Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
28 Most of the airports studied found that an Environmental Management System (EMS) is an effective and useful way to improve environmental performance and increase operating efficiency. These findings support the underlying assumption of management systems: that a system built with the proper structure, resources, and processes will result in improved performance. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that the ISO 14001 Standard is the dominant framework used by the surveyed airports to develop an EMS. However, the selection of ISO 14001 does not mean that third-party verification and certification is being pursued. Those choosing not to certify cite the cost and time involved. Those who are certified per- ceive value in terms of independent confirmation of their EMS and credibility. Interestingly, even the airports that report not using the standard as the basis for their EMS address a great deal of the content of ISO 14001. According to the results of the survey, the airports found that their EMS delivered on its promises; they achieved the benefits that had initially motivated them to implement an EMS. For example, improved environmental performance and improved employee understanding of environmental issues and responsibilities were the highest ranked reasons for developing an EMS by the airports (see chapter two, âEMS Driversâ). All airports with implemented EMS identified improved environmental performance as a benefit they had received; they had also identified it as a very important driver for devel- oping the EMS. Similarly, improved employee understanding of environmental issues (such as sustainability) and respon- sibilities was reported by almost all of the airports with EMS in place; two-thirds of the airports that ranked improved understanding as important or very important drivers found that there was a corresponding significant or moderate ben- efit achieved in this area. Only one airport that ranked this as important concluded it had achieved no corresponding benefit. This study establishes that an EMS provides a platform that will support an airportâs environmental ambitions, whether it be a desire to ensure compliance, reduce risk, or system- atically address sustainability. A majority of the airports has expanded the EMS beyond compliance to address sustain- ability challenges, which is demonstrated by what is man- aged in their systems. The airports that have a primary focus on compliance included typical concerns such as stormwater, spill avoidance, and air emissions. At least half of the air- ports also address sustainability issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, green building, and green purchasing, which indicates a broader approach than compliance. Furthermore, eight airports found that a significant benefit of having an EMS was an improved understanding of all environmental issues including sustainability. Related to this, it is clear that EMS can initially be devel- oped for a particular operation, such as a fuel farm, and then be expanded to tenant operations, for example. This indicates that EMS can be scaled to meet any individual airportâs require- ments. It also demonstrates that the goals for the system can become more ambitious over time, which many of the airports in the study report they plan to do in the next five years. In general, airport EMS efforts were led by the environmen- tal staff, although this is not the universal model. One effort was led by operations, and most of the airports included air- port operations in their EMS with varying degrees of success. However, the involvement of tenants, contractors, and other stakeholders varies. Some airports fully include them in the system and some have more limited or no involvement. Those who include tenants generally report improved relationships. Although the inclusion of operations and maintenance personnel within the EMS did not necessarily relate to satis- faction with their systems, the use of a cross-functional team to implement the system clearly correlated with the benefits received, indicating that using a cross-functional team may be a critical first step in developing an EMS that is more fully integrated into airport operations and thus provides greater benefits. Airports reported that their greatest barrier to success was competing resources, followed by insufficient staff and operations management resistance. When asked to discuss their greatest barrier, however, they focused on penetration into the organization. This was supported by their intent in the next five years to expand and improve the penetration of the EMS into the organization, whether this included staff or tenants and other stakeholders. Two of the airports provided insight into overcoming this barrier and achieving greater participation, saying that providing direct experience with the EMS and enough time to recognize the benefits appears to be critical in achieving the desired goal. Direct experience chapter seven CONCLUSIONS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS
29 with the EMS allowed personnel to experience the benefits directly. Again, the use of a cross-functional team was cited as a factor that allowed airports to demonstrate to operations the benefits of an EMS. Further research related to this synthesis includes: ⢠Research leading to guidance on how to successfully structure, implement, and improve on an EMS. ⢠Research leading to guidance to assist airports in inte- grating sustainability into an EMS framework. ⢠Costs to develop, implement, and manage EMS at airports. This study and associated case studies provide indications of what contributes to a successful EMS, and it was clear that most airports achieved their intentions; however, a minority did not. The study identified current airport EMS practices through the self-reported survey results. It did not clearly answer what best practices are for airports and how or if they make a difference in aligning outcomes with intent. For airports considering an EMS, the study does not pro- vide a road map for structuring and implementing an EMS. For airports that already have an EMS, it does not provide a methodology to maximize and leverage their EMS. For example, why did some airports achieve improved tenant relationships and others who wanted it did not? Also, what is the most effective way for an airport to move from man- aging regulatory obligations to managing risks? Or how can safety management and emergency response be effectively integrated across the organization? A related gap in the research was the inconsistency in the broad-based involvement by airport staff in developing the EMS and the staff responsible for maintaining it. The envi- ronmental departments worked with operations and mainte- nance staff and others, such as tenants, to develop the EMS; however, they report it is primarily the responsibility of the environmental staff to maintain the EMS. The study did not indicate whether this was intentional or not, but hints that environmental departments would like broader involvement can be seen in the answers they provided on barriers and plans for the future. There is no clear explanation, based on the survey results, of how to achieve better penetration, although the use of a cross-functional team appears to be involved. Research leading to guidance on successfully structuring, implementing, and improving on an EMS, drawing on estab- lished best practices at airports and other leading organiza- tions with EMS already in place, would answer these questions and benefit both airports planning to implement an EMS and those with ones already in place. A number of airports reported using their EMS to manage sustainability. The sustainability issues were identified, but the methodology used to integrate sustainability into an EMS was not established. Sustainability is increasingly becoming of concern to airports and as indicated by the study, some air- ports have found that an EMS provides an appropriate frame- work through which these issues can be managed. Research on guidance to integrating sustainability into an existing EMS framework would demonstrate how airports, regardless of size, can do the same. Further research may include a guide- book to assist airports in integrating sustainability into an existing EMS framework for airports of all sizes. The large differences in the costs reported to implement an EMS were unexpected, and establishing better estimates on costs is important information for the airline industry. Costs ranged from $60,000 for a single airport to $11 million for a citywide EMS, too wide a range to be meaningful. Some of the airports reported no costs and/or that the information was not available. Others reported consultant costs, registrar costs, and no internal staff costs. The staff hours ranged from 0 to 45,000 hours at large hub airports, again a range making it difficult to determine reasonable costs. Others reported high costs ($500,000) for software and hardware. There was no correlation found between the cost and size of the airport, and there was no correlation between cost and ISO 14001 certifi- cation. Upon review and discussion with the airports, it was determined that the airports had drastically different scopes and approaches toward implementation. Without further study, cost comparisons among the airports surveyed cannot be made. Two case studies have been provided to better illus- trate the issue, but a fuller study of costs and approaches to scoping the system could provide more useful information.
