evaluation checklist - ecomas - final

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%


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


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:


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.


4/12

EVALUATION CHECKLIST PART A

Points evaluation


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


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



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


7/12

Points evaluation


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


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.


8/12

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.


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


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



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


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


Result part B 28.3


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


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.


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


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.

evaluation checklist - ecomas - final

Documents