Koncernen Södras views of EMAS and verifiers Elisabeth Carlsson, Environmental engineer, Södra, Sweden

Koncernen Södra group  Economic association owned by forest owners in southern Sweden  Overall objective: promoting members´ financial interests  Aims to be the leading processor of forest raw materials into products which generate sales value for the customers and increased value for our owners.  Member services and forestry operation: Comprehensive wood trading, advisory service, felling assignments, forest conservation  Industrial operations: Pulp mills, sawmills, interior wood production, bio fuel  Net sales 12 billion SEK (1.3 billion EU)

Koncernen Södra and the Environment  Environment and NatureConservation policies  Ecocyclical principle  Overallviewofenvironmental impact  Environment management system  Forestcertification  Environmentreport

Koncernen Organisation & operations

Koncernen EMAS registrations or ISO certificates

Koncernen Benefits from EMS  Competitive advantage at first, today a matter of credibility  Credibility towards customers, authorities and society  Openness and transparency important from international perspective where impact may be a competitive advantage  Increased engagement in environmental matters throughout the entire organisation  Improvements are made where they are of greatest value  Orderliness within the organisation  An advantage in contacts with suppliers

Koncernen Group verifying experience  First EMAS registration 1996  Internal audits on an every year basis. Internal auditors for each organisation are employed by another organisation within the group.  7 different verifying companies engaged within the group during  How often external verifying takes place varies from 6 months to 3 years depending on standard, size and type of organisation and time since the Certificate was obtained.

Koncernen Verifiers at their best…  Have a good knowledge of the business  Focus on environmental aspects with significant impact  Help the organisation to identify both good and bad  Have a pragmatic viewpoint and uses a supporting dialogue Are able to communicate with different levels within the organisation. Creates good atmosphere and confidence  Are able to verify more than one type of management system. (Environment, Quality, Health and security, PEFC etc.)  Gives a written report before leaving the site

Koncernen Bad experiences about verifiers  A too complicated process of planning  Verifying companies create internal praxis, when interpreting standards, which later turns into ”demands”.  Differences in rules and regulations between EU-countries causes misunderstandings and confusions.  Chemicals and small details are sometimes given too big proportions for small organisations.  Late report and certificate. Factual errors in the audit report  Big variation in costs and days required for auditing.  Changing verifier may be a difficult process, because the Certificate is tied up with the audit agreement

Koncernen We recommend ….  Keep cost and time required for audit relevant to size and complexity of organisation.  Do not underestimate the need for an effective and simple system  Focus on relevant impacts and improvements  Do not push a single question too far

Koncernen Conclusions  Environmental management systems lead to improvements  Third party verifying is essential for credibility of EMS  Cost and competence are major factors when choosing verifier