c


c
 c 


÷
 ÷ 
÷ ÷   ÷
 ÷  


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 General site/company information 25 5%

A.2 Environmental policy/guidelines 25 5%
A.3 Environmental management system 25 5%
A.4 Information on material and energy flows 50 10%
A.5 Environmental features of products and services 75 15%
A.6 Analysis and evaluation of environmental problem areas 50 10%
A.7 Environmental programme and objectives 75 15%
A.8 Economic aspects of environmental protection 25 5%
A.9 Communication with target groups 25 5%

B Overall quality of content 15%

B.1 Credibility 25 5%
B.2 Relevancepand clarity 25 5%
B.3 Continuity and comparability 25 5%

C Quality of communication 10%

C.1 Text/language 25 5%
C.2 Visual design 25 5%

Total 500 100%


 

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 Score Comments
factor

A.4 Site-specific information on material

and energy flows
A.4.1 information on main material and 5
energy flows
A.4.2 systematic review and presentation 3
of inputs and outputs
A.4.3 description of data collection 1
methods and scope
Calculation of score 5+3+1/3= 3
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 Score Comments

factor

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 S CORE

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.

÷
 ÷ 
   

Points evaluation

Criteria Evaluation Weighting Score Comments

factor

  ÷

A.1 General site/company

information

A.1.1 financial information, number 3 > The financial information of the

of employees, organisation was not included in the
products/product groups, statement. Other required information was
production processes discussed.

A.1.2 history of environmental 1 > This was briefly discussed in different

protection in the company segments 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 operational
EMS.

A.2.2 environmental 1
guidelines/principles

Calculation of score 6/2=3 5 15

A.3 Environmental
Management System

A.3.1 overview/organogram, 0 > There was no organogram which

responsibilities for should contain the various job roles
environmental with specific job description.
management 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 1 > Given that the staff strength is low,
and training of the intention to train staff was
employees 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 5 > A well outlined and analysed

material and energy energy and material flow of all
flows 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 and 1 > The source of data, the

presentation of inputs methodology and description of data
and outputs collection method was not discussed
in this statement.

A.4.3 description of data 0

collection methods and
scope

Calculation of score 6/3=2 10 20

A.5 Environmental features of products
and services

A.5.1 overview of products/services 3 > There products are not well

illustrated as images and
snapshots 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 3 > Information on the significant

product life cycle aspects highlighted is not
reasonably structured and
inefficiently presented.

A.5.3 presentation of significant aspects of 1

product development

Calculation of score 7/3=2.33 15 35


Criteria
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
A.6.2 comparison over time and analysis
of trends and developments
A.6.3 use of environmental indicators
A.6.4 other qualitative evaluation of
data
Calculation of score
A.7 Environmental programme and
objectives
A.7.1 realisation of objectives over time
period to which report refers
Points evaluation
Evaluation Weighting Score Comments
factor
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 trend
discussed 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.
0
0
1
1/4=0.25 10 2.5
3 > The date, timeline and the
approach for achieving the set
objectives were not
mentioned.
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 and
market situation) were not
discussed. No form of financial
data was included in this
statement.

A.8.2 evaluation of market situation and 0

potential

Calculation of score 0 5 0

A.9 Communication with target groups

A.9.1 presentation of past and future 1 > Some information was

activities with target groups
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, 1 > The statement did not
request for feedback contain details of contact
person(s). In addition, no
feedback form was attached.
> There was no reference to
information in other relevant
and /or related document such
as the previous environmental
statement.
A.9.3 offer of further information and 0
cross reference

Calculation of score 2/3= 0.67 5 2.5

   118.3

÷
 ÷ 

   

Points evaluation

Criteria Evaluation Weighting Score Comments

factor

  !" #$ %#

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 5 > The verifier of the statement

external party was acknowledged.
> All the problems that were
identified 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

B.2 Relevance and clarity
B.2.1 focus on important quantitative
and qualitative aspects
B.2.2 comprehensibility of information
B.2.3 clarity and easy to follow
presentation and structure
Calculation of score
Continuity and comparability
B.3
B.3.1 continuity of report structure, data
and evaluation methods
B.3.2 comparability over time and
within specific sector
Calculation of score
   28.3
1 > The available data was tabulated
but not qualitatively evaluated.
The simple explanations given
were for selected categories, as
others 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.
1
1
3/3=1 5 5
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.
3
6/2=3 5 15
÷

÷

  

&" #$ %#%#

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
portfolio͟.

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.
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

  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.

%' %# ( )*+ ,-.// 0 )// ( 1+ 23