ISO 14000, a new set of international standards developed by the International Organization for Standardization, promises to bring a new level of environmental protection, awareness, and management to industrial and non-industrial companies. The argument is that international implementation of ISO 14000 would allow companies to achieve sound environmental performance by managing all aspects of production and operation processes in a consistent manner. But not everyone agrees that ISO 14000 certification would be advantageous.
As United States businesses consider becoming ISO 14000-certified, many have raised concerns regarding the effect of certification costs on smaller businesses if ISO-14000 were to become an international regulatory standard. Representatives from various United States and international organizations addressed these and other concerns at a June 4, 1996 hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology, Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Steven Bold of Continental Circuits Corporation's environmental compliance group conceded that certification would improve his company's environmental compliance, help identify waste elimination and reduction opportunities, and allow for continuous environmental performance over time. But he contended the expense of formal certification would be prohibitive for many companies. Bold believed that even for Continental Circuits Corporation, which is a large business, the $100,000 investment for formal certification would outweigh the benefits. Bold said the costs for certification might range from $30,000 for smaller companies up to $100,000 for larger ones. He was concerned that smaller companies might be forced to forego the formal, third-party certification.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is testing a pilot project that would impose less environmental inspection and oversight to companies formally ISO 14000-certified. Bold noted that these regulatory incentives would give larger companies an edge and could drive smaller companies out of business.
At the hearing, Joseph Cascio, who serves as the chairman of U.S. Technical Advisory Group to ISO Committee 207 and is vice president of Global Environment & Technology Foundation, disagreed with Bold's assertion about the excessive cost of third-party certification. He said third-party certification would be feasible for companies of all sizes as the ISO 14000 standards were developed so they could be tailored to the size and needs of any organization; therefore, a smaller enterprise will have proportionately less cost and complication than a larger enterprise. He also said that because of the efficient structure of ISO 14000, smaller enterprises would benefit the most, because they lose the most from less efficient regulatory systems.
Cascio stressed that while ISO 14000 will certainly provide many benefits, there should be a concerted effort to keep it from becoming an engine for more regulation. He promoted voluntary management systems, which have benefits far in excess of those derived from mere compliance with regulations and which, over time, can supplant the current command and control model of EPA. He said ISO 14000 would help reduce the government's role in enforcing compliance with environmental regulations.
In support of ISO 14000 as an adopted set of regulatory standards, Belinda L. Collins of the National Institute of Standards and Technology pointed out in her testimony that each year American export opportunities worth $20 to $40 billion are lost due to technical barriers to trade, or TBTs. Collins said TBTs are generally designed to protect against dangers to human health, safety, or the environment, but others exist only to protect domestic markets. The adoption of internationally accepted standards, such as ISO 14000, would break down TBTs, further opening the U.S. export market.
In his testimony, Sergio Mazza, president of American National Standards Institute, further illustrated the cost of TBTs to U.S. economic well-being. Each $30 billion in exports lost to TBTs translates into 20,000 American jobs. International adoption of ISO 14000 and U.S. industrial certification would make it more difficult for countries with export markets to use environmental issues as TBTs.
Jim Thomas, president of American Society for Testing and Materials, testified at the June 4 hearing that the U.S. government should not be committing this country to any ISO standard, including the ISO 14000 series, unless U.S. industry is satisfied these documents actually reflect their viewpoint, meet their needs, and will be helpful to them.
U.S. companies and the government will decide whether ISO 14000 ultimately opens up new markets and opportunities or merely creates additional, costly hurdles for U.S. organizations to surmount.
The complete testimonies of the witnesses who appeared before the House's Subcommittee on Technology can be found on the Internet at http://www.house.gov/science/technology/homepage.htm. For more information on ISO 14000, visit the International Organization for Standardization's homepage at http://www.iso.ch/welcome.html.
