evaluation checklist - ecomas - final
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
1/12
IWUNOR, MATILDA KEHINDE(@00259253).
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - EVALUATION CHECK -LIST
OVERVIEW
You can use the following check-list to analyse the completeness and quality of your draft environmental
statement/report.
Evaluation criteria Maximum score Weighting factor
A Individual elements of the report 75%
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
General site/company information
Environmental policy/guidelines
Environmental management system
Information on material and energy flows
Environmental features of products and services
Analysis and evaluation of environmental problem areas
Environmental programme and objectives
Economic aspects of environmental protection
Communication with target groups
25
25
25
50
75
50
75
25
25
5%
5%
5%
10%
15%
10%
15%
5%
5%
B Overall quality of content 15%
B.1
B.2
B.3
Credibility
Relevanceand clarityContinuity and comparability
25
25
25
5%
5%
5%
C Quality of communication 10%
C.1
C.2
Text/language
Visual design
25
25
5%
5%
Total 500 100%
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
2/12
INSTRUCTIONS
1. EVALUATE SUB-TOPICS
The sub-topics (A.1.1, A.1.2, etc.) are scored as follows:
5 points: Exemplary description 1 point: Unsatisfactory description
3 points: Good description 0 points: Not given
2. CALCULATE THE SCO RE FOR THE MAIN TOPI CS
To get the score for the main topics A.1, A.2, etc. add up the score for each of the sub-
topics A.1.1, A.1.2, etc. and divide by the number of sub-topics.
Example:
A.4.1 - 5 points
A.4.2 - 3 points
A.4.3 - 1 point
Therefore, the main topic A.4 gets a score of (5+3+1)/3 = 3 points
Criteria Evaluation Weighting
factor
Score Comments
A.4 Site-specific information on material
and energy flows
A.4.1 information on main material andenergy flows
5
A.4.2 systematic review and presentation
of inputs and outputs
3
A.4.3 description of data collection
methods and scope
1
Calculation of score 5+3+1/3= 3
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
3/12
3. MULTIPLY THE SCOR E BY THE WEIGHTING F ACTOR
Each of the main criteria has been given a specific weighting factor. The score for each of the main topics is
multiplied by this factor. Example:
Criteria Evaluation Weighting
factor
Score Comments
A.4 Site-specific information on material
and energy flows
Calculation of score 3 10 30
Main topic A.4 has a score of 3 and a weighting factor of 10.
The rating is 3 x 10 = 30.
4. CALCULATE TOTAL SCORE
The total score is calculated by adding up the weighted scores for each section.
Overall evaluation
Score % of total score possible
A. Individual elements 300 375 max.
B. Overall quality of content 50 75 max.
C. Quality of communication 40 50 max.
Total 390 78% of 500 max.
The total score can be between 0 and 500 points. The higher the score, the better the report.
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
4/12
EVALUATION CHECKLIST PART A
Points evaluation
Criteria Evaluation Weighting
factor
Score Comments
A Individual Elements
A.1 General site/company
information
A.1.1 financial information, number
of employees,
products/product groups,
production processes
3 > The financial information of the
organisation was not included in the
statement. Other required information was
discussed.
A.1.2 history of environmentalprotection in the company
1 > This was briefly discussed in differentsegments of the document. However, there
was insufficient history on their
environmental protection. Moreover, they
have been in operation for up to 60 years,
with three previous environmental
statements.
Calculation of score 3+1=4/2=2 5 10
A.2 Environmental
policy/guidelines
A.2.1 statement from management 5 > The statement from the Managing Director
containing brief history of the printing
industry, main sources of environmental
pollution and proffered solutions is
comprehensive.
> This environmental policy sets out the
overall aim of the organisation with respect
to the environment, but fails to give an
appropriate description of the operationalEMS.
A.2.2 environmental
guidelines/principles
1
Calculation of score 6/2=3 5 15
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
5/12
A.3 Environmental
Management System
A.3.1 overview/organogram,
responsibilities forenvironmental
management
0 > There was no organogram which
should contain the various job roleswith specific job description.
Emphasis could have been placed on
the environmental responsibility of
each role.
> There was no environmental
representative that is responsible for
ensuring compliance with EMAS
requirements.
A.3.2 information, involvement
and training of
employees
1 > Given that the staff strength is low,
the intention to train staff was
mentioned. However, the adopted
method alongside other relevant
factors was not discussed.
Calculation of score 1/2=0.5 5 2.5
A.4 Site-specific information
on material and energy
flows
A.4.1 information on main
material and energy
flows
5 > A well outlined and analysed
energy and material flow of all
identified aspects was presented in
the tabular form.
> The input and output of resources
was listed in the tabulated data, but
there was no distinction between
these resources. In addition, it was
neither systematically nor logically
presented.
A.4.2 systematic review andpresentation of inputs
and outputs
1 > The source of data, themethodology and description of data
collection method was not discussed
in this statement.
A.4.3 description of data
collection methods and
scope
0
Calculation of score 6/3=2 10 20
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
6/12
A.5 Environmental features of products
and services
A.5.1 overview of products/services 3 > There products are not well
illustrated as images andsnapshots were not used.
> Neither the product life cycle
nor the treatment of the
identified significant aspects was
discussed in detail.
A.5.2 treatment of significant aspects of
product life cycle
3 > Information on the significant
aspects highlighted is not
reasonably structured and
inefficiently presented.
A.5.3 presentation of significant aspects of
product development
1
Calculation of score 7/3=2.33 15 35
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
7/12
Points evaluation
Criteria Evaluation Weighting
factor
Score Comments
A.6 Analysis and evaluation of
environmental problem areas
A.6.1 comparison with legal obligations,
reference to and analysis of
accidents and environmental fines
0 > Legal obligations were not
discussed in the statement.
This statement did not discuss
the environmental fines it is
liable to pay for any non
conformance to
environmental consents.
> There was no observable
basis for comparison or trenddiscussed in the statement.
> Environmental indicators
were not used to assess the
environmental performance of
the organisation.
> There was insufficient
information in the discussion
of the interpreted data
considering the identified
aspect and impacts.
A.6.2 comparison over time and analysis
of trends and developments
0
A.6.3 use of environmental indicators 0
A.6.4 other qualitative evaluation of
data
1
Calculation of score 1/4=0.25 10 2.5
A.7 Environmental programme and
objectives
A.7.1 realisation of objectives over time
period to which report refers
3 > The date, timeline and the
approach for achieving the set
objectives were not
mentioned.
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
8/12
A.7.2 description of objectives 3 > The objectives were listed
but they were not described.
> The description of the line of
actions to be adopted for
achieving these set objectives
was not included.
A.7.3 description of measures 0
Calculation of score 6/3= 2 15 30
A.8 Economic aspects of
environmental protection
A.8.1 expenditure and savings 0 > The information on the
economic aspects of their
environmental protection
(expenditure, savings andmarket situation) were not
discussed. No form of financial
data was included in this
statement.
A.8.2 evaluation of market situation and
potential
0
Calculation of score 0 5 0
A.9 Communication with target groups
A.9.1 presentation of past and future
activities with target groups
1 > Some information was
communicated to the
customers, but the past and
future activities are not
communicated to their target
groups. In addition, no other
target group was considered.
A.9.2 company address, contact person,
request for feedback
1 > The statement did not
contain details of contact
person(s). In addition, nofeedback form was attached.
> There was no reference to
information in other relevant
and /or related document such
as the previous environmental
statement.
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
9/12
A.9.3 offer of further information and
cross reference
0
Calculation of score 2/3= 0.67 5 2.5
Result part A 118.3
EVALUATION CHECKLIST PART B
Points evaluation
Criteria Evaluation Weighting
factor
Score Comments
B. Overall quality of content
B.1 Credibility
B.1.1 audits 0 > Neither primary nor
secondary form of audit was
reported to have been carried
out in this statement.
B.1.2 statement from/recognition of
external party
5 > The verifier of the statement
was acknowledged.
> All the problems that wereidentified had potential
alternatives or solutions in
place. No unsolved problems
were highlighted in this
statement.
B.1.3 reference to unsolved problems 0
Calculation of score 5/3= 1.67 5 8.3
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
10/12
B.2 Relevance and clarity
B.2.1 focus on important quantitative
and qualitative aspects
1 > The available data was tabulated
but not qualitatively evaluated.
The simple explanations given
were for selected categories, asothers were considered self-
explanatory.
> The document had to be revised
continuously to assimilate and
extract the required information.
> The statement was not properly
structured, hence some relevant
information were not included, for
instance, an organogram.
B.2.2 comprehensibility of information 1
B.2.3 clarity and easy to follow
presentation and structure
1
Calculation of score 3/3=1 5 5
B.3
Continuity and comparability
B.3.1 continuity of report structure, data
and evaluation methods
3> Although the report reflects
continuity in structure, but the
data and evaluation method was
vaguely stated, overall continuity
of the structure was difficult to
ascertain.
> The impacts were identified
and categorised by departments
as against the ISO 14001
requirement which recommends
impact categorisation by aspects.
B.3.2 comparability over time and
within specific sector
3
Calculation of score 6/2=3 5 15
Result part B 28.3
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
11/12
EVALUATION CHECKLIST PART C
C. Quality of communication
C.1 Text/language
C.1.1 information value of headings 3 > Some of the headings
do not encompass the
main point in the section,
while some were
irrelevant to the
information contained in
the paragraph. For
instance, The product
portfolio.
C.1.2 lively style 1 > The statement is style is
too plain and simplistic.
> Some headings were
general and did not
address the expected
areas.
C.1.3 quick overview of content 3
Calculation of score 7/3= 2.33 5 11.7
C.2 Visual design
C.2.1 general attractiveness 5 > The statement is
presented in form of an
information booklet. It
has a generally good
visual presentation.
> The size reduction of
the pictures was too
much. The pictures were
mostly irrelevant to the
statement in terms of the
information it contains.
> There were no graphical
representations.
> The font size was bold
and legible. As a result, it
was easy to read.
-
8/7/2019 Evaluation Checklist - EcoMAS - Final
12/12
EVALUATION CHECKLIST OVERALL EVALUATION
Percentage score = 174.6/500 * 100 = 34.9%
C.2.2 quality of pictures 3
C.2.3 quality of graphs 0
C.2.4 typeset 5
Calculation of score 13/4=3.25 5 16.3
Result part C 28
Overall evaluation
Score % of total score possible
A. Individual elements 118.3 375 max.
B. Overall quality of content 28.3 75 max.
C. Quality of communication 28.0 50 max.
Total 174.6 500 max.