAITH.WARD@en vironment-agency.gov ernment .uk
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Ms.
Kristin Pierre
|
Environmental
Accounting Project
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Mail Code 7409
401 M Street SW, Washington DC 20460
Tel: 1 202 260 3068 or 2601876
Fax: 1 202 260 0178
Email: pierre.kristin@epa.gov
Email:
McLaughlin.Susan@epa.gov
|
UNITED
STATES |
Mr.
Thomas Murray
Chief |
Policy
Analysis Branch, Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Mail Code 7409
401 M Street SW, Washington DC 20460
Tel: 1 202 260 1876
Fax: 1 202 260 0178
Email: murray.tom-hq@epa.gov |
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Thomas Brennan
|
OES/ENV
- Room 4325
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
2201 C Street NW, Washington DC 20520
Tel: 202 736 7111
Fax: 202 647 5947
Email: brennantj@state.gov
|
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
|
Mr.
Pedro Henriques
|
DG
III - Industry (SC15
- 2/19)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
200 Rue de la Loi
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: 32 2 296 1714
Fax: 32 2 299 1925
Email: Pedro.Henriques@dg3.cec.be
|
II.
NON-GOVERNMENT - PRIVATE SECTOR - PARTICIPANTS:
|
AUSTRALIA |
Mr.
Deane Belfield |
PRICE
WATERHOUSE COOPERS
333 Collins Street
Melbourne, VIC 300, Australia
Tel: 61 3 8603 3622
Fax: 61 3 8603 3460
Email: deane.belfield@au.pwcglobal.com |
CANADA |
Mr.
Alan Willis
Environmental Affairs Consultant |
CANADIAN
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
277 Wellington Street West, Toronto
Ontario, Canada M5V 3the2
Tel: 1 416 977 3222
Fax: 1 416 977 8585
Email: alan.willis@cica.ca |
GERMANY
|
Mr.
Ralph Thurm
Diplom - Kaufmaun
|
SIEMENS
AG
Department ZT UTS 1
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, 81730 München, Germany
Tel: 49 89 636 42241
Fax: 49 89 636 40162
Email: ralph.thurm@mchp.siemens.de
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Daryl Ditz
|
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW INSTITUTE
1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202 939 3244
Fax: 202 939 3868
Email: ditz@eli.org
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Will Gibson
|
MCNAMEE
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
3131 South State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Tel: 1 734 213 4027
Fax: 1 734 665 2570
Email: gibson@mcnamee.com
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Adam Greene
Director
|
Environmental
Affairs
US COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
1212 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-1689
Tel: 212 703 5056
Fax: 212 575 0327
Email: agreene@uscib.org
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
William J. Stibravy
Permanent Representative of the ICC to the UN
|
INTERNATIONAL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
1212
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-1689
Tel: 212 354 4857
Fax: 212 575 0327
Email:
wstibravy@uscib.org
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Ms.
Mary Beth Parker
Mr.
Steve Hellem
|
GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
818 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202 296 7449
Fax: 202 296 7442
Email: mparker@gemi.org
Email:
sbhellem7@aol.com
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Joe Pringle
|
NATIONAL
POLLUTION PREVENTION ROUNDTABLE
2000 P Street NW, Suite 708, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202 466 7272
Fax: 202 466 7964
Email:
joepringle@compuserve.com
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Ernie Rosenberg
|
OXCIDENTAL
INTERNATIONAL
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 400, Washington DC 20006
Tel: 202 857 3051
Fax: 202 857 3040
Email: ernie_rosenberg@oxy.com
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
William Russell |
PRICE
WATERHOUSE COOPERS
1117 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N. Y. 10019
Tel: 1 212 259 1688
Fax: 1 212 259 2525
Email: william.g.russell@us.pwcglobal.com |
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Fernando Casado Caneque
Ms.
Carolina Starin
|
PRICE
WATERHOUSE COOPERS
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N. Y. 10019
Tel: 1 212 259 2726 or 645 0085
Fax: 1 703 633 6359
Email: fernando.casado@us.pwcglobal.com
Email: carolina.starin@us.pwcglobal.com
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Stuart Fribush |
PRICE
WATERHOUSE COOPERS
12902 Federal System Park Drive
Fairfax, VA 22033
Tel: 1 703 633 4520
Fax: 1 703 633 6225
Email: stuart.fribush@us.pwcglobal.com |
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Allen White
Vice President
|
TELLUS
INSTITUTE
11 Arlington Street, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 1 167 266 5400
Fax: 1 617 266 8303
Email: awhite@tellus.org
|
UNITED
STATES
|
Mr.
Edwin Mongan
|
DuPont
Company
1007
Market St. N-2520-2, Wilmington, DE 19898
Tel: 1 302 773 0910
Fax: 1 302 774 1361
Email: edwin.l.mongan-1@usa.dupont.com
|
III.
NON-GOVERNMENT - ACADEMIA - PARTICIPANTS:
|
AUSTRALIA
|
Mr.
Richard Osborn
|
Division
of Management and Technology
UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA
A.C.T. Canberra 2601, Australia
Tel: 61 2 6201 2559 or 6254 0400
Fax: 61 2 6201 5109
Email: rco@management.canberra.edu.au
|
GERMANY
|
Dr.
Eberhard K. Seifert
|
EMAN
Steering Committee
WUPPERTAL INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
Doppersberg 19, D-42 103 Wuppertal
P. O. Box 100 480, Germany
Tel: +49 202 2492 178 / 142
Fax No. +49 202 2492 145
Email: eberhard.seifert@wupperinst.org
|
SWEDEN
|
Ms.
Ulrika Wennberg
Ms.
Lin Li
|
International
Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
LUND UNIVERSITY
P. O. Box 196, Tegnersplatsen 4
S-22100 Lund, Sweden
Tel: 46 46 222 0205
Fax: 46 46 222 0210
Email:
ulrika.wennberg@iiiee.lu.se
Email: iim98lil@student3.lu.se
|
THE
NETHERLANDS
|
Dr.
Jan Jaap Bouma
|
EMAN
Steering Committee
Erasmus Centre for Environmental Studies
ERASMUS UNIVERSITY
P. O. Box 1739, NL 3000 DR
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: 31 10 408 2539
Fax: 31 10 408 9104
Email:
bouma@fsw.eur.nl
|
U NITED
KINGDOM
|
Mr.
Martin Bennett
|
CHELTENHAM
AND GLOUCESTER COLLEGE
27A Napleton Lane, Kempsey, Worcester
WR5 3PT, United Kingdom
Tel. & Fax: +44 1905 821574
Email: MartinDBennett@compuserve.com
|
IV.
NON-GOVERNMENT - INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION -
PARTICIPANTS:
|
UNITED
NATIONS
|
Mr.
Ralph Chipman
Sr. Economic Affairs Officer
|
Division
for Sustainable Development
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Two U.N. Plaza, DC2-2214, New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: 212 963
5504
Fax: 212 963
4260
Email:
|
UNITED
NATIONS
|
Mr.
Tarcisio Alvarez-Rivero
Associate
Economic Affairs Officer
|
Division
for Sustainable Development
Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Two UN Plaza, DC2-2228, New York, NY. 10017
Tel: 212 963 5708
Fax: 212 063 4260
Email: alvarez-rivero@un.org
|
UNITED
NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
|
Mr.
Aiko Bode
|
UNEP
– TIE - Economic and Trade Unit
Geneva Executive Centre, 15 Chemin des Anemones
1219 Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 8197
Fax: 41 22 796 9240
Email:
aiko.bode@unep.ch
|
|